Exemption Rule Change Proposal

[stitchface]

Now that we all seem to have gotten a grip on prospect value and everyone has an active minor league roster, I am considering implementing a rule change. The proposed change is to continue with three years exempt status for prospects but add years 4-6 as pro-rated points values:

 

Year 4 - 30% points count

Year 5 - 50% points count

Year 6 - 75% points count

 

Year 7 - full points count.

 

 

Ultimately, points could be tied to performance similar to actual arbitration results and you could offer players long-term commitments.

 

Thoughts?

[NCCubFan]

I like the idea, although I might slightly fine-tune it and make the first year count 25% instead of 30%. It just seems to me like it may be a bit easier to remember if the percentage increases by 25% per year over 4 years. With the reduced cap we set a couple of years ago this would make it easier to keep players who are still young but past the three years of full exemption. I assume you're talking about starting this after the 2010 season since the keeper deadline for this year has passed. I think we should commit one way or the other before the season begins since this could affect trades.

[Guest]

yea, that's why I bring it up now Robert.

[tadowdaddy]

I like it!!!!!!!!!!!!

[moochpuppy]

I'm onboard.

[NCCubFan]

I'm trying to understand the long-term possibilities Juan mentioned so I can form an opinion. It seems to me that points are already tied to performance, so I'm not sure what change is being proposed. As far as long-term commitments are concerned, does that mean you'd be locked into the number of points from the most recent year? For example, if a player has 400 points for 2010 and you give that player a three-year commitment, does that count as 400 points for each of the next three years? If so, I can see the benefit since you might be able to keep a player for fewer points than actually scored (with the offsetting risk of counting more than actual points if the player regresses).

[Guest]

I'm trying to understand the long-term possibilities Juan mentioned so I can form an opinion. It seems to me that points are already tied to performance, so I'm not sure what change is being proposed. As far as long-term commitments are concerned, does that mean you'd be locked into the number of points from the most recent year? For example, if a player has 400 points for 2010 and you give that player a three-year commitment, does that count as 400 points for each of the next three years? If so, I can see the benefit since you might be able to keep a player for fewer points than actually scored (with the offsetting risk of counting more than actual points if the player regresses).

 

 

That's the basic idea - this would be similar to signing free agents to long-term deals.

[NCCubFan]

I'm trying to understand the long-term possibilities Juan mentioned so I can form an opinion. It seems to me that points are already tied to performance, so I'm not sure what change is being proposed. As far as long-term commitments are concerned, does that mean you'd be locked into the number of points from the most recent year? For example, if a player has 400 points for 2010 and you give that player a three-year commitment, does that count as 400 points for each of the next three years? If so, I can see the benefit since you might be able to keep a player for fewer points than actually scored (with the offsetting risk of counting more than actual points if the player regresses).

 

 

That's the basic idea - this would be similar to signing free agents to long-term deals.

I'm for it then. It gives you a potential reward if you're willing to take some risk. I assume you could still trade the player but the new owner would then have to honor the remaining commitment.

[bukie]

While we're talking about changes to the exemption rule, I have a proposal too...could we match up the exemption threshold for both minor league eligibility and exemption year? I really don't care whether we use the smaller one (5 starts, 10 app, 50 PA) or the larger one (10 starts, 25 app, 200 PA), but I would like it better if it were consistent.

[Guest]

While we're talking about changes to the exemption rule, I have a proposal too...could we match up the exemption threshold for both minor league eligibility and exemption year? I really don't care whether we use the smaller one (5 starts, 10 app, 50 PA) or the larger one (10 starts, 25 app, 200 PA), but I would like it better if it were consistent.

 

 

I can see why you would prefer that but my initial reaction is not to change it. Let me think about it and see what others think.

[MembersOnlyJacket]

In principle, I like it, but don't want to diminish the strength of a yearly MLB draft.

 

Would the maximum number of players kept as active MLBers still be 10 ? Also, to account for this, any thought to reducing the total cap from 2000.

[NCCubFan]

While we're talking about changes to the exemption rule, I have a proposal too...could we match up the exemption threshold for both minor league eligibility and exemption year? I really don't care whether we use the smaller one (5 starts, 10 app, 50 PA) or the larger one (10 starts, 25 app, 200 PA), but I would like it better if it were consistent.

 

 

I can see why you would prefer that but my initial reaction is not to change it. Let me think about it and see what others think.

I certainly wouldn't want a lower limit for minor league eligibility, because it can already be a challenge to keep a player who has lost eligibility but hasn't yet become a major league regular.

[Guest]

that's a very good question deven. I'll have to think that through.

[moochpuppy]

There is too much thinking going on in this league.

[Guest]

There is too much thinking going on in this league.

 

 

Don't get mad because cubs fans are smarter than sox fans.

[Quakers]

Could be good.

 

My initial reactions were

 

1) Let's keep it simple

 

2) My biggest headache is usually the 10 player limit

 

3) But some prospects really don't pan out until their 4th or 5th year so maybe it is not a bad idea

[Guest]

Would this be implemented for all players under six years of eligibility? Or would it only be for players now coming out of their first three years?

 

Also, if we decide to move forward with this, can I keep Billingsley instead of Phillips? I'd still be under the points limit.

[NCCubFan]

If we're discussing potential rules changes anyway an idea I'd like to bring up for discussion is the possibility of increasing the number of reserve spots on our rosters. It can be really hard to manage if you want to have a couple of extra pitchers to get the 7 starts per week and also have a prospect you want to keep but has lost minor league eligibility and not yet broken into the major league starting lineup, and also possibly a player that's injured and expected to miss several games but isn't actually on the DL. There have been discussions in the past about what is and isn't allowed to get 7 starts for a week, and if we had a few extra reserve spots that wouldn't be a problem because you could carry enough pitchers and still be able to accommodate a prospect not yet in the starting lineup or an injured but not DL'd player.

[Guest]

While I am intrigued by the idea of this proposal, it will probably require lowering the cap limit. By reducing the non exempt player's points for another 3 years worth of players, there will be teams that can keep a lot more of their talented players rather than release them back into the free agent pool.

 

At the very least, a lowering of the cap. It's possible you might have to consider reducing the amount of major league keepers to 7 or 8 instead of 10.

[roadster]

Now that we all seem to have gotten a grip on prospect value and everyone has an active minor league roster, I am considering implementing a rule change. The proposed change is to continue with three years exempt status for prospects but add years 4-6 as pro-rated points values:

 

Year 4 - 30% points count

Year 5 - 50% points count

Year 6 - 75% points count

 

Year 7 - full points count.

 

 

Ultimately, points could be tied to performance similar to actual arbitration results and you could offer players long-term commitments.

 

Thoughts?

 

How about a completely different thought:

 

Instead of points for the non-exempt players, how about losing a draft pick tied to performance...for example, if you have Pujols and he earned 780 fantasy points, it would cost the owner a 1st round pick to keep Pujols. If a player has 200 fantasy points, then it would cost the owner, say a 5th round pick. I don't have an idea of the compensation for keeping a player based on performance (this would have to be determined). I think this would simplify things. It would also put a premium exempt players since it does not cost a draft pick to keep. In addition, this would make the draft more interesting since the owners will only be able to keep 1 first round talent unless they have more first rounders.

[cbbryan]

I like the idea, but I'd have to see how it effected the cap number and number of players available to keep.

[Guest]

there will be no change for next year.