|
|
Post by churchfoys on Feb 26, 2013 1:20:25 GMT -5
PROPOSAL 1 - FREE AGENT DRAFT (1942)
1. The Free Agent Draft will last 10 rounds only.
Exception:
during expansion
Commentary:
First, this will mean less work in 1924 for Mr. Luplow. But that's not important. This will increase trades between the clubs. And it will benefit club owners who don't follow the minor leagues. As a result, value is added to the first two rounds and result in a more competitive BVL.
|
|
|
|
Post by homesteadgreys on Feb 28, 2013 12:29:46 GMT -5
Truth be told, I don't see how this will increase trades.
|
|
|
|
Post by churchfoys on Feb 28, 2013 19:35:47 GMT -5
Let's look at it this way: right now none of us worries about not being able to fill our teams -- hey, got 15 rounds. this year, the hawks and knights have 16 and 18 eligible position players, respectively! in a 10-round draft, they'd be forced to look at possible deals. in my other league (28 teams, 5 rounds!), you're always trading to fill your team. frustrating! i wish we had 15 rounds!!!  ) |
|
|
|
Post by homesteadgreys on Feb 28, 2013 20:40:13 GMT -5
But is that merely a product of having 50-man rosters and only having to cut to 40?
|
|
|
|
Post by churchfoys on Mar 1, 2013 14:34:42 GMT -5
i don't think so. imagine Fermann's Relievers are for Losers nightmare scenario: you need to rebuild your pen (6 relievers), and you need a starter. Will you use up 6 picks in a 10-round draft on relievers? Never mind you also need a 3rd catcher and a 3rd thirdbase man. An economic view: demand high/supply short will equal more trades ... I think clubs should feel some pain when they cut 20 players. Lastly, it means less work for Mr. Luplow (using the lets keep luplow happy card) ...
|
|
|
|
Post by banksville on Mar 13, 2013 13:22:19 GMT -5
Limiting the number of draft picks will make it harder for weak teams to rebuild. Suppose your team is bad enough to need to cut 13-14 players. Why should you have to trade a valuable asset just to fill the roster? BOOOOOOOO!!!
|
|
)