Rule 5

[Oakland Athletics]

@oriolesgms @chisox @cbishop @bryanm1982 Pittsburgh Pirates @captainwake @braves Boston Red Sox Toronto Blue Jays @dbacksbaseball44 Baltimore Orioles @yonks

[Deleted]

Can someone give a really simple explanation of what this would do?

My first instinct is to say that I am HEAVILY opposed if it’s going to make the league change in its structure significantly

[Oakland Athletics]

Oct 5, 2018 12:51:56 GMT -5 @braves said:

Can someone give a really simple explanation of what this would do?

My first instinct is to say that I am HEAVILY opposed if it’s going to make the league change in its structure significantly

I think the easiest way to explain it is for you to read about the real life rule 5 draft an you will get the gist. Here is the link
m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/rule-5-draft

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2018 10:44:10 GMT -5 Oakland Athletics said:

To me this is a fantastic idea but one that just doesn’t fit with the way our league is structured. Im open to listening to everyone’s thoughts on this beyond just the few of us that have said anything.

After thinking on it the past couple days, I'm in agreement with you.  The idea itself isn't bad, I just don't see a smooth implementation for it within our current framework.  If someone could solve for that, I'd certainly be open minded.  There would still be a handful of things I'd be pretty insistent on defining like how long a player can be owned before he needs to be either protected or exposed to the Rule V draft as well as allowing an appropriate number of protections over all.

[Baltimore Orioles]

I am not sure, my opinion on this is I am not sure how the rule 5 will be implemented in this league. I mean it could work, but with trades, FA pickups, and the minor league draft do we really need a rule 5 draft.

[Deleted]

With contracts like we have in this league I am not sure the need for this. Every player's contract will end at some point making them a free agent, this is why there are limits on contracts so there is some sort of turnover with players. I am not really sure the point of a Rule V draft or rule. There is no point for minor league players, if they aren't going to be protected by a team than most likely the player won't be worth anything.

I'm not sure what the point of the rule would be with how this league is structured.

[Deleted]

Good idea but not needed in this league

[Deleted]

Enough complexities in this league already. I'd rather not add to it, but I'm flexible if the group insists.

[Deleted]

"Typically" speaking, Rule 5 picks in fantasy leagues are most of the time used where there are no in season MiLB pickups. For example like I said a few days ago typically speaking there are two drafts, one in late June or early July once the real life is completed then again in DEC-FEB for the Rule 5 draft. The Rule 5 draft picks are simply used to supplement a minor league roster. These picks target any MiLB prospect that is not currently on a team's roster. So in theory no MiLB pickups at anytime, the summer draft is targeted towards the first yr player draft, and then the R5 draft picks are reserved for any prospect not on a roster. Some owners who have a deep knowledge of prospects and keep those prospects updated for themselves benefit greatly from R5 picks because they will most likely acquire as many of these picks as possible for depth whereas other owners could careless and in time they will trade off their picks. Typically speaking each team is given a 1st & 2nd round picks for the R5 draft.

Personally speaking and based on my time in this league, I would say this concept would not fit in this league for the majority of it's owners. One trend I have noticed with our group is typical to each and every league that uses prospects. Most owners like to compete or make the effort to compete while a few like to concentrate on their farm system. Then of course the remaining owners fall somewhere in between. You need a great number of league owners who have a deep knowledge of prospects for this concept to be successful.

[Deleted]

Yeah I still don't understand what this is, so...

[Deleted]

I think it's an interesting idea that should be explored, yes within our current structure it might not seem to work but then again we haven't made a decision as to how we would implement it. It could be something we could use for the minors only or go with just the pro's. We could decide which we would want and put it in see how it works and then expand it from there.

[Deleted]

I thank everyone for the discussion concerning the idea, I will speak with Josh and go over some specifics before posting my overall thoughts.

[Deleted]

This might not even work as well but we could protect up to 40 players that have 1 IP or 1 AB in the real life MLB. If you have 41 players that have a MLB stat at the end of the year that player you don't protect is not protected and can be drafted.

[Deleted]

Oct 9, 2018 9:27:32 GMT -5 @bryanm1982 said:

This might not even work as well but we could protect up to 40 players that have 1 IP or 1 AB in the real life MLB. If you have 41 players that have a MLB stat at the end of the year that player you don't protect is not protected and can be drafted.

I'm not sure how many teams would end up with someone unprotected by doing this, but I'd be open to it.

[Deleted]

The great thing about this is we have time on our side, it's only Oct 10th, we can keep working on this and hopefully come up with something that can work. I personally feel it's worth trying as it is a good idea and look everyone else is voicing opinions too so that keeps things interesting.