Diamond Mind Baseball Organization

Discussion Boards => Official Rules => Topic started by: Pirates Atticus R on 10 Feb 2018 9:06:46 AM

Title: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Pirates Atticus R on 10 Feb 2018 9:06:46 AM
The following are the results of the 2018 Official Rules Review.

The theme for this Official Rules review was once again limiting change in order to continue EC support of the code base without additional complex modifications.

Updates will be made to the Official Rules a.s.a.p. and I will update this thread when they are complete.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2014-2016 Discussion/Implementation Deferred

2017 Proposals Deferred

2018 New Proposals

2018 Wording Corrections/Clarifications

2018 General Improvements/Updates

2018 Player Requests
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Yankees Chris C on 10 Feb 2018 11:28:35 AM
One question/suggestion:

Quote
Passed for 2018 Trial (trial run locking active picks only in the 2018 Summer Draft, assessing how this works, and then discussing as a league ahead of the 2019 Official Rules discussion) Consider locking draft pick trading for a pick that has become active.

How would this apply to trade offers that have been made but not accepted before the pick became active?

I would suggest that those still be permitted, as that would preserve the ability to trade up to select a specific player while preventing teams from holding up the draft while they solicit offers for the current pick. Teams could agree to a deal contingent on Player X being available when the pick comes up, the team holding the pick could make the offer, and the team wanting the pick could accept it when the pick became active if their target was still there. (And the opposite would allow "I'll trade you my pick unless my target is still there" deals as well.)
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Royals Jon C (Ret) on 10 Feb 2018 11:56:09 AM
All trade offers are given a time stamp when each team approves and when the EC approves.  This could be something worth discussing.
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Dodgers Doug S on 10 Feb 2018 12:03:03 PM

2018 General Improvements/Updates
  • GM Muscle Needed (establish new Financial Model Working Group) Review and tweak financial model (specifically, reducing cities population size and/or stadium size increases the payroll for that team, which seems counterintuitive).

That's a rather interesting side-bar comment.  Is the league's desire to eliminate market share from the equation or find a new way to define it?  There certainly could be ways to do the latter.
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Royals Jon C (Ret) on 10 Feb 2018 12:11:46 PM
The side bar comment is a direct pull from a post Scot made, not a statement of policy/direction from the EC.  Apologies for not making that clear.

The EC does feel as though the financial model is...cumbersome.

Taking off my official EC member hat for a moment:

I like that the financial model makes it difficult to "game the system".
I REALLY don't like that the bottom 15 teams are given an EQUAL share of the revenue sharing pie while the top 15 pay in on a sliding scale.

Personally, I'd love to see the bottom mirror the top; not insofar as to say that what #1 pays in #30 gets out, but simply to incorporate the sliding scale on the bottom end of the league.  It seems very wrong to me that the #16 payroll pre-revenue sharing becomes #11 after and that #15 pre-revenue sharing becomes #18 or #19 after.

I haven't dug into any of the other factors nearly as much, but I've had a couple members PM me to volunteer their time and expertise with excel and excel formula usage.
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Yankees Chris C on 10 Feb 2018 12:21:27 PM
All trade offers are given a time stamp when each team approves and when the EC approves.  This could be something worth discussing.

It's also a potentially simple technical implementation: you could simply flag a pick as ineligible to be added to a trade once it is active without needing to do anything else. I assume there is some such flag already in place for used picks, so it may be a trivial effort to tweak that.
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Diamondbacks Larry L (Ret) on 10 Feb 2018 12:36:36 PM
First I want to thank the EC for all their hard  work, it is truly a thankless job. That being said, I really don't understand the reasoning behind not allowing someone on the draft clock to trade their pick. One of the two most exciting times in the league and the EC takes a measure to limit GM's ability "to have fun". I can take 24 hours to make a selection but you are now dictating how I spend my 24 hours. So we are now expected to trade for a pick hoping that our guy is there. Or the famous "contingent on him being there". I go back to where we didn't have smart phones and we had the draft. If the duration of the draft is such a problem I propose taking away the weekend exception to the draft. What if I am on the clock and I have no intention of shopping the pick and somebody offers me next years 2nd rounder for the current 3rd round selection. This might be the most ridiculous thing I have heard in my 12 years here.

Could somebody on the EC explain to me what the problem is with the draft in its current format and how not being allowed to trade a pick during your 24 hour window will alleviate that problem.

Larry
D-Backs
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Blue Jays Scot H on 10 Feb 2018 12:46:58 PM

2018 General Improvements/Updates
  • GM Muscle Needed (establish new Financial Model Working Group) Review and tweak financial model (specifically, reducing cities population size and/or stadium size increases the payroll for that team, which seems counterintuitive).

That's a rather interesting side-bar comment.  Is the league's desire to eliminate market share from the equation or find a new way to define it?  There certainly could be ways to do the latter.

In the current model, increasing the population of a city the team is based in or increasing the size of the home stadium REDUCES the team's payroll; reducing population or stadium size INCREASES payroll. Eliminating market and stadium size from the model would be an improvement on what we have now, but I'd be fine with just redefining it.

Scot.
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Blue Jays Scot H on 10 Feb 2018 12:52:50 PM
The side bar comment is a direct pull from a post Scot made, not a statement of policy/direction from the EC.  Apologies for not making that clear.

The EC does feel as though the financial model is...cumbersome.

Taking off my official EC member hat for a moment:

I like that the financial model makes it difficult to "game the system".
I REALLY don't like that the bottom 15 teams are given an EQUAL share of the revenue sharing pie while the top 15 pay in on a sliding scale.

Personally, I'd love to see the bottom mirror the top; not insofar as to say that what #1 pays in #30 gets out, but simply to incorporate the sliding scale on the bottom end of the league.  It seems very wrong to me that the #16 payroll pre-revenue sharing becomes #11 after and that #15 pre-revenue sharing becomes #18 or #19 after.

I haven't dug into any of the other factors nearly as much, but I've had a couple members PM me to volunteer their time and expertise with excel and excel formula usage.

I'd like to see a system that calculates revenue for every team (however that is done), then puts a percentage of each team's calculated revenue in a central pool, which is then distributed evenly to all 30 teams. Such a system would make it impossible for one team to leapfrog another team in payroll, wouldn't affect the middle teams much, but would put a brake on the top revenue teams and give a big hand to the small revenue teams. And it's simple - you have 1 parameter that needs to be fixed/adjusted.

Scot.
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Yankees Chris C on 10 Feb 2018 1:18:29 PM
I'd like to see a system that calculates revenue for every team (however that is done), then puts a percentage of each team's calculated revenue in a central pool, which is then distributed evenly to all 30 teams. Such a system would make it impossible for one team to leapfrog another team in payroll, wouldn't affect the middle teams much, but would put a brake on the top revenue teams and give a big hand to the small revenue teams. And it's simple - you have 1 parameter that needs to be fixed/adjusted.

Scot.

If we have variable and unpredictably changing base revenue (which seems to be a given), something like this would be my preference as well.

As for what percent goes into the kitty, I vote for 100%.  8)
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Pirates Atticus R on 10 Feb 2018 1:31:48 PM
I believe I have accurately updated the Official Rules to reflect the changes. Feel free to flag if I mucked something up or missed something. You won't hurt my feelings.
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Blue Jays Scot H on 10 Feb 2018 2:11:04 PM
I'd like to see a system that calculates revenue for every team (however that is done), then puts a percentage of each team's calculated revenue in a central pool, which is then distributed evenly to all 30 teams. Such a system would make it impossible for one team to leapfrog another team in payroll, wouldn't affect the middle teams much, but would put a brake on the top revenue teams and give a big hand to the small revenue teams. And it's simple - you have 1 parameter that needs to be fixed/adjusted.

Scot.

If we have variable and unpredictably changing base revenue (which seems to be a given), something like this would be my preference as well.

As for what percent goes into the kitty, I vote for 100%.  8)

100% would greatly simplify things, and level the playing field. I wonder what it would do to league-wide competitiveness, though, if there’s no reward for success or punishment for failure. That might be more than balanced by a level playing field, though.
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Royals Jon C (Ret) on 10 Feb 2018 3:20:41 PM
First I want to thank the EC for all their hard  work, it is truly a thankless job. That being said, I really don't understand the reasoning behind not allowing someone on the draft clock to trade their pick. One of the two most exciting times in the league and the EC takes a measure to limit GM's ability "to have fun". I can take 24 hours to make a selection but you are now dictating how I spend my 24 hours. So we are now expected to trade for a pick hoping that our guy is there. Or the famous "contingent on him being there". I go back to where we didn't have smart phones and we had the draft. If the duration of the draft is such a problem I propose taking away the weekend exception to the draft. What if I am on the clock and I have no intention of shopping the pick and somebody offers me next years 2nd rounder for the current 3rd round selection. This might be the most ridiculous thing I have heard in my 12 years here.

Could somebody on the EC explain to me what the problem is with the draft in its current format and how not being allowed to trade a pick during your 24 hour window will alleviate that problem.

Larry
D-Backs

There were 15 trades involving only picks or picks/cash last year during the draft.  That's an average of 3 per round.

There were at least 15 mentions in the summer draft thread about a specific pick being available.  There were at least 17 posts on our trade forum about specific picks.

There is a small, but vocal, group of GMs who continue to express frustration that the draft "drags on".

All this test run does is allow us to see if locking picks makes things go any faster.  If not, no need to keep it.  If it does, then we must have a conversation about whether the trading restriction is worth the speed gained.

I have personally never had an issue with how long the draft goes.  I do tend to think that GMs should plan ahead and that we have some who are quite reactionary when their pick comes up.

Somewhat related, it's interesting to me that you think FA bid wars should happen quickly but that this is a "ridiculous" change.

Here is a post you made in 2016 regarding the pace of the draft:
Quote
Am I the only GM in this league  that is getting the feeling that a majority of the GM's don't care much about the draft. While I understand that some GM's have a good reason for a delayed pick as real life gets in the way but  there are many times I see that a GM has checked in multiple times while his pick is on the clock and not made a selection. We are all supposed to be friends in this league and if your pick is up and you are dragging it out I want you to remember that there is someone "on deck" and someone else on "double deck" that is waiting on you.

It's quite possible that GMs were looking to move the pick.  It's also possible they weren't sure who to select, etc., but to the EC, this felt like a trial run worth taking.  This may not improve draft speed at all (and, again, I'm fine with the pace, but some aren't and would like to see change).
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Diamondbacks Larry L (Ret) on 10 Feb 2018 3:47:29 PM
Apparently I am the only one who opposes this ruling. I must be getting cranky in my old age. I am the oldest guy in my hockey league, is anyone over 58 here ?

Larry
D-backs
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Royals Jon C (Ret) on 10 Feb 2018 3:54:28 PM
Apparently I am the only one who opposes this ruling. I must be getting cranky in my old age. I am the oldest guy in my hockey league, is anyone over 58 here ?

Larry
D-backs

You aren't the only one.  But not everything has to be unanimous and black/white in the world.  It's a one year trial.  If it fails, we'll address it in the winter meetings.
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Blue Jays Scot H on 10 Feb 2018 4:05:05 PM
As someone who holds roughly half of the picks in the upcoming draft, I’m fine with trying the “no trading picks on the clock” thing. I’m curious to see what impact it has.

Scot.
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Yankees Chris C on 10 Feb 2018 4:32:19 PM
As someone who holds roughly half of the picks in the upcoming draft, I’m fine with trying the “no trading picks on the clock” thing. I’m curious to see what impact it has.

I think it means you and I race to make picks before the other can make trades, since I think I own the other half...  ;D
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Diamondbacks Larry L (Ret) on 10 Feb 2018 4:33:09 PM
Hey, I still have 2.

Larry
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Royals Jon C (Ret) on 10 Feb 2018 9:53:12 PM
Of current importance!

The 53 man roster limit WILL BE ENFORCED during Free Agency.  You can expect an obscene amount of PMs from EC members if you hit 54 and don't waive/DFA/trade someone that morning. :)

You're welcome!
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Dodgers Doug S on 11 Feb 2018 11:43:10 PM
All trade offers are given a time stamp when each team approves and when the EC approves.  This could be something worth discussing.

This past year may have marked the first time that I didn't publicly display my displeasure with GMs who took a long amount of time to select, so put me into that referenced minority of members who frequently is about to pop a vein in my forehead over others' lack of attention or preparedness.  Trades of an active pick generally only get on my nerves when the marketing campaign begins once the GM with the active pick realizes (and that sometimes needs to be prefaced with "finally") his pick is live.

On the other hand, I've done a ton of draft pick trading during the summer draft, some of which have involved active picks.  However, when I was moving an active pick it was made as clear as possible that if the other GM didn't accept my offer within "x" minutes, the Dodgers would select the highest player on my board.

It's too late for a rule change, but I'm going to propose an administrative practice for the EC.  If, before a pick was actively on the clock the GM with ownership publicly posted its availability, and received a satisfactory offer noting it was contingent upon the availability of a certain (but not necessarily identified) player.  The GM who made the offer could send an email to the league identifying the player in question.

Whichever EC member checked the league mailbox could post in the draft comments section that the prior selection had been made once it was validated, stating the two teams had no more than "y" minutes to mutually agree to the trade through the interface.  The length of time that sticks in my head for the grace period is 30 minutes, but that would be an EC decision.

It's just a thought, and likely could use some tweaking, but it does offer a comprimise of an attempt to expedite the draft without removing all flexibility of trading an active selection.  There are some rough edges to the idea, and the EC may not opt to include the practice.  If so, I'll deal with the draft either way.
Title: Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
Post by: Diamondbacks Larry L (Ret) on 12 Feb 2018 8:32:12 AM
Doug is one of the old timers I previously mentioned and I considered him a "mentor" when I joined. I valued his advice then and still value it now. Much to Bobby's chagrin I am still complaining about the draft pick ruling. I can't help but think the EC is punishing the entire group of GM's for the inactions of a few. A simple warning after a draft that the EC is considering  a radical change to the draft if the length of the draft didn't improve could have spurred a change, or at the very least convinced the GM's to police ourselves.

I haven't seen or know of any documentation that the length of the draft is because someone was attempting to move a pick. On the contrary, my rude search reveals four instances last year when a person did not make a pick in the allotted 24 hour time slot.

June 16 - June 17  28 hours  Friday into Saturday
June 24 - June 26  45 hours  Friday into Sunday
July 18 - July 19    25 hours  Tuesday into Wednesday
July 21 - July 24    61 hours  Friday into Monday

According to the current rules only one instance was a violation and that was by 1 hour. Of these four instances it was never the same GM twice. I know my frustration was when a pick isn't made in what appears to be two calendar days.

I just don't understand how if my pick comes up on a Friday morning that I have 72 hours to make a pick but allowing someone a limited amount of time (I would propose 8 hours because some people work for a living) is delaying the draft. I agree with Doug's suggestion that someone's desire to move up or trade a pick should be publicized prior to  that pick being on the clock. The one point I disagree with is advising the EC of the name of  a targeted player. I know if I was on the EC I wouldn't want that on me in case I had interest in that player. 

Unlike Doug's statement that it is to late to change the rule I disagree. The EC has until early June to tweak this rule in one form or another.

Tier 1 has started,yeah

Larry
D-Backs
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal