Author Topic: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results  (Read 319 times)

Pirates AR

  • Atticus Ryan
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3560
  • Exec Comm
    • A Personal Journey Through Time
2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« 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
  • Confirmed (assessment/rollout @ 55-man rosters) Consider establishing a Working Group to devise a strategy for larger rosters with actual options, 40-man rosters, and Rule 5 implementation consistent with the vision of the league (somewhat realistic, not too complicated to implement or work with, and increases the fun of the league as a whole).

2017 Proposals Deferred
  • Not Passed (EC voted not to change anything due to the complexity of changing GM Desk code) For waivers, consider either changing irrevocable waivers or adding a third type of waivers such that the waived player is automatically released after the waiver period if not claimed (this would automatically apply to any player designated for assignment)

2018 New Proposals
  • Passed (details pending) Consider closing loophole in Official Rules V.A to ensure all clubs stay under an overall maximum number of players even during the offseason
  • Passed (update will be made as follows: “Any player with a guaranteed contract (4th through Full) on the Reserve Roster, without regard for active roster usage during the season, is available for the playoffs as long as the player being replaced is placed on the Disabled List.”) Review this September 1 player eligibility point since it has come up two seasons in a row (Arizona then Minnesota)
  • Not Passed (retain current system) Consider how IFA vs. international amateurs are handled, including possibly adding third draft or separate free agent period focused entirely on the international amateur market
  • Not Passed (retain current system) Consider whether an international free agent who signs for more than a certain amount should automatically become a Tier 1 free agent.
  • Already Covered (EC believes this is already covered by current rules) What happens if an international player is not granted a visa (e.g. Jung Ho Kang) and received no ZiPS projection?
  • Deferred (until 55-man rosters) Consider whether the league should implement a Rule V draft (see post for specific proposals).
  • Deferred (until 55-man rosters) Consider a proposed 40-man roster mechanism to enhance the GM aspects of the league during the season (see this post for specific proposal)
  • Passed (new requirements will be age 26 at any point during the season and 100 PA and 30 IP) Consider whether to enhance the quality of winter draft-eligible players by either changing the qualifying age from 28 to 26 or 27 or lowering the cutoff criteria to 100 PA or 50 IP or age 26 by June 30 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.
  • Deferred Consider whether other ways to encourage GMs to have players with significant ML playing time on their active roster. Two options have been proposed in this post). Vote on each proposal separately.
  • Deferred Consider whether to implement competitive balance picks in the Summer Draft (the specific mechanism can be determined in a separate activity if there is a desire to implement them).
  • Not Passed Consider locking draft pick trading at the beginning of each round.
  • 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.
  • Not Passed Consider making all prospects who are "---" after their age 28 season automatic minor league free agents.
  • Not Passed Consider a rule that makes very large one-year deals less desirable (e.g. a simplistic solution would be to make a one-year contract over $20m come with a full no trade clause).
  • Not Passed Consider restoring a rule that states a signed free agent cannot be traded until after the first year of his deal.
  • Not Passed (the person who raised this is encouraged to contact the EC again to join Arbitration Working Group the to assess and update information used for these calculations) Consider changing the way LTCs are calculated to a system more aligned with the current arbitration calculations

2018 Wording Corrections/Clarifications
  • No Change (The EC determined the current Official Rules are sufficient.) Clarify Summer Draft eligibility wording (see this thread for details)

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).
  • GM Muscle Needed (establish new LTC Working Group) Official Rules V.H.9.b needs to be updated. Establish Working Group to tackle the following: 1. Determine if updates are needed to the formulae for calculating LTC values while keeping in mind both realistic LTC values and the desire for FA classes containing a depth of players with value; 2. Determine whether a limit on LTC signings is needed, both in a yearly sense and when considering a maximum per organization; 3. If the Working Group feels drastic changes are needed, recommendations need to be made to the EC upon the conclusion of the season.

2018 Player Requests
  • Decision: Tier 1 Free Agent Vote on status of Ohtani as it pertains to free agency or draft eligibility.
Atticus Ryan
General Manager, Pittsburgh Pirates
Site Administrator (SimplePortal and SMF)

Ne Ruinis, Aliquando Prosperum Inmensa

Yankees CC

  • Chris Conley
  • All-Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #1 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.)
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2018 11:30:24 AM by Yankees CC »

Royals JC

  • Jon Carney
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2802
  • Exec Comm
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #2 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.
Jon Carney - Kansas City Royals GM

Royals Blog
Trade Block

Dodgers DS

  • Doug Sutton
  • LTC Working Group
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2509
  • Exec Comm (Ret)
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #3 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.
« Last Edit: 10 Feb 2018 12:12:15 PM by Dodgers DS »

Royals JC

  • Jon Carney
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2802
  • Exec Comm
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #4 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.
Jon Carney - Kansas City Royals GM

Royals Blog
Trade Block

Yankees CC

  • Chris Conley
  • All-Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #5 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.

Diamondbacks LL

  • Larry Linke
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1276
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #6 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

Blue Jays SH

  • Scot Hughes
  • Arbitration Working Group
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #7 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.
AL East champion 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2016
AL Champion 2003, 2004, 2006
WS champion 2004, 2006

Blue Jays SH

  • Scot Hughes
  • Arbitration Working Group
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #8 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.
AL East champion 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2016
AL Champion 2003, 2004, 2006
WS champion 2004, 2006

Yankees CC

  • Chris Conley
  • All-Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #9 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)

Pirates AR

  • Atticus Ryan
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3560
  • Exec Comm
    • A Personal Journey Through Time
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #10 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.
Atticus Ryan
General Manager, Pittsburgh Pirates
Site Administrator (SimplePortal and SMF)

Ne Ruinis, Aliquando Prosperum Inmensa

Blue Jays SH

  • Scot Hughes
  • Arbitration Working Group
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #11 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.
AL East champion 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2016
AL Champion 2003, 2004, 2006
WS champion 2004, 2006

Royals JC

  • Jon Carney
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2802
  • Exec Comm
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #12 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).
Jon Carney - Kansas City Royals GM

Royals Blog
Trade Block

Diamondbacks LL

  • Larry Linke
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1276
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #13 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

Royals JC

  • Jon Carney
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2802
  • Exec Comm
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #14 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.
Jon Carney - Kansas City Royals GM

Royals Blog
Trade Block