Hey Matt - thanks for the insights. I'll put your vote down as 'no' for the moment, as you seem to consistently argue in that direction... by all means let me know if that's not right.
Matt's description is technically accurate, insofar as the order of picks is concerned. This order of picks is unchanged, however, whether you adopt my proposal or reject it. I believe that this arrangement of picks is a fair one, as the first 5-10 picks in the draft will have keeper-level players available that were not kept by other teams... a much higher rate of return than that available to the top waiver selections.
I think there are some consequences to the proposal's passage or failure which haven't been examined. A few of them:
* Strasberg and possibly Heyward will still be available in the draft. This proposal doesn't take ALL top minor leaguers out of the draft... Y! apparently still includes a couple marquee names (and, eventually, all projected MLB starters) in the main event.
* Most waiver picks aren't spent on marquee keeper-level players, but rather picking up other teams' drops (ill-advised or not), new closer candidates, and so forth. Pulling Alvarez out of the draft doesn't mean that Matt or I or another top team automatically get him.
* Let's say Strasberg is undrafted, and hdboc wants him. He has to hold on to that pick all year until Stephen is called up. He can't put in waiver claims on those dropped players and new closer candidates ALL YEAR for fear of 'wasting' the pick. Again, there is a cost to teams with the top claim that is associated with having a high waiver position.
* Furthermore... if more talent is in the waiver pool over the course of the year... more teams will get a real benefit from the waiver picks they have. More quality Civics and closer candidates will trickle down to the 10-12 teams, who last year had little hope to translate a waiver pick into anything significant. So I don't think that the sole benefit here goes to the top waiver teams.
* As a corollary... if all potential top prospects are in the draft... that just pushes other good keeper-quality players down to the 'top teams' from the previous year, as established quality guys are passed over in favor of Alvarez-types. NOT passing this rule has a consequence which favors the 'top teams' as well.
* Finally, I *am* more opposed to the realization that ANY quality prospect talent in our league currently has to be hoarded away all year if a manager wants to get it. If Pedro Alvarez is going to be a difference maker, well and good... but why should we in a MAJOR-league fantasy game have to hoard away MINOR leaguers to have any shot at upside talent? You could roster Alvarez from opening to closing day, he never gets called up, and he's not one of your top-6 keepers... what then? You wasted a roster spot all year, handicapping yourself just to have a SHOT at a future talent. At least when you draft players that don't pan out, they're generally PLAYING. It just doesn't seem like the spirit of the game we're playing... unlike dynasty, we don't have a minor league system, so why should we be forced to be well-versed on minor leaguers before they're even part of the game we're playing?
Good discussion, and I do think there are good points on both sides of this argument. I'm sure some can be made even in response to these bullet points I raise - I'm sure I don't see all sides of the conversation clearly. I don't
think this is a 'huge' issue, and the league is going to be great whether the proposal passes or fails. I do continue to hope for its passage though, because I think that revitalizing the waiver system will make the league more fun.