Then I automated the award process - but posting was still a lot of manual copy-and-paste. So it still took a couple weeks and I did a "slow reveal" of 2-3 leagues per day.
Now it's all relatively automatic. I'm able to collect and post in about the same time as it takes for weekly transactions.
Question -
No major format change proposed here (reverse order of finish for draft order - teams get 3 players all at one time per round - 5 total rounds), but would you like the opportunity to post one round per week and then redo the remainder of your list before we do the next round?
So:
- Everyone submits their full list as we do now
- Week 1 - we award players in the first round and post, then reopen the list.
- Teams could choose to redo Rounds 2-5. Or just keep the list the way it was and live with it. Or if they missed the deadline for the initial list they could jump back in for the remainder.
- Repeat posting individual weeks and reopening the list
This gives each team more control over their roster
Lets them adjust their position and salary needs based on what they already got or which players already taken by other teams
Lets them set the list and go on vacation for a month if they wish
I think it benefits all teams - but does it swing too far in taking some of the advantages of the poorly-finishing teams and their early position in each round?
In 2014
- We finalized Carryover choices on January 26 (this was delayed largely due to the number or orphans I had to work through
- Draft lists were due February 9
- Draft results were posted February 16
- 6 weeks of pre-season free agency and trades began February 23
This was maybe the latest in a long time that I posted draft results - usually we've started free agency about the first week of February. I don't miss all of that time - it's usually a slow period - but probably another week or two of transactions would be better.
As long as we don't repeat the late carryover choices and keep it in December we'd go back to submitting the first draft list in early January (Tentative 2015 schedule had been trade deadlines 12/6/14 and 12/27/14, carryovers by January 11, draft list due Feb 1) and could then have 5 weeks of posting results. I did enjoy the extra time this year for all of January to look at prospects, but could deal with the earlier dates.
This would take some changes in the website to allow for list changes between weeks and I can't be sure right now that I will have the time for that this year, but it's a thought for at least the future if not immediately next season.
Comments?
Posts
6 comments:
Not sure I like the idea that the worst team will get all 15 players they choose in the draft. This on top of all the Sept. call-ups they would get first dibs on and the FAs they could get during the first two weeks. Maybe we could split the draft into two: Rounds 1-3 and then Rounds 4-5. Teams could redo their draft lists after Round 3.
On a somewhat related note, any thoughts on reducing the number of roster carryovers from 28 to 25? This would provide more players in the draft pool and, in theory, provide better players for the teams picking in the middle and later of each round.
I'm in favor of it. Anything that gives you more options and fewer wasted choices.
I haven't done a redistribution draft yet, but based on my experience with a time-shortened startup draft, it stinks when you waste round picks on guys who aren't there by the time you're picking just because it's a blind multi-round draft. You can't not put in for high demand guys on the off chance you might get them, but if your first six picks are already gone by the time it gets to you, you're missing out on the opportunity to make the picks you would really want to make.
I would much rather see the redis draft changed to just 1 player per round. As it is, there is tons of incentive to tank at the end of the season. This year, the first 3 picks were universally Abreu, Paxton, and Tavaras with Tanaka being the first Free Agent. That is a HUGE incentive to be last place and not second to last place. If it were changed to be 1 pick per round, I think it would keep teams (potentally) from tanking at the end of the season.
Also wouldn't mind seeing it broken into 2 segments (3/2 as Jay proposed would be fine) or 3 equal segments of 5 if it were switched to 1 guy at a time.
I would like to see the redistribution draft set to 1 player per round. Getting the top 3 players is too much of an advantage to the worst team and encourages teams to tank the season. This past year you could have gotten Tanaka and Abreu as well as other great minimum wage players while the 2nd worst team gets left with nowhere near the same caliber players. Likewise during the season it would be nice if the team with the worst record didn't always get the first chance at the new stud prospect that is getting called up mid season. There are usually 8-10 key players that could be picked up during the season for 100 and it is unfair that 1 team that might be tanking season gets first crack at all of them. Possibly rotate the waiver list with an emphasis on poorest teams going first just not the same team always being 1st.
I like Greg's idea. Even randomly selecting from the bottom 6-7 teams for the first pick of the draft seems to make a lot more sense to me. It doesn't seem fair to competitive teams down the stretch to have bad teams stashing any viable player on the bench, bullpen, or wherever. Rebuilding/tanking will always happen, but a cutthroat race to to cellar seems problematic. I like the plan Jon offered so we don't waste picks, but only if something is done to prevent the team picking first from getting this absurd award. I suggest only getting 1 player each round instead of 3, and randomized from the bottom 6-8 teams.
Main problem here is that for instance (Motor City League and I am sure there other examples), the second place team in one of the divisions is tied for the 5th worst record in the league and I just don't think that a second place team should be picking first. This isn't the NBA.
I suppose I could see possibly randomly selecting from the last place finishers to pick but even that seems imbalanced.
Post a Comment