UPDATE: Here is the official proposal.
Topic 7 revisits the implementation of a 4th "wildcard" keeper.
Last year, we briefly discussed adding a 4th "wildcard" keeper, and when we informally voted, it had 10 out of 12 votes for yes. So I think it will go through this year, and I think this space should be used to try and come to some kind of agreement on how it will work, unless there's been a big change of heart. While I have the general shell built out, there are still some questions.
PROPOSAL: Adding a 4th optional keeper called a "wildcard"
• It could be a pitcher or hitter
• If you choose to add a wildcard keeper, you lose the draft pick in the round you drafted that keeper. So if you drafted Cole Hamels in the 4th round, and you designate him as your wildcard keeper, you lose your 4th round pick for as many years as you keep him (max 3, like usual).
• If you keep an undrafted player who you picked up off the waiver wire, you lose your 23rd-round draft pick.
• Can be a pitcher or hitter.
• It would go into effect starting next offseason when you declare keepers (so this draft would matter in regards to this)
• Once you designate someone as your wildcard keeper, that's it. It can not be swapped with a different keeper on your team the following offseason.
REASON:
Adds a fourth keeper and some more juice into the pool; very much rewards strong drafters and/or shrewd free-agent pickups; lets you perhaps take a chance on a keeper that you otherwise might not have; creates more strategy as to whether to hold onto a prospect early in the season.
DISCUSSION POINTS:
So the No. 1 piece of feedback in regards to this was how we would "regulate" potential top-tier players taken late and/or off the wires being kept for 3 years (i.e. guys like Trout, Puig, Wacha, etc.). If it starts out as a 23rd round pick, does it stay the same round each year? Does the round move up X amount of picks per year kept?
Other valid and important questions:
• Should it be optional?
• Is it too unfair for someone to have a top-tier player who they got on the waiver wire only to lose a 23rd round pick for 3 straight years, or is that part of the strategic aspect to it?
• Does the wildcard keeper follow the same rules as normal keepers when it comes to cutting or re-signing them for less or more years?
What other questions would we need to have addressed if this passes?
If you want to be heard on this issue, now is your time to speak up. I'm interested to hearing any ideas you may have in regards to this, as it's not something I have any experience with.
CHANGE NEEDED:
75 percent
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'm first I'm first!
ReplyDeleteI like the optional 4th keeper. But here's my thought on how to keep things fair going forward:
If you keep someone for 3 years they move up the appropriate amount of spots to become a 4th round pick at the end of their 3rd year. (For example - 1st year...23rd pick...2nd year...13th pick...3rd year...4th pick)
If you keep someone for 2 years they move up to the 13th pick on the 2nd year.
If you keep someone for 1 year they remain at the 23rd pick the following year.
This is the extreme example so pending on the original draft spot would determine how many spots they move up.
My two cents...
I like the idea of the 4th keeper. I think whatever pick you take them at should be the pick you lose for the duration of the contract. I see no reason to punish someone for making a superb pick up or draft pick. I'm thinking that if there is any sort of reason for the person to lose a higher pick, it should be if the player is resigned after a year or two like we have been doing with keepers.
ReplyDeleteAlso think it should be optional, but I really can't see anyone not using it. There are so many players in the FA pool at the end of the year that you could just pick someone up and lose a late rounder on a flier.
One thing I would consider though: Say I drafted Player X in the 7th round and he goes on the shelf for most of the season so I drop him for whatever reason. Then someone else picks up Player X toward the end of the year as a stash keeper. They should lose the 7th round pick since this was a FA, not UDFA. I think the 23rd round rule should only apply to an UDFA.
I love this idea, I am all for it. Yes, it should be optional and yes, all keeper rules should apply for the WC as well.
ReplyDeleteI feel what Hal is saying, "I see no reason to punish someone for making a superb pick up or draft pick", but my initial thought was something more along the lines of Shea's (just not nearly as steep)...So I'm gonna let this discussion get rolling before I chime back in on that or make a decision.
And I agree with Hal on his last piece. If a player was drafted, that is what round pick should be lost if someone ends up picking him up off the FA list later in the season.
I like the option of adding a forth keeper. This could perhaps be a real game changer. Obviously, we are going to have to iron out all of the details but to begin with I believe that all keeper rules should apply to this Wildcard. Likewise, that the round forfeiture should correspond with the round in which that player was selected. There doesn't seem to be much objection at this point so I'm interested in what others have to say.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of a 4th keeper being added. It should be optional.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the same rules for regular keepers in terms of cutting/re-signing should apply to the wildcard keeper. To the extent we can make this keeper as uniform with the others, I think that is a good idea.
With respect to the draft pick you lose, my first inclination is to reject an ascending scale like Shea proposes, but I am not completely opposed either. What comes to mind right away is that doing this penalizes managers who find diamonds in the rough late in the draft (like Hal points out). Isn't the wildcard keeper all about rewarding keen drafting and pickups? If managers know this system is in place, then guys who may be in the AAA to start the year but will get a call up may be taken in our draft and rostered for a while. That's a sacrifice in the present by a manager building for his future. Good for that person for taking that risk or playing a man down for a while. Moreover, now that we have the FAAB system in place, guys who are on waivers to begin with are not automatically going to the highest waiver. So that is something to consider as well.
I am all for adding the WC keeper and agree that it should be optional. It adds some more competitive depth to the league and puts more of an emphasis on prospects and planning well ahead. I believe the same keeper rules should apply when resigning/cutting your WC keeper.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the draft pick you forfeit when selecting your WC, I do think some sort of sliding scale does need to apply (although not nearly as steep as Shea's proposal). You still get rewarded for a great late draft pick by the nature of it. However, a multi-year commitment should come with some risk/penalty instead of merely losing your last pick each season when its fairly certain that in year 2 and/or 3 this player would be drafted in the first 10 rounds or so. This scale should be set as well and not vary from player to player based on their performance as this will further reward a manager for making a great decision. I believe every manager would be able to find someone they could easily forfeit a 20th+ round pick for each year for 3 seasons so a steeper penalty is required if you want to try and hit the jackpot on a certain player.
Perhaps if the player you choose was drafted in rounds 1-9, the draft pick forfeited would increase by one round each year. Rounds 10-17 by 2 rounds each year and rounds 18-23 by 3 rounds each year. Something along those lines as I don't find it entirely fair to get a player like Trout and only lose your 23rd pick in the 2nd and/or 3rd seasons of their contract. If there is no sliding scale then perhaps the penalties for resigning or cutting a WC keeper should be harsher than the regular keepers.
All in all, the WC keeper is a great idea and should not be dismissed due to this issue . I just feel the reward GREATLY outweighs the risk in this situation and something is needed to make it a tougher decision and a player you're investing in rather then just forfeiting a meaningless last round pick for three seasons as you really can't go wrong in the slightest bit no matter who the player is. The worst that can really happen in that situation is that you prevent yourself from keeping a better value pick you make in the next draft so I do expect to see much more WC keepers getting cut then we see currently with our normal keepers and rightfully so.
It seems like so far everyone is on board with adding the 4th keeper and the real issue will just come down to the loss of draft pick each year. Ken your point is definitely well-taken; however, I think the following sentence is flawed,
ReplyDelete"I believe every manager would be able to find someone they could easily forfeit a 20th+ round pick for each year for 3 seasons so a steeper penalty is required if you want to try and hit the jackpot on a certain player."
I know Mike Trout is the popular player to reference for the above; however, we should keep in mind that a stab in the dark like that does come with risk. First off, Mike Trout is the exception, not the rule. For every Mike Trout, there are dozens of players who had similar hype surrounding them, made a big splash when first called up and then promptly fizzled out. I am not going to start digging through rosters, but surely we are all aware this happens, a lot. For example, in 2012 Andy drafted RA Dickey in the real late rounds. He went on to win the Cy Young this year. If not for Wainwright, and assuming our system was in place, there would certainly have been an argument to make for using the Wild Card Keeper on Dickey for multiple years. In 2013 Dickey sucked. Plain and simple. (Side note: for some reason Shea never cut him last year, chalk that up as a questionable managerial decision). The point is making the decision to lock up a guy who has an amazing season comes with the risk that they could fizzle out and you are then locked into that contract. Yea it is not a big deal losing your 23rd pick for the next couple of years, but you are stuck rostering a guy who may not be roster worthy in a year or two and simultaneously prevented from using your Wild Card Keeper on another player in the following seasons. Think about it, it would suck to be in the spot where you select RA Dickey as your keeper (like Andy could have), then pick up Puig during the following season (like Andy did) and not be able to allocate next year's 23rd pick on Puig and instead either a.) sign him to a regular keeper contract (if he could), b.) not keep him, or c.) pay the stiff penalty which will be imposed for cutting a keeper.
Bottom line, there is plenty of risk that comes with selecting a Wild Card Keeper.
This won't get solved via a lot of comments but love the chatter on this...I think everyone has an opinion on what it should look like. I recommend we vote on the 4th keeper than pick a time to do a google chat and narrow it down to a few options on what the structure should be (assuming it passes). Then we vote on those options with the highest vote getting being the rule going forward.
ReplyDeleteShea - this group of misfits can barely agree on a draft time! You are offender No. 1 on that list too.
ReplyDelete@Chris - Good point re: Dickey. I almost kept him over Wainwright, and it would have been for 2 years, so there's no doubt if I used the wildcard on him it woulda been for 2 years and I'd be stuck this offseason. There are definitely risks for keeping guys for multiple years and this wouldn't change that in my opinion. "Prevented from using your Wild Card Keeper on another player in the following seasons" is the biggie, moreso than being stuck rostering someone.
ReplyDelete@Ken - re: cutting wildcard keepers, are you proposing a different system for the cutting of WC keepers than we have in place for cutting regular keepers now? I don't think so, right?
@Hal - I like that idea regarding UDFAs vs. drafted guys who end up as FAs. What does everyone else think? Would it cause too much chaos with people not knowing the rule?
All in all, I'm still undecided on whether the draft round should increase for lower round picks. If it happens, I don't think it should be a very steep price. Everyone makes good points though and I want to hear more.
To Schea's point: I don't think the issue should be voted on unless the rules and regulations are in place. For example, I don't think I would vote it thorough with Schea's proposed rules in place. I just think losing higher picks like that is a punishment when in reality, drafting a player late and using them as a keeper is a reward of a good managerial move. Certainly there is room for compromise there, but I think we need to iron it out before it goes to vote.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hal. You shouldn't be punished for finding a diamond in the rough.
ReplyDeleteLooks like I'm late to the party but would like to add my 2 cents, been a brutal week. I agree with all in that this is a great idea and should be optional. I'm also on the fence on whether it should stay with the round you picked the player for the duration or if there should be some sliding scale. I think a good comprise between nothing and something extreme that Shea offered up would for the round to change by 1 for each year the player is kept. I also agree that normal keeper rules should apply if you do decide to keep the optional 4th.
ReplyDeleteI'll make a final comment. Here's my take on this:
ReplyDelete-If you snag Trout or Puig or someone that's in the 23rd round they'll likely be someone that's worth it for the next 3 years as the 23rd pick. Trout immediately became a top 2 player...3 years later shouldn't Trout be considered a Round 4 player? How much of the competitive advantage shifts when teams have that huge advantage?
-Another example. My team will rarely find a diamond in the rough because other managers have more access to that information or a job that allows them to have that access sooner than others. I think half the league is in on the "sleepers" or "hot prospects" coming into FA and the other half isn't and it doesn't necessarily equate to winning championships as of right now. For the teams that can snag those players...kudos and hopefully this doesn't come off as complaining. I'm more so saying not all managers have that same advantage so to balance it out keeping someone longer should result in stricter draft picks. There's no reason you can't keep your prospect an extra year at that 23rd pick. But if you want to keep them long term that's the risk you're willing to take and I think it keeps the league more balanced year in and year out.
But what happens if I were to keep Puig for 3 years and he turns out to be a bust? I should lose a 4th round draft pick that final year because I took a long-term risk on a free-agent pickup? Isn't my penalty in that case already the fact that I'm stuck with him?
DeleteWhat if we had this implemented last season and you kept Machado for 3 years, and he turns out to be a bust, or keeps getting hurt, or ends each season ranked around #100 overall like last year? That's clearly not 4th round value.
Again, we keep using Trout as the example here, but isn't he the white whale rather than the norm?
That should be the risk if taking a keeper that hasn't proved his potential for multiple years. It's not a risk at all if you're giving up a low draft pick...it's a waste pick anyway that's used on people like Shea Hillenbrand!
DeleteAll - hold off commenting here for the time being. I am going to post an updated entry.
ReplyDelete