1967 Draft (New information)

[Young Drachma]

The draft and subsequent silliness regarding rookie free agents simply isn't working. And I understand the consternation surrounding it. And I don't want to make anymore work for anymore (much less myself) with lists, finding players and turning what's supposed to be a "fast-sim" league into a long slog.

So we're going to do an auto-draft, run by the AI and starting this coming season. I can't activate the draft until the start of the pre-season. But we'll set the date for the draft to be before spring training. The AI will do the draft for every team automatically. You can trade players you don't want.

But this seems to be the fairest way I can think to do this, without causing more work for us than we've had to do to date.

The bonus is, the feeders will actually work right, since they're designed to feed into a draft in the first place.

The draft will be 15 rounds. So no need to complete preference lists or anything of the sort. AI runs the draft, players appear and you decide where they get sent. 15 round might be too many, if so, I'm all for lowering it. Fewer free agents = smaller league file.


1967 FOOL DRAFT ORDER
-------
FIRST ROUND
1. Long Beach Island
2. Chicago
3. Charleston
4. Rio Grande
5. Baltimore
6. El Paso
7. Boston
8. Seattle
9. Valdosta
10. Compton
11. Ann Arbor
12. Hartford
13. Texas
14. Brooklyn
15. Compton (via trade with New York)
16. Colorado

SECOND ROUND AND BEYOND
1. Long Beach Island
2. Chicago
3. Charleston
4. Rio Grande
5. Baltimore
6. El Paso
7. Boston
8. Seattle
9. Valdosta
10. Compton
11. Ann Arbor
12. Hartford
13. Texas
14. Brooklyn
15. New York
16. Colorado

[Alan T]

DC,

Is there a way through the team strategy to shape what type of players you want the AI to draft for you? The AI always seems to draft ok players but not really the type I look for in my system ever.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Alan T

DC,

Is there a way through the team strategy to shape what type of players you want the AI to draft for you? The AI always seems to draft ok players but not really the type I look for in my system ever.

Great question, as I agree with what you had to say about the AI

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Alan T

DC,

Is there a way through the team strategy to shape what type of players you want the AI to draft for you? The AI always seems to draft ok players but not really the type I look for in my system ever.

Not really. The game assesses what you have and decides what you need based on deficiencies.

But I think it'll even out and people will then just need to trade with each other to get what they want. In fact, we could even mandate that teams HAVE to trade a certain percentage of their picks post-draft, so there isn't any hording due to AI silliness.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Not really. The game assesses what you have and decides what you need based on deficiencies.

But I think it'll even out and people will then just need to trade with each other to get what they want. In fact, we could even mandate that teams HAVE to trade a certain percentage of their picks post-draft, so there isn't any hording due to AI silliness.

Interesting Idea DC. Id be willing to give that a go.

[Young Drachma]

The goal here, ultimately, is to 1) ensure players are being moved around equitably to some degree and 2) that no team gets to benefit disproportionately.

We could couple this with changing the free agency eligibility from 6 years to something lower or adding arbitration to the mix. But those would be voting items.

[gstelmack]

I don't like mandating that I HAVE to trade picks. The problem here is coming up with a way to avoid gouging someone just because he HAS to make a trade.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I don't like mandating that I HAVE to trade picks. The problem here is coming up with a way to avoid gouging someone just because he HAS to make a trade.

Hmm...maybe we can just cut the roster limits to 25 for Majors through Single-A and then make it like 15 for SS-A and Rookie. We use ghost players, so it won't matter. But it can minimize hording talent and along with that, lowering the number of years to free agency for minor leaguers to say 4 years?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Hmm...maybe we can just cut the roster limits to 25 for Majors through Single-A and then make it like 15 for SS-A and Rookie. We use ghost players, so it won't matter. But it can minimize hording talent and along with that, lowering the number of years to free agency for minor leaguers to say 4 years?

Does changing the roster size to 15 be ok even with ghost players? For some reason I assumed that the roster sizes still mattered, but the rest was filled up with invisible players that you can't see. Or is that not how it works?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Does changing the roster size to 15 be ok even with ghost players? For some reason I assumed that the roster sizes still mattered, but the rest was filled up with invisible players that you can't see. Or is that not how it works?

It would just mean the max. number of physical players you could have on the roster. Ghost players just allow you to play league games in the minors with less than a full team of 9. That's all.

Lowering the roster size would prevent teams from stockpiling lots of prospects, would force hard decisions over time and induce movement of players, I think. But it's just an idea.

[gstelmack]

I'm fine with cutting minor league roster sizes.

[muns]

im not a fan of cutting roster sizes, as I like being able to try to find hidden gems, or watching guys develop better than they should, and with this suggestion both of those things would not happen in our league.

As far as stockpiling talent goes, can someone help me out with this? How do you stockpile talent? I thought everyone has the same opportunity as everyone else as far as trying to get guys to sign and doing trades? I guess im not following something here?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by muns

im not a fan of cutting roster sizes, as I like being able to try to find hidden gems, or watching guys develop better than they should, and with this suggestion both of those things would not happen in our league.

As far as stockpiling talent goes, can someone help me out with this? How do you stockpile talent? I thought everyone has the same opportunity as everyone else as far as trying to get guys to sign and doing trades? I guess im not following something here?

As it stands right now, the minor leaguers aren't signing based on anything financial or even semi-logical. It's not competitive. It's just some sort of arbitrary OOTP process that I've seen before in solo play, but didn't realize extended to the online game as well.

You'd still be able to develop players. We could keep the same levels of minors, just limit the number of players you could hold on that roster. And to be honest, there are a TON of 1-star players who are well into their late 20s and early 30s playing in the lower levels of our minors.

The idea is to 1) force people to make decisions about players 2) agitate talent out from the shadows and 3) keep things interesting.

I think that coupled with a plan to lower roster sizes (I'm thinking 25-man across the board, rather than the proposed 15 for the low minors), that we will lower the years to minor league free agency to 4 years from the current 5 and to turn on arbitration in the 3rd year.

The offseason is what makes this league interesting, so when that stops happening, things will get boring quick. So inducing ways to keep players in free agency and keeping teams needing players to do deals, is the way to go, IMHO.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

As it stands right now, the minor leaguers aren't signing based on anything financial or even semi-logical. It's not competitive. It's just some sort of arbitrary OOTP process that I've seen before in solo play, but didn't realize extended to the online game as well.

You'd still be able to develop players. We could keep the same levels of minors, just limit the number of players you could hold on that roster. And to be honest, there are a TON of 1-star players who are well into their late 20s and early 30s playing in the lower levels of our minors.

The idea is to 1) force people to make decisions about players 2) agitate talent out from the shadows and 3) keep things interesting.

I think that coupled with a plan to lower roster sizes (I'm thinking 25-man across the board, rather than the proposed 15 for the low minors), that we will lower the years to minor league free agency to 4 years from the current 5 and to turn on arbitration in the 3rd year.

The offseason is what makes this league interesting, so when that stops happening, things will get boring quick. So inducing ways to keep players in free agency and keeping teams needing players to do deals, is the way to go, IMHO.

I totally agree with you with the minor league process and how messed up it is. Ill be good with that proposal.

[Chief Rum]

I do not like the 15-man rosters at all for any level of minors. I put a lot of work into building those rosters, and I am not about to vote to support something to undo all the work I did. Yes, the process for signing is silliness at times, but putting the effort out there in the long haul does get results. I don't want to lose all that work I have done.

I am fine with 25 man across the board. But 15 means I have essentially been wasting my team for two weeks.

[muns]

DC is it official that we are doing the 25 across the board for the minors? I gotta start making some tough moves here in a bit, and just wanted to double check

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by muns

DC is it official that we are doing the 25 across the board for the minors? I gotta start making some tough moves here in a bit, and just wanted to double check

Yeah. 25 across the board after spring training.