Rule V Draft

true....that might be a good way to do it until we get 3 or 4 years down the road and can keep track of it. It just doesn't seem right that players drafted over the offseason can be picked up in the Rule V draft by another team. It's just a little bit crazy.

You could just apply the rule to draft picks from now on since it says what year they were drafted in their history tab. I would support this change esp since I lost a 17 y/o in the last rule V draft that in real life should not have been eligible for the draft.

Yeah, but it doesnt have that information for other minor leaguers that still wouldnt be eligible.

so go with 21 and under not eligible until the history reaches that point. Nobody would have started before 17 unless they were IFA.

How many players do you think should be protected? (Not on 25 man roster, but older than 21.)

you could still go 40 total.....I mean.....there are less prospects than a normal farm system....but I'd say the number of potential impact guys are still the same.

We could do that, but the talent level will definetly be less.

Admin wrote:

We could do that, but the talent level will definetly be less.

The point of a rule 5 draft is that there isn't much talent except a chance diamond in the rough...

tunit wrote:

Admin wrote:

We could do that, but the talent level will definetly be less.

The point of a rule 5 draft is that there isn't much talent except a chance diamond in the rough...

Considering the fact that there are a lot less minor leaguers, and more will be protected, there will be less talent in this draft than irl.

Admin wrote:

tunit wrote:

Admin wrote:

We could do that, but the talent level will definetly be less.

The point of a rule 5 draft is that there isn't much talent except a chance diamond in the rough...

Considering the fact that there are a lot less minor leaguers, and more will be protected, there will be less talent in this draft than irl.

either way there arent really any teams irl that have studs just laying there unprotected...

tunit wrote:

Admin wrote:

tunit wrote:

Admin wrote:

We could do that, but the talent level will definetly be less.

The point of a rule 5 draft is that there isn't much talent except a chance diamond in the rough...

Considering the fact that there are a lot less minor leaguers, and more will be protected, there will be less talent in this draft than irl.

either way there arent really any teams irl that have studs just laying there unprotected...

Johan Santana comes to mind

true, Santana was one from Houston and Clemente was one from Pittsburgh....but they are so far and few between......I don't think anybody would really miss it if the Rule V was just taken out. We could put it up to a vote but I'm pretty sure nobody would miss this.

uscsteve wrote:

true, Santana was one from Houston and Clemente was one from Pittsburgh....but they are so far and few between......I don't think anybody would really miss it if the Rule V was just taken out. We could put it up to a vote but I'm pretty sure nobody would miss this.

Many teams rely on the rule V draft to get a stronger bench....

All I'm saying is in this league, after the 1st season, the draft served the purpose of a couple teams robbing a few others. This didn't mirror real life and if that's the purpose of the league it should probably either be changed to do that with the experience rule or completely eliminated.

Admin wrote:

uscsteve wrote:

true, Santana was one from Houston and Clemente was one from Pittsburgh....but they are so far and few between......I don't think anybody would really miss it if the Rule V was just taken out. We could put it up to a vote but I'm pretty sure nobody would miss this.

Many teams rely on the rule V draft to get a stronger bench....

There is a difference between getting strong bench players and getting studs...

Clemente was taken from the Brooklyn Dodgers not the Pirates

meant he played w pittsburgh...yeah...everybody knows that.

For the next couple of years, I think Im going to make it anyone 21 or younger is not eligible, and you must protect 15 people.


Then we'll change it around 2010 or 2011 if neccesary.

yep, we should scrap this thing altogether.

hoosier31 wrote:

yep, we should scrap this thing altogether.

Why? Teams use the rule V draft to add someone to their bench.

I think it would be reasonable if we make it 21 and under not eligible for the next couple of years. You say why do teams say scrap it? Look at the guys picked up. Nobody is really contributing from the bench this year. Most of the guys were picked with high peaks and just kept up for the purpose of giving him one year now and putting him back in the minors. Curtis Jackson is a 48 overall for crying out loud...he's certainly not going to be adding anything but his peak is a 97.......

uscsteve wrote:

I think it would be reasonable if we make it 21 and under not eligible for the next couple of years. You say why do teams say scrap it? Look at the guys picked up. Nobody is really contributing from the bench this year. Most of the guys were picked with high peaks and just kept up for the purpose of giving him one year now and putting him back in the minors. Curtis Jackson is a 48 overall for crying out loud...he's certainly not going to be adding anything but his peak is a 97.......

Yeah i made a post about that. I think thats a good idea. And the reason I picked Spears is because I needed some speed off my bench, and he could be an adequate backup at this point.

If you want players for your bench, there is an overabundance of them in free agency every year that you can get for bargain prices. Again, scrap it, there is no real reason to keep it other than to steal other teams players.

Yeah, I agree. Scrap it

That would be my first vote would be to scrap it as well. But I see how it still could possibly function. But really, if it doesn't have the support of the owners there's no point. From looking at it, Admin seems to be the only one pushing for it.