Brandon Wood

mdz129 · Post by **mdz129** » Mon May 29, 2006 5:12 pm

After all the discussion of Jered Weaver -- I thought Brandon Wood was also a non 40 man roster player. In LV 8 he is currently available as a free agent pick up- is he available to be bid on?

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Mon May 29, 2006 11:28 pm

I believe Brandon Wood was listed on the eligibility sheet we received on draft day. There were several players on the bottom right of that page who were not on 40-man rosters but eligible to be drafted -- pretty sure that Wood was one of them.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon May 29, 2006 11:31 pm

Now that you brought his name up...Will he get pick-up in your league?

[ May 30, 2006, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: CC's Desperados ]

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Tue May 30, 2006 1:44 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

I believe Brandon Wood was listed on the eligibility sheet we received on draft day. There were several players on the bottom right of that page who were not on 40-man rosters but eligible to be drafted -- pretty sure that Wood was one of them. Yes he was on that list.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Tue May 30, 2006 6:17 am

Originally posted by mdz129:

After all the discussion of Jered Weaver -- I thought Brandon Wood was also a non 40 man roster player. In LV 8 he is currently available as a free agent pick up- is he available to be bid on? As long as he was drafted in that league, then he should be available to be picked up via FAAB. If he wasn't drafted, he first needs to be called up.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Tue May 30, 2006 11:54 am

A Double-A player not on the 40 man roster was allowed to be drafted? What were the circumstances under which that decision was made?

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Tue May 30, 2006 1:13 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

A Double-A player not on the 40 man roster was allowed to be drafted? What were the circumstances under which that decision was made? Blame Greg and Tom!

His name was on the draft sheet -- I think he was pretty highly rated even back in March.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed May 31, 2006 2:18 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

A Double-A player not on the 40 man roster was allowed to be drafted? What were the circumstances under which that decision was made? We added several players who we thought would be added to 40-man rosters before Opening Day, including unsigned veterans like Roger Clemens. The Angels had talked about promoting Wood to the majors and possibly even moving Cabrera to third base. He was drafted in most leagues and in the auction leagues, so I think our owners heard the same reports by mid-March. The fact that he's struggling at Double-A now is irrelevent because he was highly touted in March.

The 40-man rosters will have to be used again in 2007 and we will again add top prospects beforehand to make sure NFBC owners have access to draft all players who have a good shot at making MLB Opening Day rosters. We won't be perfect on all of them, but we'll do our best to get most of them on the list.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed May 31, 2006 12:45 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

The 40-man rosters will have to be used again in 2007 and we will again add top prospects beforehand to make sure NFBC owners have access to draft all players who have a good shot at making MLB Opening Day rosters. We won't be perfect on all of them, but we'll do our best to get most of them on the list. Greg, I was curious about this. If you have to stick to 40-man rosters due to licensing reasons, how are you allowed to make exceptions? On a related note, since you do make exceptions, why not open the draft lists to all players? Considering the innings pitched rule is now in place, wouldn't this make things a lot simpler for all parties involved?

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed May 31, 2006 2:30 pm

I agree with King of Queens.

If possible (and I'd guess if it's possible for 1...it's possible for 1000)...I'd love to stash away a deep sleeper toward the end of the draft...rather than having the "fun" of wasting 400+ FAAB dollars to get the same player.

My guess is Stats and their lazy butts are hard pressed to HAVE to put in all of these minor league players into the system by hand.

This is THE baseball big league...we should be able to taste the minor league water without going off of some magazines cheat sheet...but rather using our own. (as far as minor leaguers with potential for early call up)

~Lance

[ May 31, 2006, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Wed May 31, 2006 5:51 pm

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

My guess is Stats and their lazy butts are hard pressed to HAVE to put in all of these minor league players into the system by hand.

Guess again. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed May 31, 2006 6:46 pm

..please explain.

I see many leagues in the NFBC...and not the same "obscure" players drafted...I believe I have respected your posts before...so please educate me here.

...or do you believe they (Stats) are ready and able...and the NFBC is the one holding this back.

In that case...I'd still like to hear your big story.

~Lance

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:55 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

The 40-man rosters will have to be used again in 2007 and we will again add top prospects beforehand to make sure NFBC owners have access to draft all players who have a good shot at making MLB Opening Day rosters. We won't be perfect on all of them, but we'll do our best to get most of them on the list. Greg, I was curious about this. If you have to stick to 40-man rosters due to licensing reasons, how are you allowed to make exceptions? On a related note, since you do make exceptions, why not open the draft lists to all players? Considering the innings pitched rule is now in place, wouldn't this make things a lot simpler for all parties involved? [/QUOTE]Since we draft more than two weeks before Opening Day, I felt it made sense to add players not on the 40-man rosters to the draft lists since many of those players had a good chance at making the Opening Day rosters. And guys like Clemens deserved to be available for a high-stakes draft like this even though technically he wasn't part of any 40-man roster. Honestly, Glenn, sometimes it's best to ask for forgiveness rather than permission when making decisions, if you know what I mean!

We did allow most of the top prospects to be drafted. Having Cole Hamels and Jered Weaver unavailable on Draft Day seems to have made the in-season FAAB pickups a bit more interesting. And as you know, we did have unlimited pickups last year and there was controversy surrounding that as well. I guess one way to eliminate that would be to increase the minimum innings pitched limit to 900, thus eliminating any possible scenario of filling up most of your roster with Class A pitchers. But some owners like the lower minimum IP and I agree as it allows more strategies on Draft Day.

With every action there is a reaction. The 40-man roster was a reaction to two separate incidents. For 2007, I'm sure it will be in place again.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:18 am

Fair enough, Greg. For obvious reasons, the open drafting would eliminate the problem of you having to police every league. If you're inclined to take on more work, so be it!

However, from what I am gathering here, you seem to be more concerned about a repeat of 2005 where a couple of owners took single-A pitchers who wouldn't see the light of day. If someone wanted to employ a similar strategy, they could very easily do so under the current rules by drafting Rick Ankiel and Tommy Johns 1, 2 and 3.

You also mentioned that you like the current arrangement where owners can have a small number of innings pitched. Different strategies that are brought to the table--so long as they are not an attempt to circumvent the rules--certainly add to the fun. Now, as Lance brought up, some people want to grab that super-sleeper in the 30th round and watch the pick pan out. You've played fantasy sports long enough to know what a great feeling it is to grab a late-round stud. I ask, is there anything wrong with trying to appease these owners as well?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:36 am

I certainly understand what it's like to gamble on that 30th round sleeper. This year that could have been Brandon Wood, Howie Kendrick, Nick Markakis or Stephen Drew. We didn't try to take that away from NFBC owners. It's possible that Jered Weaver would have been picked if we had included him, too. It's impossible to appease everyone, I guess, but for now the 40-man rosters seem to be a necessity for the NFBC.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:09 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

It's impossible to appease everyoneAin't that the truth!!!