2019 Proposal

[Cardinals]

This is fairly radical for us at least, but here goes:

• 55-man rosters
  25 required active players during the season.
  All teams must at 50 or under headed into the offseason
  Remaining 5 roster spots to be filled during ZiPS bidding period

That's a pretty bare-bones proposal from me and I'll elaborate more later, but the rationale is this: we have a clear issue with the bottom part of the league skewing the standings. The rules we've had in place are being used to the maximum degree for rebuilding efforts, as they should. If our goal is parity, pulling the rug out from those rebuilds and forcing these teams to cut 5 players to compensate for a bigger active roster is counter to our goal.

By tying roster expansion into ZiPS bidding, it will help facilitate buying/auction drafting actual sim players. Some of whom will have some upside potential.

Open to tweaks and ideas, but if we want to do something major, we need to be out in front of it now.

[Astros]

I like it. So would we use ZIPS bidding like an auction draft? Let's say you bid $16 on someone, then you've got $1 on every other spare roster spot, correct? No bidding all your money on one guy then grabbing up 4 zips guys after everyone has picked everyone up to fill it out?

[Cardinals]

I mean, you can go that route if you want too. I don't see the harm in that. If you spend your whole budget on a guy in November and it turns out there was something better in December... then that sucks for you. Likewise, maybe the best player's ZiPS is in November and you wait too long and end up eating $14 ZiPS bucks. All part of the game.

[Guardians]

Just so I understand: the change is essentially that roster spots increase by 5 and the requirement that all teams have 25 active players at all times.

And the extra 5 spots are designed to be filled solely through ZiPS bidding, meaning all teams will need to participate in ZiPS bidding (good) and this also allows teams, particularly teams that are struggling, to have to make fewer tough roster decisions during the offseason (also good).

Am I getting the changes?

[Guardians]

I also want to lop this into discussion for 2019 changes, albeit minor: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6787

[Dodgers]

2 things I think we'd need to cover:

1. The exact mechanics for expanding roster sizes. Does it immediately jump to 55 for everyone and some teams are just going to add 5 prospects and deal with cuts right before opening day, rather than participating in zips bidding? Does each team get a separate roster limit as they win players? Can I just bid $1 on the worst player to increase my roster size, then cut them and sign a prospect to make an end run?

2. What are the penalties? I've definitely had times where I have so many injuries that it's hard to field a 25 man active roster, but I don't know that should be a valid excuse, especially not with larger roster sizes. I think the reality is that we're going to have teams that have exactly 25 active players and then have an injury to one of them, and then what when they choose to play with 24 instead of cutting a prospect to fill out the roster?

[Guardians]

2 things I think we'd need to cover:

1. The exact mechanics for expanding roster sizes. Does it immediately jump to 55 for everyone and some teams are just going to add 5 prospects and deal with cuts right before opening day, rather than participating in zips bidding? Does each team get a separate roster limit as they win players? Can I just bid $1 on the worst player to increase my roster size, then cut them and sign a prospect to make an end run?

2. What are the penalties? I've definitely had times where I have so many injuries that it's hard to field a 25 man active roster, but I don't know that should be a valid excuse, especially not with larger roster sizes. I think the reality is that we're going to have teams that have exactly 25 active players and then have an injury to one of them, and then what when they choose to play with 24 instead of cutting a prospect to fill out the roster?

1. Valid point here, Shawn. I'm sure people will comply with bidding on players to get the 5 spots, but could immediately drop them just to snag prospects. And what if a zips guy gets hurt/performs poorly in spring training? How do you regulate keeping those five guys on a roster? I'm not sure I have a solution, unless we designate them separately (ala draft roster, inactive, active...create a separate space) and require all teams to keep 5 at all times.

2. I would like BP's input here. He tends to run as lean as possible on his active roster while compiling prospects. How do you think we can accomplish this, Brett?

[Astros]

I think the whole point of this is to where they have someone with a sim to where they can field a 25 man roster. I mean there's plenty of prospects with shitty projections, they can get 5 of those and hope one has a breakout year. But giving them 5 extra spots for this and then they immediately cut them to get some 16 year old Dominican kid goes against the entire spirit of this proposal.

[Dodgers]

Maybe it has to be 25 sim players year round, with some kind of short term exception right when projection disc comes out.

[Rangers]

2 things I think we'd need to cover:

1. The exact mechanics for expanding roster sizes. Does it immediately jump to 55 for everyone and some teams are just going to add 5 prospects and deal with cuts right before opening day, rather than participating in zips bidding? Does each team get a separate roster limit as they win players? Can I just bid $1 on the worst player to increase my roster size, then cut them and sign a prospect to make an end run?

2. What are the penalties? I've definitely had times where I have so many injuries that it's hard to field a 25 man active roster, but I don't know that should be a valid excuse, especially not with larger roster sizes. I think the reality is that we're going to have teams that have exactly 25 active players and then have an injury to one of them, and then what when they choose to play with 24 instead of cutting a prospect to fill out the roster?

1. Valid point here, Shawn. I'm sure people will comply with bidding on players to get the 5 spots, but could immediately drop them just to snag prospects. And what if a zips guy gets hurt/performs poorly in spring training? How do you regulate keeping those five guys on a roster? I'm not sure I have a solution, unless we designate them separately (ala draft roster, inactive, active...create a separate space) and require all teams to keep 5 at all times.

2. I would like BP's input here. He tends to run as lean as possible on his active roster while compiling prospects. How do you think we can accomplish this, Brett?

First off I'm a big fan of this proposal. It helps competitive balance while having essentially zero negative impact on the rebuilding team. I think it would also be fine to say that 11 of the spots should be pitchers and 2 should be catchers, based on what I've heard people say about what has the biggest impact. I think it also has a residual benefit that it should slightly increase the value of players with projections and top players in multiple ways generally involving scarcity. The one exception to the rule, I think, should be postseason - I think if you prefer to play a postseason game with fewer than 25, have at it.

On that second item, yes, I am probably the main person that JP is referring to and I have spent most of the past two seasons dealing with the scenario that Shawn mentioned, especially as the season drags on and injuries pile up. It has been pretty simple and I think it would be simple here as far as the scenario of being right at the 25-man limit. You cannot drop below 25 healthy, active players just like you currently cannot drop below 20. I have typically had 24 to 26 players with projections and frequently 4-6 with as many as 8 injured players, so I have to pay very close attention in the same way that we do to be sure that we DL injured guys. You do have to cut prospects you don't want to to stay legal. I would estimate about six or seven cuts that I really didn't want to make during this season, and that's just a part of managing things close to that line.

For penalties, my thought would be severity along the lines of what we do for injuries but things that should demotivate the specific behavior like having to play with one fewer 55-man roster spot for a period of time, which would have to be managed manually in the way that most of our other roster stuff does.

[Rangers]

Maybe it has to be 25 sim players year round, with some kind of short term exception right when projection disc comes out.

I think that would work but although it would allow what Aaron mentions for a couple of months, my suggestion would be to drop the restriction between the start of the draft and when the new projection disc comes out. That cuts out four months (Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan) of the potential hoarding and allows you to manage your roster properly when making draft cuts (allows you to make cuts based on who will be active that next season, not who was active when he did projections nearly a year ago). I don't think that a short period of hoarding is particularly detrimental. You have to pay the piper pretty quickly.

I'd also note that this is a pretty important distinction for a roster like mine - I have 11 players who are not in the sim this season but will be next season.

Feb 1 to projection in late April - 10 draft spots and 45 other spots
Proj disk through Sept - you have to maintain 25 healthy players who are active in DMB
Oct through Jan - you have to maintain 25 sim players from the previous season

[Dodgers]

Maybe it has to be 25 sim players year round, with some kind of short term exception right when projection disc comes out.

I think that would work but although it would allow what Aaron mentions for a couple of months, my suggestion would be to drop the restriction between the start of the draft and when the new projection disc comes out. That cuts out four months (Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan) of the potential hoarding and allows you to manage your roster properly when making draft cuts (allows you to make cuts based on who will be active that next season, not who was active when he did projections nearly a year ago). I don't think that a short period of hoarding is particularly detrimental. You have to pay the piper pretty quickly.

I'd also note that this is a pretty important distinction for a roster like mine - I have 11 players who are not in the sim this season but will be next season.

Feb 1 to projection in late April - 10 draft spots and 45 other spots
Proj disk through Sept - you have to maintain 25 healthy players who are active in DMB
Oct through Jan - you have to maintain 25 sim players from the previous season

Reading it, forcing maintaining 25 sim players during the offseason seems unnecessary.

[Cardinals]

Yeah, I think you only need to hit the minimum during active play.

We need to take a vote on this soon. We can figure out the punishments for not following the rules, but given ZiPS aren't too far away and teams are gearing up for the offseason, we need to decide ASAP. This is a pretty big rule change.

[Astros]

Let's put it to a vote. I'm in favor of it, but I think we have to have it clear that you are expected to have 25 sim guys during the season

[Cardinals]

Agreed.

For it.

[Guardians]

I'm for it on the condition we clearly define how teams are to comply with the rule.

[Padres]

Okay … it will not personally impact how I handle my roster but I can see how it may positively impact others.

[Dodgers]

I vote to expand rosters, but how exactly is this going to play out?

[Guardians]

I vote to expand rosters, but how exactly is this going to play out?

Shawn,

Can you create a separate roster space called zips roster? This will force teams to keep five there and it's easy for us to track. Teams may still try to work around it, but at least it's simple to see on the page.

[Dodgers]

I vote to expand rosters, but how exactly is this going to play out?

Shawn,

Can you create a separate roster space called zips roster? This will force teams to keep five there and it's easy for us to track. Teams may still try to work around it, but at least it's simple to see on the page.

With those being players who were added during zips bidding? I can do pretty much anything, we just have to decide on parameters and I’ll do the rest.

[Rangers]

I vote for.

I'm fine with the notion of not allowing people to expand their rosters past 50 this offseason until after zips are posted unless those players are from posted zips (and therefore the optimal way to get them is to bid for the best ones), but that part should be a one-time thing.

[Guardians]

I think we're all pretty much in agreement to move forward. I would suggest Shawn creating a "ZiPS roster" or something similar when zips get close to posting (Novemberish?). I think the requirement then is that teams must fill those five slots initially with players acquired during the zips bidding period (either by bidding or acquiring with a zero bid...during that time period at least).

That roster should be maintained with players with projections. I think that's the only way to really regulate this. Otherwise, teams would drop them for prospects immediately. If we at least require a projection, then teams aren't stashing 16-year-olds. Also, players aren't transferable to that roster...they must be acquired new, so teams have to participate in zips bidding. Is that doable/favorable?

[Dodgers]

If I want to sign someone whose team has already been bid on, do they get added to my zips roster? The absolute easiest way for me to accomplish this is by having a “Zips” roster status, and whoever is overseeing zips process and declaring bidding done putting players onto teams when that happens. If players need to be added to zips roster via open market signings, we’ll have to come up with a system for managing that legality.

[Guardians]

If I want to sign someone whose team has already been bid on, do they get added to my zips roster? The absolute easiest way for me to accomplish this is by having a “Zips” roster status, and whoever is overseeing zips process and declaring bidding done putting players onto teams when that happens. If players need to be added to zips roster via open market signings, we’ll have to come up with a system for managing that legality.

I don't think this would be that tough. After every bid, I keep track of how much each team has left in its budget with an accounting of all the players who have signed, for how much and the date: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6610

I don't think it will be tough to track acquisitions and then for Shawn to post. I guess the question is what if you "sign" a guy after the 24 hours passes for a team as just an add/drop. Do we need to differentiate between spending zips money and not?

[Guardians]

Oh, and I looked back at the 2019 rules discussion thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6779&hilit=zips

Seems most people were in favor of dropping the 10 draftees rule. I'm ok either way on this. I think it helps to force teams to keep draft players so they're investing in their farms. But, you may have 3 15- guys who are better than 3 18- guys you're forced to carry. Either way, we should lop this into any changes we make so it's one suite of changes.