Back to Boards

Age vs rank


Age vs rank

What’s everyone’s thought on age vs rank promotion to the major league roster?

I personally feel rank is far more important than the age of the the player. Seems like “tanking” to be able to keep a 99 rank player in your minors for a few seasons, just so you can control him throughout his prime

Re: Age vs rank

Very nuanced question, because there are a lot of different factors. If the league is good, they'll have measures addressing this issue.

If I'm competing, I'll put the obviously better guy in the Majors, no questions.

If I'm not, sometimes I'll leave a guy in the minors for extra control, if such a thing is allowed by the league.

However, if the league uses PC contracts and raises, sometimes I'll just sign a guy at $4 or $5 and play them to avoid the dreaded $2 raise.

Re: Age vs rank

So in a league that only has a couple of elite players come into the draft every year. It’s not a deep draft, so a top 3 pick could get a future HOF at a 90rk +, while the 10th pick might get a 70 - 80rk player, that is also a couple years older. I’m talking Pujols and M Cabrera vs Coming into the league at 19/20yr old vs 24yr A Rios, based off career averages.

Then for that team to proceed to just let those players sit in the minors year a after year until they have built a virtual all decade team. This isn’t about middle tier players waiting to promote, this is about elite, MVP type players just stashing is the minors.

We would all like to build these all star teams, but the nature of competition shouldn’t allow it. For the Yankees to build the all star teams they did they had to do it through FA.

This is about fairness, pure and simple.

Re: Re: Age vs rank

Personally, I will consider employing this tactic if the league allows it. Some may think it's okay; others may not. If the majority disapproves of the tactic, it's up to the commish to change the rules.

Just shows the dichotomy between wanting to win a ring in a league vs. wanting to field the best team every season. And it's an interesting debate.

Re: Age vs rank

Okay so if anybody is like me, one of the big draws to Baseball is the stats. Imagine being one of these players and knowing you missed out on breaking records cause your GM didn’t promote you even though you could have been putting up MVP type numbers.

Another example is in real life, teams have to sell tickets and GM’s have to worry about their jobs. You think the owners are gonna keep around a GM who doesn’t sell any tickets because he refuses to promote players who are ready for the major league level? No your forced to promote the player to protect your Job and prove you know what your doing. Nor does a team get to control a player for first 10 years of his career in real life. And if you kept a player in the minors for longing than he should be, you created some animosity, and he probably not gonna resign with that team.

This is not about strategy, this is a question of fairness and league parity.

The question is do you think it should be based off rank or age for forced promotion to the Major league roster?

Re: Re: Age vs rank

The entire concept is in idiotic in my opinion, not playing should not prevent a guy from aging, time doesn't stand still.

Re: Age vs rank

I think it should be age, for certain reasons I have outlined above.

Furthermore, even if I took the other viewpoint, I don't think rank is a good determinator of when someone should be promoted.