VD: 2010 Poll

[johnnya24]

An oversight before the draft meant that we added the 2010's as an extra decade (as per VD23), but failed to add the extra drafting slots to the hitting and pitching (as we did for VD23).

Given that we have already had 3 picks from these decades, and they may all have been under the misconception that their value had not changed from VD23, we need to decide what to do.

The realistic options (given that we are still at the very early stages):

1. Restart the draft.
2. Wind the draft back to the first pick that was problematic.
3. Press ahead.

[johnnya24]

From my point of view ...

Given that we are barely out of the first round, I think we should start again.

Option 2 will create other problems if someone changes their pick to what someone else had picked.

The issue with the hitting slots didn't dawn on me until TS Garp brought it to my attention, so option 3 is out for me. and since no-one brought it up in pre-draft discussion, I have to think that others missed this also. If anyone did notice, and said nothing ... thx!

[Riff Raff]

I noticed and figured it was similar to pitching. We simply don't have to take a hitter from every decade - same as pitchers. If we can ignore a few decades for pitching why can't we do the same on hitting? I also didn't know VD23 had changed the number of hitters selected.

I voted 3.

[johnnya24]

I noticed and figured it was similar to pitching. We simply don't have to take a hitter from every decade - same as pitchers. If we can ignore a few decades for pitching why can't we do the same on hitting? I also didn't know VD23 had changed the number of hitters selected.

I voted 3.

A-Rod was already picked as a 2010's player. The oversight meant that it wasn't clear that the valuations for the hitters had substantially changed between VD23 and VD25 (VD2). Some may have noticed it, others definitely didn't. What is clear is that not everyone was on the same page. I don't think we can continue because the rules as they stand eliminates most (if not all) the 1870's selections from the draft, and that certainly was not part of the pre-draft "discussions" in any way.

At the very least this change should have been made clear and announced pre-draft so it was clear for everyone. That is why prior to the rules post, that we list all the changes from one draft to the next (small or large). Of course that wouldn't have been necessary, because if anyone realized what this meant before the draft, we would have made sure to keep the 15h-12p from VD23, and so this wouldn't even be an issue.

[Riff Raff]

Then why don't we pick 15 pitchers?

[johnnya24]

Then why don't we pick 15 pitchers?

That would change the valuation of all pitchers, especially from the QUIZY decades.

Are you worried you might not get the Babe second time around?

[johnnya24]

PS ... if anyone has any forthright opinions on this, you need to express it so everyone else can take that into account. We will go with whatever the poll decides.

[heyelander]

I'm fine with pressing on.

[johnnya24]

Of the 3 people who picked 2010's or QUIZY decade pitchers (because they have likely been most effected):

TSGarp: restart
Heyelander: press on
MJL: still to vote (I will send an email/PM update)

FWIW ... even if we do press on, I don't think that Young, Rodriguez or Rivera are unworthy of their draft slots.

[revo]

couldn't care less either way, but I am proud to be the finder of this discrepancy!

[heyelander]

if we ties, I guess start over should win as it's in the lead on the poll and we would get another player.

[johnnya24]

couldn't care less either way, but I am proud to be the finder of this discrepancy!

Wasn't it TS Garp?

[revo]

Wasn't it TS Garp?

I pointed out on 3/10 that you forgot to include the 2010s as a separate decade.

[johnnya24]

I pointed out on 3/10 that you forgot to include the 2010s as a separate decade.

Ah yes ... so it your fault that we are in this mess!!

[SeaDogStat]

I am voting for whatever screws heyelander!