Discussion thread for 2018 rule change proposals

[Admin]

We are one week away from rule change voting.

Stephen and I have agreed to place the following 4 items on the ballot for consideration. Only items 1 and 3 have public discussion threads already. Any questions, suggestions, or dialogue is always welcome.

(Please note: wording below may not exactly match the ballot. This is just to open the chance for conversation.)


1.
When a “trade is posted and accepted, the teams involved drop their players on Fantrax immediately. That's part of the check process for approvals, that all players have been dropped.”

Read more: mlbbaseballleague.proboards.com/thread/2247/rule-change-discussion#



2.
Invalid FA bids discovered while only 2 GMs are involved can be reversed.

Proposed rewrite of 5.13.2:
“5.13.2 Non-Leading Invalid Bids
If a bid is identified to be invalid and has been surpassed in value by more recent valid bids by more than one other bidder then the auction will continue as if the invalid bid had not occurred. The auction will not be stopped nor have the 24 hour clock re-set, and the existing 24 hour timer will continue to count from the time the current leading bid was placed. Penalties from rule 6.6 will still apply.
If a bid is identified to be invalid and has been surpassed in value by only one other bidder then the commissioner will reinstate the leading bid prior to the invalid bid, and reset the auction clock to 24 hours from the post confirming the voidance to allow rival teams fair opportunity to beat the reinstated leading bid.”



3.
Create an official list of sources to determine a timetable for real life MLB Transactions. (Thus helping determine the legitimacy of protect/unprotect claims.)

"The agreed reference point for determining the timing of a real life move will be the first report of said move by any of the following media:
"Sending" team's official Twitter feed
"Receiving" team's official Twitter feed
@mlb
@mlbrostermoves
The MLB.com transactions page (found via the 'Players' drop-down on the MLB.com homepage)"

Read more: mlbbaseballleague.proboards.com/thread/2117/change-discussion-official-transaction-sources#ixzz4vA6iybms



4.
Should we have an offseason maintenance period?

This rule proposes that there should be an offseason maintenance period, probably from the end of the MBL World Series until the election of the new TC, where trades cannot be posted and no player can be protected.

[Pirates GM (TJ)]

With regard to #4, my concern would be that it runs afoul of the Trea Turner rule.

Currently we can leave our June draft picks unprotected through the end of the MBL season, because they cannot be traded in real life until after the World Series. So we have no need to "waste" salary cap protecting June selections until our season is over (and before the real life Series is over).

If you lock the rosters until TC is elected, there may be some years where teams miss the window to protect those guys.

I mean sure, few people protect guys beyond round 3 or 4 anyway, so even with CB picks no one loses more than $1.5 in salary. So that impact is minor.

But many of us are in multiple leagues, and the "get rosters ready for next season" period coincides with busy times in other sports. Shrinking the window of when GMs can make those moves would seem to make it more likely that some teams won't have rosters done by the deadline.

[Admin]

Thank you for the good question TJ.

I know Stephen has a lot on his plate. And I’m sorry to add to it, but he would be the better one to address this.

Thanks.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

I think there would be benefit for there to be a period where rosters are static to assist with the accuracy of rosters and roster checks at the start of the year.
I don't see it as a hardship that there is a 4ish week period between the end of our world series and the start of the new offseason where players can't be protected - if you wanted them that badly then protect them before the end of the previous season.

Additionally, this rule helps to avoid a scenario where someone could protect a player AFTER the end of our season, but BEFORE doing their new roster - despite the fact that they might already be over cap in the new year.


Plus, anything that is an incentive for people to address their rosters promptly and people to get involved in roster checks and getting the new offseason under way as soon as possible seems like a positive to me.

[Mariners GM (Travis)]

Could we move up the Trade Committee elections, maybe to right after the conclusion of our WS (or so). Then the TC could be in place to do roster checks as part of their duties. By the time the MLB WS is over, we could be ready to unfreeze rosters and managers could protect any players they need to before they are eligible to be traded in the MLB.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Oct 19, 2017 12:11:50 GMT -5 Mariners GM (Travis) said:

Could we move up the Trade Committee elections, maybe to right after the conclusion of our WS (or so). Then the TC could be in place to do roster checks as part of their duties. By the time the MLB WS is over, we could be ready to unfreeze rosters and managers could protect any players they need to before they are eligible to be traded in the MLB.

I like.

[Admin]

Oct 19, 2017 11:57:14 GMT -5 Rangers GM (Stephen) said:

Additionally, this rule helps to avoid a scenario where someone could protect a player AFTER the end of our season, but BEFORE doing their new roster - despite the fact that they might already be over cap in the new year.


Plus, anything that is an incentive for people to address their rosters promptly and people to get involved in roster checks and getting the new offseason under way as soon as possible seems like a positive to me.

A couple points to add here.

- Rule 2.3.4, if properly enforced (gulp ... sorry), already eliminates the loophole described above.

- Also, changing the offseason timetable seems like an issue that could be handled independently of the roster freeze suggestion. (While I’d love to operate at a faster pace, I can’t personally offer to do so. More responsibility would need to be handled by additional volunteers.)

[Pirates GM (TJ)]

I'm not sure I understand what is being suggested here as far as roster timing.

I personally start on my tentative "next season" roster around late July. I actually start much earlier, as I already have projections for my 2020 roster in Excel, but I start editing a projected roster for the board here (and in my other Pirates league) around July. I posted the preliminary version of it on August 23rd, with placeholders for a handful of expected protections. Then during the course of September, after the minor league seasons were complete, I reevaluated my roster of specs (which is admittedly deeper than all but a few teams here) to see which 65 or so I would want protected going into 2018. As soon as our World Series was concluded, and Adam posted his "Welcome to 2018" post, the 2018 roster was then live, and all hometown discounts for 2017 were locked in. There's no time period between to be taken advantage of. The calendar page flips and all new transactions are on 2018, not 2017.

The suggestion that we need a month for roster checks right after the season ends makes little sense, when teams need an opportunity to make roster decisions before posting a roster in the first place. And those roster decisions necessarily involve protects and unprotects. (For reference, Adam made 23 protects/unprotects for his new roster, Stuart made 10, Kyler made 27, and I made 33... Protection changes are a BIG part of a new roster).

If a dead month is needed, it would make more sense to have it be in November. Our calendar turns over effective the end of MBL World Series, then GMs have the entire month of October to prep their 2018 rosters. They can protect and unprotect and update the salaries for 4th-6th players and have all that finalized by October 31st. Elections for TC happen in late October. All rosters lock for the month of November to let the TC do its checks and get trained on their roles. And the wheeling and dealing could begin again in December.

Personally I don't think an entire dead month is needed. But if there had to be one, November makes more sense.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Speaking in general terms, I strongly the value the importance of clarity of rules and accuracy of rosters and transactions. I am heavily in favour of doing what we can to encourage both wherever possible.

Why? I'm painfully aware that the two admins are also competitors in the league. Everything being right and running smoothly, with clear and complete rosters and clear and complete rules makes our lives a lot easier. I am very keen to avoid people breaking rules and I'm keen to avoid judgement calls needing to be made - and any rule changes I propose will tend to be something that I think will help on those accounts.

[Reds GM (Kyler)]

So I apologozize for the last minute nature of this new rule proposal. One thing I would like to see added is some incentive for TC members other than love of the game and the appreciation by league members. From what I've in my first two years the TC members work incredibly hard and put in dozens of hours just to keep the train on the tracks, and I think there should be some form of compensation.
Some ideas I had are:

• An extra dollar for salary (101 cap instead of 100)
• Getting to sign three players to club options instead of two

Thoughts?

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Oct 23, 2017 8:21:39 GMT -5 Reds GM (Kyler) said:

So I apologozize for the last minute nature of this new rule proposal. One thing I would like to see added is some incentive for TC members other than love of the game and the appreciation by league members. From what I've in my first two years the TC members work incredibly hard and put in dozens of hours just to keep the train on the tracks, and I think there should be some form of compensation.
Some ideas I had are:

• An extra dollar for salary (101 cap instead of 100)
• Getting to sign three players to club options instead of two

Thoughts?

What compensation would you propose for being a commissioner...?

[Reds GM (Kyler)]

Well to address that question assuming it is genuine and not snarky and dismissive as it appears to be, I think the context is totally different. You and Adam created this league with the rules and the teams you wanted knowing that when you created the league you would be putting in hours of work to maintain it, it was part of the buy-in and start up costs for you two. For the TC members, they signed up to join the league to manage their teams. Then decided to volunteer their extra time to help the league. You and Adam started this league knowing the responsibilities, whereas everyone else just signed up to run a team and then when you and Adam put a call to action to help the league sacrificed some of their free time to help. I just think its a good life policy to do more than just say thank you to people who go out of their way to help you

[Pirates GM (TJ)]

I like the idea of 3 club options instead of two. It isn't unbalancing, but it does give a little perk to the TC members.

[Mariners GM (Travis)]

If we do something that rewards TC members with any type of competitive edge, no matter how minuscule, I think we would need to regulate how often an owner can be on the TC. An extra option for 1 year isn't that big a deal, but multiply that over multiple seasons and it could be construed as an unfair competitive edge. It could also create a situation where the same people are on the TC all the time in order to maintain that edge.

Also, how would this effect the voting process if a) more people are interested in doing it just for the perks, and b) people could have a problem voting for someone in their division to get an extra edge in a race they are involved in?

Just some things that should be discussed in a system like this.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Oct 23, 2017 9:56:53 GMT -5 Reds GM (Kyler) said:

Well to address that question assuming it is genuine and not snarky and dismissive as it appears to be, I think the context is totally different. You and Adam created this league with the rules and the teams you wanted knowing that when you created the league you would be putting in hours of work to maintain it, it was part of the buy-in and start up costs for you two. For the TC members, they signed up to join the league to manage their teams. Then decided to volunteer their extra time to help the league. You and Adam started this league knowing the responsibilities, whereas everyone else just signed up to run a team and then when you and Adam put a call to action to help the league sacrificed some of their free time to help. I just think its a good life policy to do more than just say thank you to people who go out of their way to help you

It was intended as humourous, not snarky.
I actually think that the extra option idea has mileage - a small perk, but one of reasonably modest value.


Just for accuracy - I also joined the league to manage my team, then volunteered to help out more with the running of the league once I'd been here a little while.