Author Topic: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion  (Read 4270 times)

Pirates AR

  • Atticus Ryan
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3682
  • Exec Comm
    • A Personal Journey Through Time
2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« on: 14 Nov 2017 5:56:33 AM »
The EC will begin the annual Official Rules review in the next couple of weeks.

Feel free to share your ideas, thoughts, and proposals regarding changes/areas for review. EC members may or may not get involved in discussion, since we use these threads as a sounding board for league positions and not necessarily to air our own views.

Please use this thread to both submit and discuss any ideas you may have.

Pertinent information from last year can be found here: http://dmbo.net/smf/index.php?topic=5589.0
Atticus Ryan
General Manager, Pittsburgh Pirates
Site Administrator (SimplePortal and SMF)

Ne Ruinis, Aliquando Prosperum Inmensa

Royals JC (Ret)

  • Jon Carney
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2994
  • Exec Comm
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #1 on: 17 Nov 2017 10:24:51 AM »
My biggest request this year is that we have a discussion about how we handle IFA vs. International amateurs.  I'd like to discuss the possibility of adding a 3rd draft (or separate FA period?) to the league that is focused entirely on the international amateur (IA) market.  I think we've done a fantastic job differentiating IFA from IA recently and getting IFA paid appropriately in the league.  I'd like to look into whether we are doing as good a job as we can with the IA players in terms of protecting our organizations' best long-term interests while balancing the relative upside many of our GMs view in those players.  No real proposal at this time from me...just throwing it out there to gauge how other GMs feel on this topic!
Jon Carney - Kansas City Royals GM

Royals Blog
Trade Block

Blue Jays SH

  • Scot Hughes
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3128
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #2 on: 17 Nov 2017 12:06:54 PM »
My biggest request this year is that we have a discussion about how we handle IFA vs. International amateurs.  I'd like to discuss the possibility of adding a 3rd draft (or separate FA period?) to the league that is focused entirely on the international amateur (IA) market.  I think we've done a fantastic job differentiating IFA from IA recently and getting IFA paid appropriately in the league.  I'd like to look into whether we are doing as good a job as we can with the IA players in terms of protecting our organizations' best long-term interests while balancing the relative upside many of our GMs view in those players.  No real proposal at this time from me...just throwing it out there to gauge how other GMs feel on this topic!

I'm actually fine with how we handle things now - if the player is covered by the international bonus restrictions, he goes into our draft; if he's not, he's a FA. I don't know that there's a ton of value in creating a third system for them.

Scot.
AL East champion 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2016
AL Champion 2003, 2004, 2006
WS champion 2004, 2006

Diamondbacks LL

  • Larry Linke
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #3 on: 17 Nov 2017 12:45:17 PM »
I like how we handle the draft now.

Larry
Arizona

Diamondbacks LL

  • Larry Linke
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #4 on: 17 Nov 2017 12:51:46 PM »
What I would like to see that if an international free agent signs for a certain amount of dollars he automatically goes into the Tier 1 draft.

Larry

Diamondbacks LL

  • Larry Linke
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #5 on: 17 Nov 2017 1:16:01 PM »
Last year I had a problem with the playoffs and roster management. Two games were being simmed at a time and during games 5 and 6  of a series I had my number # 1 starter, Cole Hamels injured during game 5. I clinched the series during game 6 so I wasn't notified of the injury until the series was over. Our current playoffs rules state that an injured player must miss the remainder of the current series and the following series. Hamels' injury was long enough that he had to miss the entire National League Championship Series and then a couple of days of the World Series if I made it that far. Any GM with an ounce of common sense would have disabled Hamels after Game 5. Once advised of the injury I immediately plead my "common sense" defense to the EC and a member of the EC agreed. The other part of my argument was he did miss Game 6 of the current series and should be able to be disabled for just the current upcoming series. Two hours before the start of the League Championship Series that member of the EC was over ruled by another member of the EC. I requested that all members of the EC be involved in the decision. Later that day without any explanation my motion was denied and I was forced to play our League Championship Series short a man through no fault of my own.

I feel that if the EC is going to be that short sighted with injuries that all playoff games should be simmed one game at a time. Trust me, I know how much of a hassle that can be but I feel I was penalized by a very strict and unfair interpretation of the rules. I would welcome an explanation why the EC ruled as they did.

Larry
Arizona

 

Giants SK

  • Shawn Kelly
  • Cleanup Hitter
  • ****
  • Posts: 245
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #6 on: 21 Nov 2017 4:37:46 PM »
Not sure where to put this/ask this. What happens if Jung ho Kangs visa issues cause him to not get a projection? Does the contract get voided? ;)

Pirates AR

  • Atticus Ryan
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3682
  • Exec Comm
    • A Personal Journey Through Time
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #7 on: 24 Nov 2017 4:05:07 PM »
I captured the suggestions, etc. posted so far. Anyone else want to post or email things for the EC to consider this offseason?
Atticus Ryan
General Manager, Pittsburgh Pirates
Site Administrator (SimplePortal and SMF)

Ne Ruinis, Aliquando Prosperum Inmensa

Diamondbacks LL

  • Larry Linke
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #8 on: 24 Nov 2017 4:20:26 PM »
I have always wanted some form of the Rule V draft where you have to keep the guy on your roster all year.

Suggestion 1  All players not selected in our winter draft become eligible for our Rule V draft.

Suggestion 2  Since there are always lists available of Rule V eligible players in the Major Leagues, any player on one of these lists who is currently not on a DMBO roster is eligible for our Rule V draft. The only potential problem would be that some players on those lists won't have projections for the season

Thanks to the EC for all you guys do

Larry
Arizona

Dodgers DS

  • Doug Sutton
  • EC
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2955
  • Exec Comm (Ret)
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #9 on: 25 Nov 2017 1:53:59 PM »
This has been raised before, but some form of roster management enhancement that at least moderately mirrored MLB’s player designation as being part of a 40-man roster could add some nice complexity to the GM portion of each our “jobs.”  As it stands (and strictly my opinion), we each spend more time with field manager and scouting department duties than that of general manager. 

Currently, there is no differential from the 25-man roster and reserve roster total player count aside from the point the team’s salary debt that counts against the cap for all AE-eligible players and those who signed FA contracts, regardless of roster assignment.

Features of the MLB system that seem to be transferable without significant modification are:
A) Only players that are on the 40-man roster are eligible for service on the 25-man active roster.  If a MLB team wishes to promote a player not assigned to the 40-man roster to the big team, he can only replace another player who has been waived (and subject to claims throughout the league).

B) If a player on the 40-man roster of “Team A” is traded to “Team B”, he is automatically assigned the same 40-man roster designation on the new team.

C) Players aged 18 and who sign a contract before June 5 must be promoted to the 40-man roster within five years, and those signing at 19 or older must reach that designation within four years.  Otherwise, in the MLB system this is where the Rule 5 draft comes into play, and the point where I suggest that the EC determine which option to select between: 
1) A DMBO Rule 5 draft similar to the MLB version;
2) Simple use of the existing waiver system; or
3) Moving those players not promoted into their team’s 40-man roster into the pool of players eligible for the following winter draft.

Just something to chew on.

Diamondbacks LL

  • Larry Linke
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #10 on: 25 Nov 2017 2:18:10 PM »
I was under the impression that a group was going to be formed to discuss a 40 man roster, which I am in favor off.

Another thing I brought up last year. We have players on our reserve lists with extensive major league time who are "stashed" on our reserve lists. I only checked a couple of teams from the  A L East and you have Drew Smyly with over 500 innings and Brandon Drury with over 950 at bats. I would like to see a wording change that states if a pitching accumulates a certain amount of innings (starters) or games (relief pitchers) they must have to clear waivers before being assigned to the reserve list. I would also like an at bat limit for batters.

I realize this would be kind of radical and wouldn't be opposed if a player had to exceed a limit in two successive seasons before needing to clear waivers

Larry
D-Backs

Dodgers DS

  • Doug Sutton
  • EC
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2955
  • Exec Comm (Ret)
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #11 on: 25 Nov 2017 2:58:46 PM »
If the league wishes to enhance the quality of winter draft-eligible players, consider changing the qualifying age from 28 to 26 or 27; OR, replace the age qualifier with any player never drafted by a DMBO team, but eligible for the current or prior MLB Rule 5 draft.

I would suggest that making either move should be accompanied with taking the responsibility for identifying players as eligible off of the EC and putting it on the individual team GMs.  If a selected player was ineligible, the team could still get a replacement pick at the end of the draft.  I get that some GMs feel they don't have time, but don't consider it a great approach to dump 85-99% of the work off onto one or two EC members.
« Last Edit: 25 Nov 2017 3:05:56 PM by Dodgers DS »

Diamondbacks LL

  • Larry Linke
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #12 on: 25 Nov 2017 3:09:45 PM »
I agree that a select few do the majority of the work for the league and I thank them for that. Another alternative for our Winter Draft is to start a list the day after our summer draft ends so people could add names throughout the second half of our season.

Larry

Blue Jays SH

  • Scot Hughes
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3128
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #13 on: 25 Nov 2017 4:09:01 PM »
The last time we talked about us adding a 40 man roster to the league, the vast majority of the GMs were against the additional complexity. Given the declining level of participation we’re seeing, I think adding complexity would be a huge mistake that would probably be the end of the league.

Scot.
AL East champion 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2016
AL Champion 2003, 2004, 2006
WS champion 2004, 2006

Dodgers DS

  • Doug Sutton
  • EC
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2955
  • Exec Comm (Ret)
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #14 on: 25 Nov 2017 4:28:02 PM »
A year ago the EC announced the intended formation of a committee to weigh roster matters, including a 40-man roster.  If that group reported and I missed it, that's my fault, but I'm uncertain of the metric to determine participation.