Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Four Proposals for BRASS

It is nearing that time when we ponder making changes to BRASS. Here are four changes I intend to present to the membership for approval:

1. Remove the Home/Road Discrepancy Program

This anachronism has lingered well into the CM-only BRASS experience we enjoy currently. The rule was designed when we all exchanged written instructions for teams and home managers could spend their game playing time exhausting loopholes in their opponents instructions to jack up their home wins rather than engaging in a baseball game. True, HAL has his blind spots as well, but he suffers from the same blindness in all BRASS parks. Time for this one to go, guys.

2. No Trade Contracts

This is one I continually harp on and I will again this offseason. It is completely illogical that a team can ink a player to a NT contract and then leave him unprotected for the draft. If selected, the player suffers the same result of being traded yet the team who loses the player doesn't have to pay the NT penalty! Let us make it a stipulation of the NT contract that the player MUST be on the 30-man protected roster a team submits to the draft co-ordinator.

3. Drafted Veterans

I would like to suggest that any veteran taken in the BRASS draft be subject immediately to signing a U contract and not a Y contract. Last year I drafted Eric Hinske. He's on a Y contract for me. I say we give our drafted vets a little extra for having been around the BRASS block already. Therefore, I propose that if a draftee, in a prior MLB season, had surpassed the threshold in which a player advances from MO to Y1 status, that said player can only be signed to a U contract. Give teams seven days from the declared end of the draft to determine how long of a U contract they wish to offer to the draftee.

4. Lower the Y1 Threshold

These are too high. BRASS sets the threshold at 130 PA and 40 IP. In BRASSWORLD we use 100 PA and 30 IP. I created these limits along with Corey for BW. The idea was that the number should be an amount that a player could reasonably accrue with full-time play in one month. [Frankly, I also think there should be a caveat for 'relief-only' pitchers and that number to fall to 25 for them, but for simplicity will advocate the current BW threshold.] For example: I have Tyler Johnson. Last year Tyler Johnson threw 35 innings. This past MLB season he made it up to 38. As we all know, he's a young LOOGY. I could easily use a LOOGY's innings over more months than just one in BRASS. I propose we drop these numbers down and/or allow managers to voluntarily move a player to Y status so we can use them.

1 Swings of the bat:

Rex Little said...

1. I'm inclined to agree; I was never crazy about the discrepancy program even in the old days. One effect it has is to favor a team which has players sharing one or more positions over one which has a set lineup, because they can play their better guys in road games. There's no reason we should want to subsidize one kind of team at the expense of another type.

2. I didn't realize we now allow NT players to be cut. (I've never given out an NT contract.) I would amend Mark's proposal to say that an NT player may be cut, but if he is not reclaimed by his original team they have to pay the NT penalty.

3. I'm against this one. I like it that all players in the draft pool (other than cuts) have the same status. Suppose there was a pitcher in the draft who had a 40-inning season in 2002, then had TJ surgery and a couple other injuries. He finally got healthy last July and came up to the majors for 10 innings in September. Suppose you're a recent fan who wasn't following baseball in 2002. How would you like to draft the guy, then find out you had to give him a U contract?

4. Definitely agree. I'd go further: if a manager wants to move a player from M0 to Y1 status, he should be able to do so regardless of playing time.