EDR Touch Ups

[Dan Wood]

I brought this up in the trading FAs post, but Colby and I thought it should get it's own Topic. In MLB, when you draft a player, you are not allowed to trade them for 6 months after you sign them. I think we should have the same rule, or a similar rule, here as well. Since our draft won't happen until after the signing deadline, maybe we should make the rule that any player drafted in this years entry draft cannot be dealt until after the season is complete. Again I would like to hear the RCs thoughts on this.

[lp815]

Roughly 2 months (60 days) seems sufficient to prohibit trading ED players.  This will also coincide with the 60 day policy we just put into effect this week.  Or rather, waiting until the playoffs are over.  Either of those two options seem ok by me.  6 months might be a bit too long in our league.

[bridgestone]

Roughly 2 months (60 days) seems sufficient to prohibit trading ED players.  This will also coincide with the 60 day policy we just put into effect this week.  Or rather, waiting until the playoffs are over.  Either of those two options seem ok by me.  6 months might be a bit too long in our league.

I like the 60 days as well... goes right with the FA rule.

[lp815]

I've done a bit of thinking on this:

1. Say a team has 10 picks each season, which is the average and what all teams start out with, not counting supplementals.

2.  I fill my EDR with all 10 of my picks in 2010.

3.  In the MLB, players are rarely brought up to the majors within 2-3 years of them getting drafted.  I think this is probably agreed by everyone, correct?...so now 2011 arrives, and I have 10 new picks.

4.  None of my 10 picks from 2010 are in the majors, so none are out of the EDR.  To me, this seems highly likely for each team, as we rarely see the Strasburg's, Leake's, on a usual basis.  At most, maybe 2 or 3 might be called up per team, and that's pretty generous I feel.

-I think I'll make my point here.  If I want to draft 10 more guys in 2011, it appears my only option is to take up a quarter of my 40 man roster with guys who probably won't see any MLB action for a few years.  Do I really want to do this?  Most likely, no.  Unless I want to wait 3-4 years to compete, which isn't every, or most, team's strategy.

Now obviously the best solution would be to pass on later draft picks, or not sign draft picks, or release drafted players to make room.  But this seems a bid redundant and unnecessary if we were to simply shorten the Entry Draft.

I would recommend we not change anything this year, but maybe we should take a look at 2011's Entry Draft.   10 picks a year will really build a roster quick, and nobody wants to drop a kid who's 18 or 19 and might turn out to be a great player, just to make room for a guy with just as big a question mark.

Another option would be to expand the Entry Draft Roster.  Possibly making it 15 or 20 would allow teams to fit all of those draft picks they select each year, instead of having to push EDR picks onto your 40 man roster, which is what I fear will happen come 2011's draft, possibly even this year with teams who have already filled up their EDR.

Let me hear your thoughts on this, and if my rationale doesn't seem right, feel free to correct me.

-jake

[bridgestone]

I already asked about shrinking the entry draft to five rounds, and Ben mentioned that the RC passed legislation with the idea that the EDR would expand in size.

[lp815]

I already asked about shrinking the entry draft to five rounds, and Ben mentioned that the RC passed legislation with the idea that the EDR would expand in size.

Ah, I recollect that now.  Well I guess now is as good as time as any, so we can follow through with our prior legislation.  Mike, I think setting the draft at 5 rounds seems right on the money.  However, another option would be to expand the roster to 15-20.  But sometimes more is less, and I mean that in a "headache" way.  Having a draft that big would take a very long time to complete, even if all 30 teams were actively drafting.  I think 5 rounds might be a more economical strategy.

[bridgestone]

Ah, I recollect that now.  Well I guess now is as good as time as any, so we can follow through with our prior legislation.  Mike, I think setting the draft at 5 rounds seems right on the money.  However, another option would be to expand the roster to 15-20.  But sometimes more is less, and I mean that in a "headache" way.  Having a draft that big would take a very long time to complete, even if all 30 teams were actively drafting.  I think 5 rounds might be a more economical strategy.

I agree with the LESS is more concept... Ben's opinion on the 2011 draft and EDR size is needed.  We could always increase the EDR to 12 and drop the rounds to 5.  What we really need is a direction of the EDR... What size will it eventually settle at? 

[lp815]

I agree with the LESS is more concept... Ben's opinion on the 2011 draft and EDR size is needed.  We could always increase the EDR to 12 and drop the rounds to 5.  What we really need is a direction of the EDR... What size will it eventually settle at? 

It's a decent difference, but in my opinion, 12-15 seems like an agreeable size.  That would put us in the 360-450 total player base for new talent, which seems like not too many and not too few.  Plus, many MiLB sites list a top 300, which would fit in nicely with this player base.

[Canada8999]

I was thinking something like 15 for 2011, then up to 20 for 2012 and maybe stop there.  The thinking is that teams will use all 10 picks, but probably not have any issue replacing last years late round picks with this years (grass is greener type thing, give me the new blood).  If teams don't want to use any picks after the first 5 rounds, they are certainly not required to, but lets let the teams that want to use them all - no?

[Canada8999]

I agree with the concept, and don't feel too strongly one way or the other on the 6 months vs 60 days (2 months).  I think 6 months is more realistic, but 60 days is consistent with our new rule and might be easier to keep track of.  I'll approve whichever gets more support (sounds like 60 days so far).