Mutiny Simulation Baseball

Oh, the last one... Eligibility for draft picks. I'm all in favor of going back to the actual MLB limits (130 ABs / 50 IPs) at the time the draft begins. But I think we should have to promote ANY minor league players in our systems who have even ONE appearance in the bigs, in the following off-season, of course.

Those players with 3 ABs would have no value to a sim team. This year was a little different using the projection disk.

I understand that, but his service time started. We get to keep players for so long now, I dunno.

As for Kyle's idea of 1 PA or 0.1 IP making a player ineligible, that's just a really poor idea. I don't know the purpose of that idea...

Sheesh... OK, here's where that came from.  When we limited the PA's and IP's to 65/25, we simultaneously started the arb rules, extending rookies to up to 6 years with their initial teams as opposed to 4. We added two years of control and "gave up" the 135/50 limits as a "selling point" for the new rule. So I proposed going back to 135/50 and essentially offered a "bone" with the idea to promote players with even just brief MLB stints.

To be clear, I like the arb rules, but have never been a fan of the draft eligibility rule change. I'd be in favor of going back to the 135/50, and am willing to compromise somewhere to make it happen.

Could we do a live draft over zoom instead? - I would actually not like that. I like the studying for my picks. I'll say that some of the guys I drafted late weren't on my radar at first. With how deep the league is and the quality of the GMs, I don't think a live draft would be productive for anyone.

I'll admit that I think you are mixing up apples with oranges here. The 65/25 or 130/50 rules are about drafting players, while you are wanting to equate changes to when we need to call up players to our major league roster. While both of them involve the minors, one is about when they start in the minors, while the others is about when they leave the minors.

I guess that part of it is that I don't see where this tradeoff problem that you see is. First when the rule changes were made with arbitration, we change when you had to promote a player from the minors. Before those changes, you could keep a player in the minors during their rookie season, so you didn't have to call them up until their 2nd year in the majors. So, you got their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th years at a bargain price of $250K. Now, you swap that 5th year for the first year and the price is raised to $500K. If you want to keep them longer, you have to start paying the price of arbitration, raising the price of year 4, getting a big of a bargain at year 5 and maybe getting some value at year 6. However, I kind of feel that you are dismissing the fact that giving those two extra years of control comes at a cost for the team. While you can argue that Mookie Betts at $13 million might still be a bargain, arbitration is helping to tie up salaries for teams. I think my team is an excellent example of that as my initial rookies have been getting to be a bigger and bigger share of my salary cap. Going into the 2020 season, I barely had any money to spend on free agents because of my arbitration players. I had a bit more coming into this past season, but giving raises to 9 arbitration players took a bit out of my team's plans. Arbitration, making promotions happen sooner and raising salaries was part of that trade off you talk about and I think that part is working clearly in the league.

I'm not sure why we need to find a compromise; although I would prefer the status quo to having players need to be promoted as soon as they have a season with 1 PA or 0.1 IP. But that's just my 2 cents on it.