24 TKL chat

[joshflanagan]

I might as well jump in on this…

I’m going to have to side with those in favor of dropping to a 20 man roster. Qk made the point just a few posts to the north,” I believe the best way to improve teams in this format is through making good trades and drafting good prospects”.

Really that sounds like the way you believe it SHOULD be. However, in reality the system we operate under holds prospects to be of limited value (yes, in large part due to the way we promote / cut before we draft). Changing our format to what qk is proposing would indeed make prospects much more valuable – which hurts those of us who have been playing to the strengths of our current set up (devaluing prospects to an extent). It just seems like a tough change to make mid stream when some of us have been playing to a certain strategy.

[timklucinec]

Ditto!!

Tim K

[gbrookes]

http://forums.sportingnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=625563&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50#comments

Just a reminder that Geoff Brookes and Mr. Baseball Word traded ball parks, as noted on the trade thread (above link).

Geoff Brookes traded Chase Field to Mr. BBW for Progressive.

Spreadsheet to be updated.

Thanks!

[superflymacdaddyjuice]

[quote:3c997fa5be="joekendall"]My 2 cents:

You have to have your roster at 20 before the draft. Prospects have to be promoted before the draft starts. Therefore, prospects are part of the 20 if you want to keep them.[/quote:3c997fa5be]


Second that!

[Rant]

I honestly don't care too much how we decide to move forward on prospects, but I will advocate for anything that shortens the draft. I think being a year out from the last draft it's easy to forget how painful it is/was.

Having the option to promote prospects in lieu of picks at the end of the draft means the draft ends quicker. Managers with prospects to promote will neither have to wait to draft, nor potentially hold up other owners by not picking during their window. With any analysis of who gets an advantage, I'm all for anything that shortens the draft.

[fredpaii]

I was wondering why something like the following could not be instituted for FA drafts...

1. Time limit of ONE hour for each draft pick for rounds 1-3. Half hour for rounds 4-6. Everything beyond that is 15 minutes per round.

2. If you fail to get your pick in on time you either have a list sent to the Commish that he can go by or you have the Commish make your pick [b:de84f9072e]as he sees fit[/b:de84f9072e]. And no arguments about who you wind up with (because you had your chance and blew it).

If the FA drafts are really that much of a headache why not try something different that saves time and gets things moving?

[qksilver69]

All of things imply heavy lifting by the commishes Derf.

And it's not just time, it's really about the lack of interest in the end of the draft. There were 3 or 4 people out of 24 paying any attention to the last 3 rounds. But making me or Turtle post picks for that many people is not something I want to take on, I'll let Turtle speak for himself.

[Spider 67]

Here's an off-the-wall suggestion concerning the length of the draft:

Conduct 5 rounds of the draft on the boards, then any remaining team opening are submitted at the top of the "draft" list when teams are entered - with a frenzy to adjust those "open" slots after you see who you get.

I agree that there seemed to be little interest in the later draft rounds - with some owners missing three or more picks.

[qksilver69]

Now THAT is an idea I can get onboard with Spider, nice one. I still think this structure (20 keepers, no use of prospect promos during the draft) has too much penalty for teams that draft well, but at least your idea would help a ton in terms of shortening the draft.

Thanks!

[Cubit]

How are thinking here for the start of the draft? Just able to check in here and wondering...