The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable - Line: 906 - File: showthread.php PHP 7.4.33 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/showthread.php 906 errorHandler->error_callback




 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft?
#1
With MLB’s Rule 5 Draft scheduled for tomorrow, I thought it’d be interesting to look at how FCM’s Rule 5 Draft could go. This has been something that’s been discussed a few times in the league’s history. I think in Mogul leagues in general, this is something that is interesting. The problem and question often asked is if, “The work justifies the end result?

With Mogul’s limitations, it can be tough to produce a true and authentic Rule 5 Draft. However, I’ve given it my best shot. The rules and eligible players are attached at the bottom of this post. For the sake of this experiment, I used the 2059 FA File. I only used the first 15 teams plus MIN and SEA. The latter two teams had considerable roster depth to add to the eligible players list.

Simple Rules

1. As long as a player is 22 as of March 1, they are eligible to be selected if drafted 4 years or more in the past.
2. Anyone with MLB Service Time must be included the 35-Man Roster (yes, 35-Man Rosters).
3. Teams need to leave as many open slots on the 35-Man Roster as they would like to make selections (max of 3 selections).


ARIZONA

As you’ll see with the exact rules, as far as the Rule 5 Draft is concerned, the rosters are locked as of the first Free Agency file. This means if a team plans on releasing crappy players that might take up 35-Man Roster spots, they need to do it before the Free Agency file is posted.

Arizona actually has exactly 35 players with MLB Service Time, so they would be set. They couldn’t add eligible players to protect nor could they select anyone in the Rule 5 Draft. Though, I’d expect ARI to release players like 2B Randall Crossman and C Ramon Hernande in order to protect prospects like Ryan Lee and Chip Watson.

However, I just wanted to point that out. For purposes of this experiment, it will be left as-is. It looks like they could have some interested Rule 5 offerings.

ATLANTA

They will have some eligible players, but nothing very enticing. They will also opt to keep two slots open for selections and only protect 33 players.

BALTIMORE

They too will have some interesting players available. They will also have a few tough choices on who to protect. Though, they would probably be in the camp that releases a few players to protect additional prospects.

BOSTON

Even if they protect everyone (and why wouldn’t they?), they would only have 24 slots taken. They’ll be able to select the max of 3 players.

CUBS

Without a doubt they will have some players eligible to be taken. A question could be if they opt to leave others exposed so that they may be able make a selection. For this, I will say no, but it would be interesting to see what Jason would decide in this situation.

WHITE SOX

Same as Boston. Will have ability to select 3 players.

CINCINNATI

It’s probably in their best interests to protect the max of 35 players. They have enough prospects that look too solid to expose. They will have no available picks.

CLEVELAND

I can protect all eligible players and still have 1 slot open for a pick. Granted, I would probably leave SP Edmund Batran exposed for the chance at 2 selections. Though, again, for this experiment I’ll protect Batran.

COLORADO

They probably have too good of prospects to leave exposed, so no open slots for them. What is left of the eligibles isn’t much.

DETROIT

Will have the ability to make the max of 3 selections.

FLORIDA

Like Arizona, I would expect Hokey to release some of the crappy players before Free Agency. But for the purposes of this they will be as-is. After protecting a few, they will add some decent Rule 5 options.

HOUSTON

They only have to protect up to 31 players, so they’ll have all 3 slots open to draft from.

KANSAS CITY

Like others, they could release or choose not to protect some players to open up draftable slots. So they will and leave 1 open slot for a pick.

ANGELS

And this is our first case of a team already having too many players with MLB Service Time. LAA will need to choose 1 pre-Arbitration (minimum salary) player to be exposed. That player will be RP Binu Hirasi. In all likelihood this team would cut some crappy players in order to protect a few prospects.

DODGERS

They’ll leave 2 slots open for picks.

MINNESOTA

I added them in specifically to show that teams with a ton of depth would provide a number of eligible players. Maybe they aren’t the greatest options, but some are decent enough to take a shot. On a rebuilding team, it could be easy to stash a player on the bench and maybe that 70/78 (not an example from MIN, just theoretically) has a couple of jumps left in him and peaks out at 81 and now a useful role player.

SEATTLE

Like MIN, they were added in to show what teams with an abundance of players look like. They will actually provide a couple of interesting options.

Strategy In Rule 5 Drafts?

Yes, there could actually be strategy in the Rule 5 Draft. Once a team has obtained the rights to a Rule 5 draftee, they can trade the player to whomever. You may not have any needs or desire to keep a Rule 5 player on your roster, but you may find yourself in a situation that could benefit you to select someone and dangle the carrot. Last season the Rockies selected Mark Canha from the Marlins. The Rockies quickly traded him to the A’s for a relief prospect and cash.

As I mentioned in the Twins write-up, you may find yourself in a perfect situation. Maybe you’re a rebuilding team, so you can afford to take some chances. Or maybe you already have a C, IF, and OF on your bench with 1 last spot open. Either situation could have you in a position to take a player and bury them on the bench or in the bullpen for a season.

RESULTS

01. :CHW2: 3B Adam Borthwick 80/86 (from LAA)
- Good platoon option with good power and a great eye. Hits LHP very well and doesn't age until June. Plus a good chance that he doesn't peak out on that b-day either.

02. :BOS2: SP Ryan Lee 79/83 (from ARI)
- Lee doesn't age until June (likely peaks as well). With a good jump, he could be rotation worthy. If not, then he's bullpen material even as he already stands.

03. :HOU3: RP Mark Selwyn 79/84 (from LAA)
- Angels lose yet another player (there is no max). He too, doesn't age until June. With one more jump, he'll have solid movement and possible a good bullpen piece.

04. :CLE2: CF Carlos Uranga 75/82 (from CIN)
- Maybe this isn't fun since I actually picked him up this season. But why I acquired him is because he's a lefty bat with good defense, decent speed, and a good eye. If he gets lucky with jumps, he's a starter option. If not, then he's a nice 4th OF.

05. :LAD2: RF Shawn Henneberry 73/84 (from SEA)
- I'm hesistent to say he could be a starter, but for 1M, he's worth the lotto scratch-off. He's got a nice power-eye combo and the contact should get to tolerable levels.

06. :KCR2: 1B Jose Corral 77/82 (from FLA)
- A lefty 1B in the trend of the high contact, good fielding, and decent power that we've seen in recent years. Maybe he catches on, maybe not. It's only a 1M gamble.

07. :ATL2: 2B Josh Munslow 76/81 (from BAL)
- He's a tremendous defender who'll make a great player off the bench. His offense getting better would only be icing on the cake. Stang realizes G$'s love for these types and flips him to NYM for a 4th Round Pick.

08. :DET2: RP Scott Jones 81/83 (from SEA)
- GB always seems to be looking for RPs and here, he found a decent one. He probably peaks on April 1, but he's got 80+ movement.

09. :CHW2: SP R.J. O'Reilly 77/84 (from LAA)
- Many thought of taking O'Reilly with their first selection, but were scared off from his lackluster vitals. JHC is in full-blown rebuild mode, so he can take the chance on his upside while dealing with probable poor performance for a year.

10. :BOS2: SP Bob Pendergrass 79 (from LAA)
- While everyone was fighting over unpeaked talent, Rocky has now found him a long reliever.

11. :HOU3: Pass On Selection
- With likely being highly competitive, Houston elects not to make a yearlong committment to anyone else.

12. :LAD2: SP Ted Thomas 79 (from MIN)
- Like Boston, LAD finds a long relief option with 80+ control and movement.

13. :ATL2: 1B Brian King 76/83 (from BAL)
- After trading away their first pick, ATL will keep King and hope he can develop into a nice platoon option with good power vs LHP.

14. :DET2: Passes On Selection
- Same reasoning as Houston.

CONCLUSION

As it turns out, no one loses anything that sets them back much. At most teams lose the type of prospect that rounds out your team and now they have to go into Free Agency in search of a reliever, a bench bat, or a holdover.

Admittedly, if people knew they were forced to protect anyone with service time, we’d see a few less 80+ peak prospects eligible to be taken. But in turn, people might not play release fodder during rebuilds and instead play the close-to-peak (77/81 type) prospects that would otherwise be eligible in a Rule 5 Draft.


Attached Files
.docx   Rule 5 Draft.docx (Size: 11.41 KB / Downloads: 5)
.xlsx   FCM 2059 Rule 5 Draft.xlsx (Size: 174.82 KB / Downloads: 6)
Cle

Cleveland Record5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4

ALW: Mariners + Angels Record: 1072-864 (.554) [2042-2048, 2105-2110]
AL Post: 3 (ALW), 4 (WC) - ALDS Win: 3 - ALCS Champ: 1 - WS Champ: 1

NLW: Rockies + Padres Record: 3230-2753 (.540) [2017-2042, 2072-2082]
NL Post: 18 (NLW), 4 (WC) - NLDS Win: 7 - NLCS Champ: 4 - WS Champ: 0
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)



Messages In This Thread
What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - by mattynokes - 12-09-2015, 10:40 PM
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - by 'PR' - 12-10-2015, 06:47 AM
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - by 'PR' - 12-10-2015, 01:50 PM
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - by mike - 12-10-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - by mike - 12-10-2015, 07:05 PM
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - by AndyP - 12-10-2015, 08:00 PM
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - by hickoxb2 - 12-11-2015, 03:24 AM
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - by jhc54 - 12-12-2015, 02:29 PM
RE: What If FCM Had A Rule 5 Draft? - by hickoxb2 - 12-13-2015, 03:23 AM

Forum Jump: