2019 Rules Discussion

[Mets]

Also - contenders are always more vested and active in SIM leagues.

[Nationals]

I understand that and I've been in these leagues long enough. I am just saying that draft slots and lotteries aren't going to do much to affect competitive balance in my opinion.

I think there's a big difference between competitive balance and competitive apathy.

I agree competitive balance is a bigger hurdle, but I don't think it's one we can even think to tackle until teams have the motivation to try to win.

If 80% of the league is trying to get a wild card spot or better, we won't see as many 90-100 win teams because 40% of the games won't be cakewalk matchups. Then you have 80 win teams within striking distance if there's a key injury or acquistion or maybe just a little luck.

When you have teams that can see a path to playoffs and have motivation to try in case they miss the playoffs, you'll see more activity at the deadline (helping those 20% who are rebuilding with higher prices for talent). All of this is good because you have more competition at the top and more value to teams rebuilding. It all starts with rewarding teams for trying to win and that reward has to be more than the reward for losing.

In a league without salaries, there's not much better than a top 5 pick, so the only way to give something better than what the losing teams are getting, is to lessen the positive value for losing.

[Rockies]

Can someone please outline to me how rewarding "mid pack" teams with extra picks or compensation doesn't further the divide for competitive balance? No snark here, serious question. I'm not convinced.

As much as I hate to say it - and I've already said I hate lottery - that seems like the only way to lessen the positive value for losing to me. No guarantee of getting the #1 overall if you tank, means you are less likely to tank.

[Mets]

Devil's advocate - teams that should not be trading away prospects for mediocre or declining players at a slim chance of a wild card spot and then get set back even further. MLB teams can recover better since they have 225 man rosters and free agency to help. I don't believe that having 80% of the league vying for a playoff spot is necessarily a good thing. We're always going to be operating on a bell curve as that's the natural order of these things. I don't believe incentivizing mediocrity is going to improve the league.

[Mets]

Can someone please outline to me how rewarding "mid pack" teams with extra picks or compensation doesn't further the divide for competitive balance? No snark here, serious question. I'm not convinced.

As much as I hate to say it - and I've already said I hate lottery - that seems like the only way to lessen the positive value for losing to me. No guarantee of getting the #1 overall if you tank, means you are less likely to tank.

I don't think tanking is a correct way of thinking about this. If you are hitting the reboot button and committing to a long-term rebuild, why should you have a team that won 15 more games than you pick in front of you? How does that help anything?

[Cardinals]

Can someone please outline to me how rewarding "mid pack" teams with extra picks or compensation doesn't further the divide for competitive balance? No snark here, serious question. I'm not convinced.

As much as I hate to say it - and I've already said I hate lottery - that seems like the only way to lessen the positive value for losing to me. No guarantee of getting the #1 overall if you tank, means you are less likely to tank.

If you're going to receive a pick between rounds 2 and 3 of a draft for winning say 74-84 games, you're less likely to trade for picks round 3 and up, or lottery pick 17 year old DSL kids, unless you really like that particular player.

Rather than having these teams sell off useful/good players, you reward them for making an effort to get to a wild card, or at the least, not lose 100 games.

I'm not sure how that furthers the divide. It makes teams more competitive in the later months of the year and makes the teams on top make a better offer for that setup guy or #3 sim pitcher they need to make the playoffs or win the WS.

[Cardinals]

Can someone please outline to me how rewarding "mid pack" teams with extra picks or compensation doesn't further the divide for competitive balance? No snark here, serious question. I'm not convinced.

As much as I hate to say it - and I've already said I hate lottery - that seems like the only way to lessen the positive value for losing to me. No guarantee of getting the #1 overall if you tank, means you are less likely to tank.

I don't think tanking is a correct way of thinking about this. If you are hitting the reboot button and committing to a long-term rebuild, why should you have a team that won 15 more games than you pick in front of you? How does that help anything?

Right, I agree with John here. A lottery doesn't solve anything. Let's use JB as an example. If his team is hit with a bunch of injuries and doesn't make the playoffs, sells off guys like Beltre and Blackmon and finishes with draft pick slot #10... on what planet should he have a shot to get the top overall pick with guys like Harper, Rizzo, Baez, etc. on his team? His bad luck just turned into extremely, extremely good luck.

[Guardians]

Can someone please outline to me how rewarding "mid pack" teams with extra picks or compensation doesn't further the divide for competitive balance? No snark here, serious question. I'm not convinced.

As much as I hate to say it - and I've already said I hate lottery - that seems like the only way to lessen the positive value for losing to me. No guarantee of getting the #1 overall if you tank, means you are less likely to tank.

I don't think tanking is a correct way of thinking about this. If you are hitting the reboot button and committing to a long-term rebuild, why should you have a team that won 15 more games than you pick in front of you? How does that help anything?

Right, I agree with John here. A lottery doesn't solve anything. Let's use JB as an example. If his team is hit with a bunch of injuries and doesn't make the playoffs, sells off guys like Beltre and Blackmon and finishes with draft pick slot #10... on what planet should he have a shot to get the top overall pick with guys like Harper, Rizzo, Baez, etc. on his team? His bad luck just turned into extremely, extremely good luck.

Only thing in this thread I agree with. #DownWithJB #MakeJBSuckAgain

[Nationals]

Overall, I don't think there's going to be a perfect solution. There's definitely going to be trade-offs, just like there would be if we did nothing. I personally just feel things could be better so I'm shooting for something that might not be perfect, but better.

Here's another idea, which i tend to like more than a lottery (if it was implemented strictly enough).

What about something like a "luxury tax" for losing. If you lose more than X games for 2-3 consecutive seasons, you sacrifice a pick. There could be thresholds, where like 90 game losers lose a 2nd round pick after 3 years and that graduates to a 1st rounder after 5. If you lose more than 95 for 3 years, you start at the 1st rounder.
If it continues, you lose a 1st and a 2nd, etc. So then even if you're going full boar into a rebuild, there's motivation to try to win games and be competitive so you get to keep your top 5 pick. There would obviously need to be details worked out, but then you are really only devaluing losing.

[Mets]

Overall, I don't think there's going to be a perfect solution. There's definitely going to be trade-offs, just like there would be if we did nothing. I personally just feel things could be better so I'm shooting for something that might not be perfect, but better.

Here's another idea, which i tend to like more than a lottery (if it was implemented strictly enough).

What about something like a "luxury tax" for losing. If you lose more than X games for 2-3 consecutive seasons, you sacrifice a pick. There could be thresholds, where like 90 game losers lose a 2nd round pick after 3 years and that graduates to a 1st rounder after 5. If you lose more than 95 for 3 years, you start at the 1st rounder.
If it continues, you lose a 1st and a 2nd, etc. So then even if you're going full boar into a rebuild, there's motivation to try to win games and be competitive so you get to keep your top 5 pick. There would obviously need to be details worked out, but then you are really only devaluing losing.

Keep up with the ideas.

This isn't practical in that it takes the average MLB player 4-5 seasons in the minors to be able to contribute. Even when they get their first couple of seasons of projections - they are 0.4 WAR guys. The pitfall of the above is that I would have to deal from my prospects to get someone that is going to help me for one year to not lose 95 games (or whatever). The amount of loses should be arbitrary if a team is showing a concentrated effort to improve and a clear direction for competing eventually.

I really hate to say this because I am not for it - but if you really want to stop the useful reliever for a 3rd round pick thing - you have to discontinue the ability to trade draft picks during the season.

The only clear realistic incentive that I see working is that we reward all teams that finish .500 or better two additional draft slots (52 total roster) for the following year. There's an incentive to keep the extra 2 and continue to finish with a winning record. If you finish under .500 the following year you lose the spots and have to drop two guys.

Few things people in this league love more than buying lottery tickets on 17 & 18 year olds.

This would only require a low level of policing as we just create one thread of teams that are allowed to have the 52 roster size for whichever season to crosscheck.

[Rockies]

If you're going to receive a pick between rounds 2 and 3 of a draft for winning say 74-84 games, you're less likely to trade for picks round 3 and up, or lottery pick 17 year old DSL kids, unless you really like that particular player.

Rather than having these teams sell off useful/good players, you reward them for making an effort to get to a wild card, or at the least, not lose 100 games.

I'm not sure how that furthers the divide. It makes teams more competitive in the later months of the year and makes the teams on top make a better offer for that setup guy or #3 sim pitcher they need to make the playoffs or win the WS.

My concern is this - if teams picking in the top 10 can't get better within the current system with high picks year after year - then how will it help them speed up a rebuild if we reward mid-tier teams? To me, that furthers the divide between the "haves" and "have nots" and makes it harder for those trying to rebuild to do so quickly.

In my mind, if we want competitive balance, then we should be giving additional picks to losing teams so they are better, faster. Rising tides raise all boats, so to speak.

I'm open to competitive balance picks/compensation rounds if it's done right, so I'd just like something more fleshed out. I can be convinced, I'm just worried as I understand the proposal that this will not work as intended.

[Astros]

I like John's idea of extra slots

[Cardinals]

If you're going to receive a pick between rounds 2 and 3 of a draft for winning say 74-84 games, you're less likely to trade for picks round 3 and up, or lottery pick 17 year old DSL kids, unless you really like that particular player.

Rather than having these teams sell off useful/good players, you reward them for making an effort to get to a wild card, or at the least, not lose 100 games.

I'm not sure how that furthers the divide. It makes teams more competitive in the later months of the year and makes the teams on top make a better offer for that setup guy or #3 sim pitcher they need to make the playoffs or win the WS.

My concern is this - if teams picking in the top 10 can't get better within the current system with high picks year after year - then how will it help them speed up a rebuild if we reward mid-tier teams? To me, that furthers the divide between the "haves" and "have nots" and makes it harder for those trying to rebuild to do so quickly.

In my mind, if we want competitive balance, then we should be giving additional picks to losing teams so they are better, faster. Rising tides raise all boats, so to speak.

I'm open to competitive balance picks/compensation rounds if it's done right, so I'd just like something more fleshed out. I can be convinced, I'm just worried as I understand the proposal that this will not work as intended.

There is no formal proposal. It's an idea that can be fleshed out. There's a lot of details missing.

[Marlins]

Another thing that could add some more volatility to the draft (and in essence take away some value from the top picks) is to move up the draft. One of the things that make the early (top 10ish) picks so valuable and the lower picks less valuable is that because we're drafting guys in Feb with so much additional information available on everyone by then, its less of a crapshoot to know who the top guys are. And there has already been half a season of stats to see some lower picked guys who are breakouts. If the IBC draft were done, say, in July (to coincide with the July 2 intl deadline perhaps?), then I might argue those extra picks after the 2nd rd are more valuable.

Not sure exactly the logistics of moving things up since we use year end stats for draft order and I dont think we really want a draft during the season either. But throwing the idea out there in case someone smarter than me can either tell me Im barking up the wrong tree or that there's a better way to deal with this.

[Nationals]

My concern is this - if teams picking in the top 10 can't get better within the current system with high picks year after year - then how will it help them speed up a rebuild if we reward mid-tier teams? To me, that furthers the divide between the "haves" and "have nots" and makes it harder for those trying to rebuild to do so quickly.

In my mind, if we want competitive balance, then we should be giving additional picks to losing teams so they are better, faster. Rising tides raise all boats, so to speak.

I'm open to competitive balance picks/compensation rounds if it's done right, so I'd just like something more fleshed out. I can be convinced, I'm just worried as I understand the proposal that this will not work as intended.

I guess my opinion, and it could be my inexperience, is that some of the rebuilding teams could be better (wins & losses) and could be competing (myself included), but many are looking to build a dynasty. I think a lot of that has to do with the top-heavy nature of the league. If you're going to compete, you need to be able to win 100 games. From my perspective, there is no incentive for me to win games, but there is an incentive to lose.

My position comes back to, if more teams are fielding competitive rosters, then you don't need an all-star at every position to have a shot at the playoffs. These rebuilding teams can trade (some of) their prospects for an above average regular, try to win 85-90 games and make the playoffs. Rather than wait for the perfect storm of prospects to turn into a dynasty.

It can't just be one team making that jump, it needs to be multiple teams deciding to try to win, and the only way to do that is to incentivize making that decision vs. continuing to shoot for a high draft pick. Again, anything done, needs to be more valuable than a top 5 pick.

I'm a math guy, so I'm going to go back to the bell curve thing that was mentioned previously:

You can have many different kinds of bell curves. We should be looking for one with a lower variance, I just don't want the ends of the bell curve to be 15 wins/losses different from teams 5 places away from them.

As far as the added roster spots for teams:

1) There has to be an upper cap to winning teams.
2) There has to be strict enforcement.
3) I'm not convinced that's enough to convince a team to make a push to compete.

Teams already struggle with legal rosters regarding the DL and draft roster components alike. I'm not convinced it would be policed.

[Giants]

I think it’s a question of carrots and sticks. To Johns point it can take several years to take a bottom feeder to the playoffs, but it’s much easier to take a 110 loss team and make it a 95 loss team in the space of a year. I like the added draft roster slots for winners, and I think we can combine that with something like if you lose 100 games in back to back years you can’t have a top 5 pick and suddenly we’ve encouraged everyone to win more. I think you can’t create incentives to a rebuilding team that are more valuable than a top 5 pick so you have to take the top 5 pick out of the equation somehow.

[Mets]

The focus should remain on rewarding winning instead of penalizing losing.

[Royals]

If you're going to receive a pick between rounds 2 and 3 of a draft for winning say 74-84 games, you're less likely to trade for picks round 3 and up, or lottery pick 17 year old DSL kids, unless you really like that particular player.

Rather than having these teams sell off useful/good players, you reward them for making an effort to get to a wild card, or at the least, not lose 100 games.

I'm not sure how that furthers the divide. It makes teams more competitive in the later months of the year and makes the teams on top make a better offer for that setup guy or #3 sim pitcher they need to make the playoffs or win the WS.

My concern is this - if teams picking in the top 10 can't get better within the current system with high picks year after year - then how will it help them speed up a rebuild if we reward mid-tier teams? To me, that furthers the divide between the "haves" and "have nots" and makes it harder for those trying to rebuild to do so quickly.

In my mind, if we want competitive balance, then we should be giving additional picks to losing teams so they are better, faster. Rising tides raise all boats, so to speak.

I'm open to competitive balance picks/compensation rounds if it's done right, so I'd just like something more fleshed out. I can be convinced, I'm just worried as I understand the proposal that this will not work as intended.

Who says that teams picking in the top 10 picks can't improve in the current system? I don't think this is the case at all, and I don't think that is the concern. The concern that JP seems to have (not to speak for him) is that it becomes a race to the bottom. In MLB, and other sports, teams still have to make money, so they walk a fine line between racing to the bottom and winning enough to not lose the audience. That's not a factor we have to deal with.
Maybe we find a way to do that? Maybe instead of throwing international players into the draft pool, we put them in a separate pool to be bid on with the amount of money each team has being based on number of wins, maybe with all playoff teams getting $100, and each other team getting -$1 for each win back from the playoff team with the lowest wins. So if I'm 3 games back, I get $97, 20 games back, $80. Ties go to the team with the worse record.

[Royals]

I like the suggestion of moving the draft up to take the first year stats out of the equation. Maybe start our draft July 1, take the international players out of it and do the international bidding in January/February. Use that same pool of money for the Sim bidding.

[Guardians]

I don't dislike the idea of expanding on the bidding system we have in place -- I think it's worked well. But I'm not sure this really solves our problem. Maybe it motivates teams, but it probably won't be enough motivation to help a bad team secure a good international player.

Ohtani is a bad example because he's rare, but what about a Luis Robert, Lazarito or Maitan? All the playoff teams are going to bid their $100 to snag one of those guys and likely the lowest WC2 will be awarded those players if we break ties by lowest record. Non-playoff teams will have no shot. So, yes, they will be motivated to win to get those players, but I don't think a bottom 5-10 team is going to sell their prospects to get 33-year-old vets to try to climb into playoff contention just to try to get a higher international pool. I like the creativity, but I don't know this gets us there.

[Royals]

Nils and I were discussing exactly that type of situation, and the problem with the system, which I knew gong in, is that I wasn't sure there was enough international talent to make the system feasible. So what other ways could we find for a team to use their money? Particularly ones that would be more appealing to competitive teams than to weaker teams?

[Nationals]

Here's something radical. Why don't we institute a "free agency". Teams can designate a core group of players that are inelligible, but then any players who have exceeded 5 years with zips go into a pool and teams can bid for their services.

Competitive teams will value these guys and they would be valuable as trade chips or motivation to compete for rebuilding clubs.

[Royals]

Other things money could be used for:
- $1 to move up one spot on the waiver order to grab a waiver wire player
- $1/day to keep a player off the DL (I'm dicey on this, but Nils and I both thought of it independently so I thought I'd throw it out there)
- Use it for fines for missing DL deactivations in place of lengthier DL stays, this could be a double incentive, keeping bad teams watching their rosters better.
- Give new GM's a 'cash boost' to use in rebuilding their new teams (extra $20 first year, $10 second year, $5 third year)
- Hookers and blow
Or maybe instead of the cutoff being playoff teams, we make it at .500 record. Narrow the dropoff from richest to poorest, keep those top international players in the hands of teams that aren't playoff bound, but still making an effort.
I dunno, I'm out of ideas.

[Royals]

Here's something radical. Why don't we institute a "free agency". Teams can designate a core group of players that are inelligible, but then any players who have exceeded 5 years with zips go into a pool and teams can bid for their services.

Competitive teams will value these guys and they would be valuable as trade chips or motivation to compete for rebuilding clubs.

We looked at that early on actually, in year two or three. Including with a designation of core ineligible players. The spirit of the league is that it's NOT a free agency league though. There are lots of those, that's not what this league is or has been.

[Athletics]

Since we are discussing the haves and have nots, how about a quick fix for UFA. Since this has already come up with the claiming of Zips guys when each team is posted in the off season, why not just have that built in for UFA all year around. Like why can't we institute a 5am/2am processing time so teams could submit claims for UFAs they want rather than the first guy to read the BA/BP/FG post (or the beginning of the season Zip posts). If that team is highest on the list at the time of processing, they get the guy and they are moved to the last name on the list. The list could be reset at the end of each month like the WW list or it is set at the beginning of the season and untouched throughout the season. This would obviously need to stay blind and guessing that it might be difficult knowing if you are going to get your guy, but this would only seem to be a potentially issue around the Thursday/Sunday DB releases.