Author Topic: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion  (Read 4269 times)

Diamondbacks LL

  • Larry Linke
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #15 on: 25 Nov 2017 6:02:57 PM »
valid point

Larry

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.

Pirates LW

  • Larry Waters
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #16 on: 25 Nov 2017 7:07:35 PM »
Quote
If the league wishes to enhance the quality of winter draft-eligible players, consider changing the qualifying age from 28 to 26 or 27;

As I pulled together the guys for the WD, I was thinking players became eligible who were age 27 on 6/30/17. Before posting the list I realized the cutoff is age 28; I removed the 27 year olds. There were a handful who had to be deleted for this reason. I seem to recall 5 or 6 had to go. Lowering the age to 26 would help.

A second way to increase WD players is to lower the 130AB criteria for hitters. We already get plenty of pitchers with the 50IP limit; we dont have to tinker with that.

How about next year we go with 100PA or 50IP or age 26 by 6/30/18?
Larry Waters
Assistant General Manager, Pittsburgh Pirates


Avoiding disasters with occasional brilliance

Pirates LW

  • Larry Waters
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #17 on: 25 Nov 2017 8:13:10 PM »
I would like to find a way to encourage owners to have players with significant ML playing time of their active roster. Two methods come to mind, we would need to do both:

1) Before each season begins, all players age 26, 27, 28 etc have to pass through waivers in order to be placed on RR or remain on RR for the upcoming season.
  • Any claimed player has to remain on the active roster of the claiming team through the All Star break.
  • Post ASB if his owner wishes to move him to RR, he must again clear waivers.
  • If he is claimed again, the claiming team must keep him active for the remainder of the season.

The same rules would apply during the season for any player age 26+. This stipulation is needed to prevent an owner from merely waiting until the season has begun to move players to RR.

My hunch is waiver claims would rarely happen. The existence of the rule is enough to convince owner that potentially losing a productive 26, 27, 28 year old is not worth the risk to save a year of service time. The useless older guys will still clear waivers.

2) Players younger than 26 who surpassed our league determined criteria for AB (600?), IP (150?) or Games Pitched (50?) should be (IMO) encouraged to be moved to the active roster. The simplest way to achieve this goal is to stipulate the DMBO season after a player surpasses one of the three limits in real life, from that point forward he accrues service time regardless of which roster he is on. Maybe we could put an asterisk after their name to indicate he gets his service time increased every season even if they spent the whole year on RR.

So, if an owner wants to keep his hotshot on RR because he's trying to improve his draft position, even though the player has a nice sets of ZIPS, go right ahead. But the player's service time will still advance a year towards his arbitration years and free agency.

OK, I'm sure this will be followed by critiques as to why this is a terrible idea. Let's have at it.

Larry Waters
Assistant General Manager, Pittsburgh Pirates


Avoiding disasters with occasional brilliance

Pirates LW

  • Larry Waters
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #18 on: 25 Nov 2017 8:24:10 PM »
Since MLB continues to use Competitive Balance picks in it's Summer Draft, my belief is we should consider it here. What if we placed half of the CB picks following the 3rd round and the other half after the 4th round; rather than rounds 1 & 2? The other stipulations previously stated would still be in place:

No team will ever get more than one CB pick in any draft.
CB picks cannot be traded or sold, either individually or in a package.
Teams would find out they received a CB pick just a week or two prior to the Summer Draft.
The number of CB picks in each draft would be 10 or 12 (which is the number MLB uses).
The teams eligible to receive one CB pick fall into at least one of these groups:
1) Teams with one of the 10 lowest salary caps at the start of the current season
2) The 10 teams with the worst W/L record from the previous season

Yes, some teams would be in both groups. Those overlap clubs would get two chances to get one CB pick. That is a feature,not a bug.


Larry Waters
Assistant General Manager, Pittsburgh Pirates


Avoiding disasters with occasional brilliance

Pirates LW

  • Larry Waters
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #19 on: 25 Nov 2017 8:25:04 PM »
We are we voting for awards this year? I hope.
Larry Waters
Assistant General Manager, Pittsburgh Pirates


Avoiding disasters with occasional brilliance

Royals JC (Ret)

  • Jon Carney
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2994
  • Exec Comm
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #20 on: 27 Nov 2017 8:38:59 AM »
We are we voting for awards this year? I hope.
Yes.  It's on my to-do list.
Jon Carney - Kansas City Royals GM

Royals Blog
Trade Block

Royals JC (Ret)

  • Jon Carney
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2994
  • Exec Comm
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #21 on: 27 Nov 2017 8:42:28 AM »
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.

We did that two years ago (or was it three now?).  The current roster setup was the final result of that group's discussion.  Our roster limit will be 53 once rosters open and will continue to increase by one each year until we hit 55, at which point we will form a new committee to discuss how roster management and team building has changed and whether or not further changes should be recommended to the EC.
Jon Carney - Kansas City Royals GM

Royals Blog
Trade Block

Royals JC (Ret)

  • Jon Carney
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2994
  • Exec Comm
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #22 on: 27 Nov 2017 8:46:02 AM »
Given the declining level of participation we’re seeing
Declining from what?

This is the beginning of my 6th year here, and aside from a massive amount of posts by Jonathan when he was here to spur conversation along, I've never seen a huge amount of postings/conversations.  My PMs and trade box are still just as busy as they've ever been.  While some GMs may be doing less than they did a handful of years ago, there is still plenty going on behind the scenes.
Jon Carney - Kansas City Royals GM

Royals Blog
Trade Block

Dodgers DS

  • Doug Sutton
  • EC
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2955
  • Exec Comm (Ret)
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #23 on: 27 Nov 2017 7:47:16 PM »
It's not that Scot doesn't have a point, but it's something I consider more cultural than a demonstration of overall enthusiasm (or lack thereof).  In the early and even at the current mid-point years of the league's existence there seemed to be greater amount of interaction between GMs, although collegiality might be a tad strong of a descriptor. 

It might be a worthwhile exercise for the EC to consider the development of a set of defining features that are deemed indicative, or even necessary to help gauge the "health" and/or vitality of the league.  We haven't had an All-Star Game for a couple years, and thus far there hasn't been any effort to garner award ballots.  Some folks may find that disturbing while others may not, but if we want to have any notion of where we stand in these matters, minimally having points from which we can make some degree of determination based upon common targets is a good idea.

I'll leave the need for measurable objectives for debate by others, and a later date.  If someone wants to develop a plan where "Defining Feature C" needs to be able to demonstrate a 2% increase every three years, knock yourself out.  If anyone wants to tackle that, just remember that there is no shame in not meeting goals, just in not having a corrective action plan should you fail.
« Last Edit: 27 Nov 2017 7:49:39 PM by Dodgers DS »

Blue Jays SH

  • Scot Hughes
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3128
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #24 on: 28 Nov 2017 12:33:40 PM »
Given the declining level of participation we’re seeing
Declining from what?

We haven't had an all-star game in at least a few years.

It's practically December, and we haven't started 2017 awards voting yet. And it seems like with each passing year, we get fewer and fewer votes for stuff like this.

The draft keeps taking longer and longer and longer. The draft used to be a time of excitement; there was a buzz in the air. Now it's more like a slog.

Quote
Draft duration, start to finish, for all 5 round drafts in DMBO history:

2017: 47 days
2016: 42 days
2015: 32 days
2014: 24 days
2013: 18 days
2012: 16 days

I haven't had time to check the logs, but my impression is that we have fewer and fewer trades, both in-season and during the off-season.

In the past, almost every team put in a bid on each tier 1 FA; last year, I'd guess the average was around 10 bids per tier 1 FA.

the most recent Transaction Analysis post was almost 2 years ago.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but GM turnover seems to be increasing as well. We had to replace a GM mid-season this year - when was the last time that happened?

Scot.

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

Pirates LW

  • Larry Waters
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #25 on: 28 Nov 2017 2:41:40 PM »
I have no idea if any of this is true, but these thoughts are present in my head?

Is it possible we are asking too much of the EC? Or we are asking the wrong people? Could we consider getting more people involved? By that I don't mean involved in voting rules changes yea or nay, but being involved in other aspects of keeping the league vibrant.

Could we ask for volunteers to do one thing per season? That could be collecting award ballots? Or fishing out names for All-Star selection? I know we can't force participation, but if what we are doing isn't working, then maybe we could try something else.

I do see what Scot is referencing when I post the Player-of-the-Month six times during the season. This year I think the only comment they generated was in reference to a typo. Disappointing. What do I expect? I don't know. But I know that being the only comment was not it.

I was never a fan of the Transaction Analysis posts. Only because  I was not comfortable with a public take down of another owner's moves; but that's just my opinion. But they did generate lots of comments. Would somebody be willing to revive this?

A few teams do keep us up to date of the state of their franchise. These are appreciated. Could we require each owner do this once per season in order to maintain membership? Just once every 12 months. Is that too much to ask?

Anybody have any other ideas what we could do? Hoping to get some feedback here.
Larry Waters
Assistant General Manager, Pittsburgh Pirates


Avoiding disasters with occasional brilliance

Royals JC (Ret)

  • Jon Carney
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2994
  • Exec Comm
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #26 on: 28 Nov 2017 3:43:42 PM »
Given the declining level of participation we’re seeing
Declining from what?

We haven't had an all-star game in at least a few years.

It's practically December, and we haven't started 2017 awards voting yet. And it seems like with each passing year, we get fewer and fewer votes for stuff like this.

The draft keeps taking longer and longer and longer. The draft used to be a time of excitement; there was a buzz in the air. Now it's more like a slog.

Quote
Draft duration, start to finish, for all 5 round drafts in DMBO history:

2017: 47 days
2016: 42 days
2015: 32 days
2014: 24 days
2013: 18 days
2012: 16 days

I haven't had time to check the logs, but my impression is that we have fewer and fewer trades, both in-season and during the off-season.

In the past, almost every team put in a bid on each tier 1 FA; last year, I'd guess the average was around 10 bids per tier 1 FA.

the most recent Transaction Analysis post was almost 2 years ago.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but GM turnover seems to be increasing as well. We had to replace a GM mid-season this year - when was the last time that happened?

Scot.

There's a lot to parse through here, so I'll go point by point:

1. All-Star game should be back next year.
2. We've been purposefully slow in rolling out the off-season schedule.  There are some changes to the EC structure coming that will be made public soon enough that have to do with this.  We should see Awards Voting soon.
3. I think the draft slowing down is what it is.  I'm still excited by the draft.  I know lots of GMs here who are.  I don't have a sense of whether it's time/draft pool/etc. at this point.

I don't have any qualms with any of the other stuff that you've posted; I think it's all really accurate.
Jon Carney - Kansas City Royals GM

Royals Blog
Trade Block

Royals JC (Ret)

  • Jon Carney
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2994
  • Exec Comm
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #27 on: 28 Nov 2017 3:49:21 PM »
I have no idea if any of this is true, but these thoughts are present in my head?

Is it possible we are asking too much of the EC? Or we are asking the wrong people? Could we consider getting more people involved? By that I don't mean involved in voting rules changes yea or nay, but being involved in other aspects of keeping the league vibrant.

Could we ask for volunteers to do one thing per season? That could be collecting award ballots? Or fishing out names for All-Star selection? I know we can't force participation, but if what we are doing isn't working, then maybe we could try something else.

I do see what Scot is referencing when I post the Player-of-the-Month six times during the season. This year I think the only comment they generated was in reference to a typo. Disappointing. What do I expect? I don't know. But I know that being the only comment was not it.

I was never a fan of the Transaction Analysis posts. Only because  I was not comfortable with a public take down of another owner's moves; but that's just my opinion. But they did generate lots of comments. Would somebody be willing to revive this?

A few teams do keep us up to date of the state of their franchise. These are appreciated. Could we require each owner do this once per season in order to maintain membership? Just once every 12 months. Is that too much to ask?

Anybody have any other ideas what we could do? Hoping to get some feedback here.

I will tell you that I don't think this league asks a ton of the EC in comparison to the two others I've played in.  If anything, we are spoiled with the GM Desk.  It takes a ton less time to run this league than either of the other leagues I've participated in. 

Kris has stepped in to handle minor league rankings and we'll see new ones in the spring, and I think that's a big deal.  If I'd gotten him our summer draft list in excel form more quickly, we'd have had an in season update.

There were a few comments sprinkled in, but nothing consistent, on your player of the month thread.  That said, it was looked at over 650 times this year, so GMs are looking!  I always appreciate seeing them, even if I don't comment.
Jon Carney - Kansas City Royals GM

Royals Blog
Trade Block

Royals JC (Ret)

  • Jon Carney
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2994
  • Exec Comm
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #28 on: 3 Dec 2017 4:07:02 PM »
I would like to request that we discuss locking draft pick trading at the beginning of each round.  For example, no 3rd round picks may be traded once the 3rd round begins.  If we feel as though the draft moves too slowly, this is probably the easiest way to move it along.  There were at least 9 (I stopped counting) posts regarding a pick on the clock this year and the owner willing to move it.
Jon Carney - Kansas City Royals GM

Royals Blog
Trade Block

Diamondbacks LL

  • Larry Linke
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
Re: 2018 Rule Change Proposals - Discussion
« Reply #29 on: 3 Dec 2017 4:56:53 PM »
Sorry Jon but I totally disagree. How many times have guys seen someone who is "dropping" and decide to trade for him when they think he won't make it to their next pick. There is also the instance when the guy you wanted gets sniped right before your pick and you then want to drop down. I haven't researched this and as my memory approaches 60 it is not as good as it used to be but in the "old" days it was generally considered disrespectful if your pick was up and you didn't make it promptly. That no longer seems to be the case. Also, while the draft clock stops on the weekend it never stopped the draft like it seems  to do now.

Larry
D-Backs