24 TKL chat

[cshannajr]

[quote:7a23451069="superflymacdaddyjuice"]The darvish pick was legal. He was signed to a pro japanese team and had no mlb experience. He was also not in last years draft class. So he met all three requirments. Im guessing n oneo said anything cause it passed everyone's smell test.

What do i not understand or what dis i miss?[/quote:7a23451069]


Here is rule 3 under prospects:

[b:7a23451069]3) Only those players without MLB experience and signed prior to the start of that MLB season, are eligible for any prospect draft. [/b:7a23451069]

It's quite obvious that the intent of the rule is for players to be "signed by a MLB team prior to..."

I don't care one way or the other. All 23 of us missed that one. If we would have caught it then and explained the intention behind the rule we wouldn't be having this conversation. Of course the wording of the above rule could have been better (my fault).

However, anyone could probably twist any rule to mean something other than it's intention. Please do not do to our league rules what our President, Congress and Senate do to our constitution.

[superflymacdaddyjuice]

Thanks for the explanation. I based my question on the portion of the rules that were reposted on this page of this thread and I could not see where the pick ran afoul of any of them. I see the cause for debate now.

[superflymacdaddyjuice]

[quote:2764ea4e83="qksilver"].....

And Page2, I agree with you, I prefer open drafting of players with no MLB experience.[/quote:2764ea4e83]

I would vote for that too.

[kaviksdad]

[quote:bc82d58547="cshannajr"][quote:bc82d58547="superflymacdaddyjuice"]The darvish pick was legal. He was signed to a pro japanese team and had no mlb experience. He was also not in last years draft class. So he met all three requirments. Im guessing n oneo said anything cause it passed everyone's smell test.

What do i not understand or what dis i miss?[/quote:bc82d58547]


Here is rule 3 under prospects:

[b:bc82d58547]3) Only those players without MLB experience and signed prior to the start of that MLB season, are eligible for any prospect draft. [/b:bc82d58547]

It's quite obvious that the intent of the rule is for players to be "signed by a MLB team prior to..."

I don't care one way or the other. All 23 of us missed that one. If we would have caught it then and explained the intention behind the rule we wouldn't be having this conversation. Of course the wording of the above rule could have been better (my fault).

However, anyone could probably twist any rule to mean something other than it's intention. Please do not do to our league rules what our President, Congress and Senate do to our constitution.[/quote:bc82d58547]

Hi guys!

I believe the prospect rule language here is exactly as I wrote it for GMKL and as is interpreted in several other keeper leagues. So I can tell you exactly what it means...

The interpretation of this rule, if you want to go by what I intended it to be, is this:

A prospect is any baseball player signed by any PROFESSIONAL baseball organization generally recognized by the serious baseball fan. That includes the Japanese professional leagues. And Cuba. And players in the Independent leagues in the US (provided that player ISN'T part of the last MLB June amateur draft).

It was specifically worded to exclude US college baseball players, US high school players and any player that had an official appearance in any MLB regular or post-season game (excluding exhibitions) PRIOR to the current MLB season (or the one coming up if it's the offseason). The goal was to leave the current year's MLB draft class alone - so that they would be available for next years prospect draft. To keep the player pool "bigger and shinier."

Lots of words but essentially an easy thing to understand: Minor leaguer - yes. Japan - yes. Cuba - yes. College - NO. High School - NO. MLB veteran - NO.

Cheers!

[cshannajr]

We had some issues about the prospect eligibility right after I gave up the reigns as commish. So, I actually tweaked what was originally written (which I stole from one of our other leagues) in an attempt to clarify what I intended for the league, since it is a 24 team league.

I meant, specifically, only players signed by a MLB team with no MLB experience prior to the start of the current MLB season, in the current year, would be eligible for the the prospect draft.

So, according to my intent: Yu Darvish would be eligible this year, not last. Gerritt Cole would be eligible this year not last. If Yoenis Cespedes signes with a MLB team prior opening day of the 2012 MLB season, he will will be eligible for the prospect draft. If he signs after the start of the 2012 MLB season, he won't be available.

I hope that clears up what the rule was supposed to mean. But, like I said, I really don't care what the league decides. I will go with the flow.

However, in my opinion, Yu Darvish should NOT be taken away from superfly. Apparently, the rule was quite ambiguous and no one spoke up at the time he was drafted.

[gbrookes]

As a process from here, can I suggest a ruling by the commissioner, to be confirmed by a vote? If we need a simple majority to confirm, that is just 13 votes (one of which will be the commissioner).

As a newcomer to this league and keeper leagues in general, I will be voting in favour of whatever position the commissioner puts forward.

Sound good?

[The Turtle]

On Darvish, it is simple - he keeps him, and with the precedent already set we use any h pro league as an elgibility requirement not just MLB. We dont change the past interpretation, even if that was not the intent of the rule. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak.

On qksilvers proposal, I'd like to hear a few more opinions.

[Rant]

Can't say I care too much either way. You can pre-record my vote for whatever the Commish puts up for a vote.

[superflymacdaddyjuice]

I would cast a vote in favor of the proposal by QK. I feel it would give me more control over my roster. I personally would be in favor of that.

[superflymacdaddyjuice]

You also are inadvertanty penalizing team who has more than just a couple of prospects to promote by making them cut more than ten to promote them. To promote five prospects (a bit more than average but not unreasonable for a re build) i would have to cut half my roster. If im ready to promote them in say year three, i will be cutting pieces i put in place in year one or two.

Why not allow the manager to cut/ promote as he sees fit so long as everyone starts the draft with twenty or maybe twenty two if you want to shorten the draft? Then to promote five i would only have to cut five. If i had no promotions i would still have to cut my eight or ten.