The Brewster

Don't you then have an "unfair advantage" in the EBA when someone has a former player that gets poached?

I don't think the prospect of losing an unprotected Rule 5 guy is a deterrent for a poaching team. That addition wasn't about punishing the MBBA team (few will even notice the player gone, I'd suspect), but rather helping ease the blow to the EBA team.

The intent of the Rule 6 was two-fold: 1) Spice up FA and 2) Give bottom teams a leg up on acquiring extra talent (note: "leg up" does not mean "get handed"). I know you're new and don't have this background, but I'm pretty sure Baca was only the 2nd "high profile" guy poached from a team (the other being a closer that ended up getting PAID). Sometimes the secondary and tertiary guys get poached (like Talboom), but most of the times the top picks are easy to retain for the drafting team. It's just that, in the extremely rare case (as I said before, I'd estimate this is only the 3rd TRULY elite guy in the Rule 6) that an elite guy is in the Rule 6 the rules tend to lend themselves towards piracy.

I'd pose this question, though... doesn't this accomplish intent #1 of spicing up FA?

agrudez wrote: I'd pose this question, though... doesn't this accomplish intent #1 of spicing up FA?

The Rule 6 was added at a time in which very few high profile guys were being sent to Free Agency. Heck, very few mid level guys were. I think the case still holds true. Very few big names go to Free Agency. So this allowed for more talent to be added to the FA pool while also helping with parity by giving the teams that finished at the bottom a chance to boost their own talent with matching rights to an EBA player.

As Kyle has said, the cases of Baca and now Salazar are rare. The guys you see being drafted later in this Rule 6 period are the norm for top picks in most years.

7teen wrote:

agrudez wrote: I'd pose this question, though... doesn't this accomplish intent #1 of spicing up FA?

The Rule 6 was added at a time in which very few high profile guys were being sent to Free Agency. Heck, very few mid level guys were. I think the case still holds true. Very few big names go to Free Agency. So this allowed for more talent to be added to the FA pool while also helping with parity by giving the teams that finished at the bottom a chance to boost their own talent with matching rights to an EBA player.

As Kyle has said, the cases of Baca and now Salazar are rare. The guys you see being drafted later in this Rule 6 period are the norm for top picks in most years.

I definitely agree with this.

agrudez wrote:Don't you then have an "unfair advantage" in the EBA when someone has a former player that gets poached?

I don't understand. An EBA team is going to get a player either way, the only question is from which team.

I don't think the prospect of losing an unprotected Rule 5 guy is a deterrent for a poaching team. That addition wasn't about punishing the MBBA team (few will even notice the player gone, I'd suspect), but rather helping ease the blow to the EBA team.

The proposal would not be stiff enough to keep anyone from poaching a name player. It isn't meant to. What it does is keep a team (like us now, but it will be someone else later, maybe) from losing a Rule 5 eligible player merely because we got out-bidded. I have no real emotional commitment to this situation overall, and I'm fine personally as we move forward. The Nine probably won't feel like mine fully until I have a season or two under my belt. So this gives me a very small window to work in.

The Rule 7 is a brand new twist, and its current incarnation leaves the top team open to both losing the pick, and losing a Rule 5 eligible player from their organization who might have a little value. I don't see how that's a positive. Rule 7 as I suggest it gives the #1 team in the list a pretty fair idea that they are going to have some advantage to having the #1 spot, even if it's just being able to grab a back-up someplace.

The intent of the Rule 6 was two-fold: 1) Spice up FA and 2) Give bottom teams a leg up on acquiring extra talent (note: "leg up" does not mean "get handed"). I know you're new and don't have this background, but I'm pretty sure Baca was only the 2nd "high profile" guy poached from a team (the other being a closer that ended up getting PAID). Sometimes the secondary and tertiary guys get poached (like Talboom), but most of the times the top picks are easy to retain for the drafting team. It's just that, in the extremely rare case (as I said before, I'd estimate this is only the 3rd TRULY elite guy in the Rule 6) that an elite guy is in the Rule 6 the rules tend to lend themselves towards piracy.

I'd pose this question, though... doesn't this accomplish intent #1 of spicing up FA?

I don't see how my suggested change would stop the spice. After all, as you said, losing two rule 5 guys would almost certainly not deter a team from poaching a name player. All my suggestion does is make sure that the #1 drafting team doesn't get hurt (beyond the 10 PP) due to being over-bid, which we definitely do as the Rule 7 draft is written today.

The Rule 7 draft are guys no one wants.

recte44 wrote:The Rule 7 draft are guys no one wants.

Fair enough.

A few disclaimers?

1) When you're on the bottom of the pile, a decent backup can add value.
2) I'm assuming the Rule 7 draft works differently, in that players so acquired can be placed anywhere in the team's organization (i.e. they don't have to be kept at the major league level all year).

That said, I've had my say now, so I'll go back to fiddling with my team.

RonCo wrote: 1) When you're on the bottom of the pile, a decent backup can add value.

Wouldn't you also say, though, that when you're on the bottom of the pile you generally don't have 41 guys of value? I think I have 33 guys on my 40-man.

agrudez wrote: Wouldn't you also say, though, that when you're on the bottom of the pile you generally don't have 41 guys of value? I think I have 33 guys on my 40-man.

RonCo wrote:That said, I've had my say now, so I'll go back to fiddling with my team.

Kyle, if I remember right you spearheaded the Rule 6 draft. I’m trying to remember the purpose of the draft. Can you help me.

The very first inception of the idea was meant to suck cash out of the file (it was alot different then) to normalize fa asking prices. After the financial changes (including bonus funds) this wasn't necessary anymore, but the idea still kept momentum as a way to buoy fa pools (which were barren back then - in large part because of the messed up finances... remember daffy's extension) and provide another venue to increase parity.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

agrudez wrote:The very first inception of the idea was meant to suck cash out of the file (it was alot different then) to normalize fa asking prices. After the financial changes (including bonus funds) this wasn't necessary anymore, but the idea still kept momentum as a way to buoy fa pools (which were barren back then - in large part because of the messed up finances... remember daffy's extension) and provide another venue to increase parity.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

thank you Kyle

Matching offers needed by tomorrow on Salazar, Alaniz, Underhill, Escobedo and Lucantoni.

Kernels will match VAN, 6/$24M offer.

Madison matches Halifax's offer on Alaniz.

7teen wrote:Madison matches Halifax's offer on Alaniz.

A hex on you.

Louisville matches Halifax offer on CF Lucantoni

felipe wrote:Louisville matches Halifax offer on CF Lucantoni

A hex on you as well.

scottsdale_joe wrote:

felipe wrote:Louisville matches Halifax offer on CF Lucantoni

A hex on you as well.

Can I reverse jinx you back?

7teen wrote:

scottsdale_joe wrote:

felipe wrote:Louisville matches Halifax offer on CF Lucantoni

A hex on you as well.

Can I reverse jinx you back?

You always have

Vancouver matches on Escobedo.