Comments on: WM Proposal #12 “The he’s a SS because he played two games rule”

By: King4Life

King4Life — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:20:53 +0000

I think the # should be at least 4 games. If not higher. The Bay example is a good one, but its rare. Very rare in fact..so I’d be OK with SOL on Jason Bay until week 2. Or Chris’ revision isnt too bad.

By: Richie

Richie — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:07:00 +0000

I’m fine with either 2 or 4….

By: Sot

Sot — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:37:43 +0000

That works for me.

By: prospecttube

prospecttube — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:20:02 +0000

We could always adjust it and say, “4 games, unless the team has yet to play 4 games prior to our draft, but the player has started at the same position for each game.” In Bay’s example, maybe the team plays 3, and he starts at DH in all 3. Just a thought.

By: Sot

Sot — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:12:25 +0000

It’s more than likely the case he may, but with rain outs you never know.

By: prospecttube

prospecttube — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:53:12 +0000

Good point. I thought teams played 4 games by our draft.

By: Sot

Sot — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:39:49 +0000

4 could cause some problems come draft day. Say a player such as J. Bay, who currently only has OF eligibility is the starting DH for the NYY come 2010. In this case, it’s obvious he he’ll be elgible for DH in 2010, but he may not reach the 4 games mark by draft day.

By: SI7

SI7 — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:15:45 +0000

2 up to 4 isn’t bad. The only reason I don’t mind 2 games played at a position is being an AL only league with a cap makes it difficult to fill out a roster sometimes. Just my thought, though

By: prospecttube

prospecttube — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:07:50 +0000

And obviously I don’t know what the right number is here. I just feel like 2 is far too lenient.

By: Evil Empire

Evil Empire — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:59:52 +0000

In most cases, this probably would not effect the ultimate eligibility, but it would delay it.