Author Topic: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results  (Read 3752 times)

Blue Jays SH

  • Scot Hughes
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3183
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #15 on: 10 Feb 2018 4:05:05 PM »
As someone who holds roughly half of the picks in the upcoming draft, Im fine with trying the no trading picks on the clock thing. Im curious to see what impact it has.

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

Yankees CC

  • Chris Conley
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 573
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #16 on: 10 Feb 2018 4:32:19 PM »
As someone who holds roughly half of the picks in the upcoming draft, Im fine with trying the no trading picks on the clock thing. Im 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

Diamondbacks LL

  • Larry Linke
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #17 on: 10 Feb 2018 4:33:09 PM »
Hey, I still have 2.

Larry

Royals JC (Ret)

  • Jon Carney
  • Administrator
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2994
  • Exec Comm
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #18 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!
Jon Carney - Kansas City Royals GM

Royals Blog
Trade Block

Dodgers DS

  • Doug Sutton
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2965
  • Exec Comm (Ret)
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #19 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.
« Last Edit: 12 Feb 2018 9:03:04 AM by Dodgers DS »

Diamondbacks LL

  • Larry Linke
  • Hall of Famer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
Re: 2018 Rules Change Proposals Results
« Reply #20 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