34-64-94 MLB Draft : CHAT

[Nosferatu]

You will be required to draft eight players who played in each year 1934, 1964, 1994. You will also get ONE wild card pick. The wild card pick can a player from anytime in the history of the game.

You will draft a full lineup
C,1B,2B,3B,SS,RF,CF,LF,DH
BENCH,BENCH,BENCH,BENCH,BENCH
SP,SP,SP,SP,SP
RP,RP,RP,RP,RP

The 25th player on your roster can be a bench player or a relief pitcher it will be up to you.

You are allowed to trade players, picks and years.

You can trade players who are a WC pick but there must be another WC pick coming back in the trade or the player you are trading him to must have a WC to use on said player.

If you have questions please ask.

 

[Nosferatu]

Who's in?
1. Nos
2. UK
3. 500
4. Milk
5. Femur
6. EHB
7. Stoke
8. Johnny
9. Mebert
10. WLK
11.
12.

 

[UK Cowboy]

 

[femurov]

I guess.

 

[Nosferatu]

@Mebert @femurov @Johnnydollaz89 @Ritzarmy @broncosmitty @wlk3 @ehb5 @blstoker @tlance @Clayton @StanMarsh51 @da55bums

 

[ehb5]

Well probably a bad idea, but im in

 

[UK Cowboy]

Well probably a bad idea, but im in

Welcome Brother

 

[blstoker]

Sure, get me into the draft mood before the NFL mock.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

before we start this, I do think we should change the years... I don't understand why we would start at 1934, it sounds like an attempt to make Ruth unavailable, but he retired in 1935...

Would rather have ruth be a WC, than an eligible player...

I think 1950-1980-2010 would be best... would turn Clemens, Bonds and Ruth into WC...

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

i'M IN

 

[Mebert]

I am in

 

[wlk3]

No I'm not in....

 

[Nosferatu]

before we start this, I do think we should change the years... I don't understand why we would start at 1934, it sounds like an attempt to make Ruth unavailable, but he retired in 1935...

Would rather have ruth be a WC, than an eligible player...

I think 1950-1980-2010 would be best... would turn Clemens, Bonds and Ruth into WC...

What difference does it make if they are WC's or just drafted, they will still be on someones team. I don't like 2010 because people will just load up on current players.

 

[wlk3]

When do we start...?

 

[Nosferatu]

When do we start...?

When Hockey is done.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

What difference does it make if they are WC's or just drafted, they will still be on someones team. I don't like 2010 because people will just load up on current players.

Huge difference, it is called value of draft... Since we are doing WC, and using only one WC, the value of that one WC is not very high since there are so many good pieces... The larger the WC field becomes, the more important the actual eligible players are... Bonds and Ruth would definitely still be taken, but it is a bigger risk to take them in the first round(they will still be taken in the first probably)... Which is certainly a good thing since it weakens their overall value...

As for the current players, having at least 5 seasons into the league, I am pretty sure that we have a good grasp of the player...

The reason I like 2010 more than 2000 is because it takes away 90% of the Steroid era players... I am tired of just putting a steroid era player in the 3-5 hole solely because they hit more HRs, which is more due to the era...

It is like how we take advantage of the pre 1930 players and put them in the top of the order, because they don't strike out... Take away the whole era advantage...

Just giving my 2 cents... clearly I am in no matter what... I just think 1950-1980-2010 is better...

 

[Nosferatu]

Huge difference, it is called value of draft... Since we are doing WC, and using only one WC, the value of that one WC is not very high since there are so many good pieces... The larger the WC field becomes, the more important the actual eligible players are... Bonds and Ruth would definitely still be taken, but it is a bigger risk to take them in the first round(they will still be taken in the first probably)... Which is certainly a good thing since it weakens their overall value...

As for the current players, having at least 5 seasons into the league, I am pretty sure that we have a good grasp of the player...

The reason I like 2010 more than 2000 is because it takes away 90% of the Steroid era players... I am tired of just putting a steroid era player in the 3-5 hole solely because they hit more HRs, which is more due to the era...

It is like how we take advantage of the pre 1930 players and put them in the top of the order, because they don't strike out... Take away the whole era advantage...

Just giving my 2 cents... clearly I am in no matter what... I just think 1950-1980-2010 is better...

I just don't like mixing current players into all time drafts. I would rather go like 1940,1960,1980 than include 2010, no current players, pretty much eliminates the steroid era and makes Ruth a WC

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I just don't like mixing current players into all time drafts. I would rather go like 1940,1960,1980 than include 2010, no current players, pretty much eliminates the steroid era and makes Ruth a WC

how about 48-78-08

8 seasons is pretty much a full career analysis... Still takes away the big 2 steroid era players(bonds and Clemens)...

 

[UK Cowboy]

How bout we leave it the way it is. A lot of great players to go around, and plenty of great WC's to choose from for your 1 WC

 

[Nosferatu]

how about 48-78-08

8 seasons is pretty much a full career analysis... Still takes away the big 2 steroid era players(bonds and Clemens)...

I don't like current players in an all time draft, let me know if you want me to say it again. If you want a current player use your WC pick. I am all in favor of changing the years to what everyone wants as long as it keeps current players out.