Rules consultations

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Hello all,

I'm never really sure when is a good time to broach discussions around possible rule changes, but with opening day of 2024 really not that far away now seems as good a time as any.

It has been quite some time since we've seen what I think could be classed a major rule change. Come our next voting period, it will be two years since our last minor tweaks - and they were really nothing more than quality-of-life updates.
I think the recent stability of the rules, the longevity of our ownership group, the standard of competition and relative parity amongst winners and playoff teams speak volumes about the quality of the league concept and the Frankenstein rulebook that helps keep us all on the straight and narrow.

That said, just because it is working doesn't necessarily mean that we should stand stagnant. Our constitution sets a high bar of support to see amendments to the rule book, and with that level of safety I would rather have a bunch of well-considered rule votes which all fail to achieve change than no rule votes at all and wonder whether the league actually wants a shift of direction.

Over the next few days I will post separate threads to discuss possible areas for change/improvement. My intention is to set out the possible area for improvement, why that might be something that could be considered to benefit from improvement, possible solutions, the pros and cons that I can see, and perhaps a potential timeline if they are a change which would be so significant that immediate adoption would be unreasonable.
My hope is to use the group mind to both identify and overcome challenges that might exist in my suggestions, come up with solutions themselves, and perhaps if there are multiple options to come to consensus on which would be the best.

The intention would then be to put any reasonable possible improvements to vote in the next voting period.

It is possible that the rule changes proposed would disproportionately impact some teams more than others if voted through.
Where that might be the case, please do not take it personally - that is certainly not the motivation. The motivation is to do our best to try and make sure that this league is the best it can be.
Any proposed changes which disproportionately impact some teams will likely be proposed to take effect over a longer time period so as to reduce the scale of the effect on those teams.


If you have any ideas or problems that you would like to be considered during this consultation, please PM me. This will help make sure that the discussions start with as much detail as possible to help make discussions as constructive as possible.

Thanks,
Stephen

[Reds GM (Kyler)]

Thanks for this Stephen, look forward to the ideas.

One thing I've been ruminating on this offseason is the structure of our free agency groupings. I think a possible improvement may be to classify by contract length first, and then by position. So something like:

5- year (hitters)
5- year (pitchers)
3 & 4 year (hitters)
3 & 4 year (pitchers)
then typical progression, perhaps combing corner infielders and middle infielders to make up weeks?

I think it would be an improvement so that it could be more of an apples-to-apples bidding on talent vs just bidding on position

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Hi Kyler,

That echoes the way free agency was run in the 15 team league from which this league took part of the rulebook. I think that might have been discussed here WAAAAY long ago, but didn't get much traction.

If anyone has any further ideas, please PM me rather than post a reply to this thread. I'd like to get things as fully formed as possible before putting them up for discussion, as this should be the most effective way to lead which could be 30 different opinions/perspectives.

Thanks,
Stephen

[Red Sox GM (Nick)]

Great idea Stephen - never hurts to talk. The game itself is constantly evolving, why can’t we?

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

I was originally going to post this at the beginning of every discussion thread, but that's overkill.
Instead I will post it here and link it from each thread, so that it is referenced in each discussion but doesn't get in the way every time.



This thread is an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of this potential rule amendment, and to use our owners' combined minds to identify and potentially address any challenges that such an amendment could produce.

Please do not worry or feel that you should not contribute even if you disagree with the premise of the suggestion. This exercise desires what is best for our league as a whole, and it is in all of our best interests to work together to come up with the best possible proposal before any such change is put to vote.
It is my position that either delivering a rule change which has enough support to pass our high standards for change (as a reminder, Rule Changes are governed under part 1.5 of our constitution) or establishing/reinforcing that the rules we have in place are what the league desire are both positive outcomes.

As Commissioner I will present these changes as neutrally as possible, but as an individual/owner/player (and perhaps as a show that there is not an agenda behind this initiative) I expect to personally support only some of the proposals which are discussed during this consultation period.

This thread is not intended as an arena for expressing support or disapproval for a proposal - it is more to discuss practicalities. If necessary, a separate discussion can follow if people wanted to campaign for or against a proposed change ahead of it going to vote.

[Red Sox GM (Nick)]

Thanks for doing this Stephen - appreciate the time you took for these thoughtful minimally biased write ups.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Is it that obvious which I'm keen on, which I'd prefer not go through, and which I'm unfussed by? :/