Summer - Winter Keeper League Chat

[knight1]

[quote:7ffdfae981="jflatour99"]The Carpet Crawlers trade Dan Uggla & Angel Pagan

to the Toros for Ian Kinsler & Nate Mc Clouth[/quote:7ffdfae981]

Knight confirms

[Sknsfan]

I was thinking about an idea for a possible rule change or ammendment. Just wanted to see what people thought about the following:

Currently, you are only allowed to own the rights to a prospect for two seasons and then you must either promote them to your team or lose them.

What if you were able to keep the rights to a player who still qualified as prospect (signed by a MLB team, no card, etc.) by spending one of your upcoming picks for the Prospect Draft.

Prospects who no longer qualify as prospects (have a card for the current season) would still be forced to follow the original ruling and then you must make the decision to keep or cut.

For example, I picked Christian Colon in this years prospect draft who may or may not make it to the Majors in the two year probation period. in The 2012 prospect draft if I wanted to keep him I could spend my first available draft pick to keep his rights for another two years (or maybe if we want to make it a tougher decision, only one year).

By forcing you to use your first available pick for each one you want to keep, the most you could keep each year would be 4 (unless you accquired more picks through trade) but it would retard your growth of new players for that year.

Thoughts?

[kaviksdad]

An interesting thought - although it does take away from why we instituted the whole "prospect" thing in the first place. Not that that's a bad thing - the whole point of these leagues is to adapt; adapt to changing stadiums, opponents, rules - and if this were to go into effect it would definitely take us in a different direction.

The original concept of the "prospect," including the 2 year life of a prospect, was to give those bottom dwelling owners a chance to get well quick. And a couple of different philosophies were born - take the best guy in the majors without a card this year for use next year, or draft the hot minor league guy and hopefully within 2 years he'll hit the majors. The longer you play a league like this the more you see those philosophies at work, and how managers change from year to year. Loaded teams can afford the long-term guys; Rebuilding teams like the latest "hot" guys ready to produce.

The hard part comes when the player takes longer to make the majors - and you have to carry either his dead weight waiting, or release him and take your chances getting him back next draft.

Part of what we do is manage our rosters. That includes deciding whether to keep the guy we THINK is going to be good and sacrifice that roster space and flexability. Sometimes it works - sometimes it don't. But that's part of the game - no matter what we do we're seldom right all the time. Prospects play into that.

[knight1]

I don't think the part of having a team lose a pick in the prospect draft if you keep a prospect after the 2 year period is a good idea.

But, maybe we could see about changing the prospect period to 3 years. Because with some of the big market teams in the majors they may take the attitude of not rushing a player to the majors, not because they aren't ready, but, because once they bring them up, the time frame for arbitration status begins. Obviously it doesn't matter as much if the team already has the player signed to long term deal. So, like a New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox, they wouldn't be so quick to rush a new draftee up to the majors within 2 years. It could take about 3 years or more. Look at Jesus Montero of the NY Yankees. He was signed in the summer of 2006 and made his major league debut in 2010. Granted Montero was 16 when he was signed, but, he was a prospect for that long of a time. He was that much of a prospect that the Mariners wanted him as part of a deal for Cliff Lee and obviously the Yankees refused.

[Sknsfan]

Can i get a clarification point on something?

Continuing to use Colon as my example - if in 2012 i decide i want to keep him, but he still does not have a card - is he eligible to be on my 40 man roster?

I thought that in order to be on the roster you had to have a card.

If not - then I think there really isn't a need for the rule.

Although to address both - I really don't like the idea of extending the length on a prospect without some sort of penalty that makes it a tough decision to keep him. And by keeping him you retard your ability to grow new young talent.

As for KD's view - hadn't really thought about it that way. Actually makes a lot of sense. I had thought i was helping force the choices, but it's really just a different way of viewing the choice versus really giving it any new layer of depth.

Thanks

[tcochran]

[quote:0bf492348b="sknsfan"]Can i get a clarification point on something?

Continuing to use Colon as my example - if in 2012 i decide i want to keep him, but he still does not have a card - is he eligible to be on my 40 man roster?

I thought that in order to be on the roster you had to have a card.

If not - then I think there really isn't a need for the rule.[/quote:0bf492348b]

Prospects can be promoted, even if they do not have a card. It is only in the free agent drafts that a card is required.

[jmccully61]

Made trade with Knight

I am trading Matt Garza for Angel Pagan.

Assuming each player passes their physical, then the trade will become official 2/13/11 (I need Garza to pitch tonight; hence the trade goes into effect on 2/13/11).

[knight1]

Knight confirms

[jmccully61]

Trade with Knight

Rights to Cameron Maybin (Has to be used by next year)
Fred Lewis
10th Round Supplemental 2011 pick

for

Adam Lind

[knight1]

[quote:cf4ee9675e="dreamingtree#41"]Trade with Knight

Rights to Cameron Maybin (Has to be used by next year)
Fred Lewis
10th Round Supplemental 2011 pick

for

Adam Lind[/quote:cf4ee9675e]

The 10th round pick is for the annual free agent draft for 2011. Knight confirms trade.