[IBL] Thought about defensive eligibilty

[Andrew Selder]

First of all, I know that I’m bringing this up now because I’m going to be screwed by it next year :)

While I understand the rationale behind the current system, I think we’ve all been screwed by this at some point. A player with lots of experience at a non-premium defensive position (1b, corner of) signs with a team and for what ever reason the team choose to use him as a DH or some other non-premium position and all of a sudden an IBL team has to make drastic moves to cover a play who in IBL land suddenly can’t play the position any more.

I think Kendrys Morales is a good example. He has played 370 games at 1b, and signs with the Royals. I certainly see why the Royals choose to play Hosmer at 1b over Morales, but if Hosmer got hurt the Royals could run Morales out there full time if needed . However in the IBL, Morales no longer has the ability to play FT, even if the IBL team has a need.

Similar situation for Trumbo with me, another guy with 350+ career games at 1b and due to ARI  having Goldschmidt, they’re forced to find another spot for Trumbo. But in IBL terms, it’s as if he suddenly forgot how to play his primary position.

It’s really frustration to have 2 guys with a combine total of over 720 games at 1b, and looking at have to trade both of them so I can find someone who can start full time at 1b for me next year.

I know this gets messy as certain defensive shift are really due to the fact that the player can’t hack it there any more (cf’s moving to corners as they age and slow, c’s moving to 1b, middle infielders moving to the corners), but at certain positions (1b especially), whether or not someone is eligible, has much less to do with ability to play the position and things outside the player’s control.

I’d love to hear what others think about this.

Andrew