2018 issues

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:09 pm

Before the season starts, are there any outstanding issues we need to discuss?

I think we clearly need to update the rules page and we need to at the very least rule that any playoff H2H needs to start only after mlb playoff rosters are announced.

I don't think MLB has instituted any changes that affect us as a league, but I may be missing something.

General forum for discussion before the season starts...

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:55 pm

We never resolved competitive incentives viewtopic.php?t=6563

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:52 am

Likewise, are we just going to stick with having a TRC for another year and wait to address all of this another year down the line? viewtopic.php?t=6564

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:02 am

Tigers wrote:... I think we clearly need to update the rules page and we need to at the very least rule that any playoff H2H needs to start only after mlb playoff rosters are announced...

I agree that this issue must get done before the season starts and we are close ... certainly conceptually in agreement. Just need to nail down language and procedure. Then get it posted.

Do we have a clear policy on how we are handling drug suspensions in real life vs the IBC? At least one real life example looms on the horizon. Nick's b/u Catcher on the Phillies appears to be Randy Read:

Nationals catching prospect Raudy Read has been suspended 80 games without pay for testing positive for a performance-enhancing substance.

Read, 23, tested positive for Boldenone, a drug that is on the list of banned PEDs under Major League Baseball's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program. The suspension will be effective at the beginning of the 2018 regular season. Read hit 17 homers with a .767 OPS for Double-A Harrisburg in 2017 and received a September callup to the Nationals after his minor league season was completed. [Feb 7]

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/mlb/8526/raudy-read

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:06 am

Rangers wrote:Likewise, are we just going to stick with having a TRC for another year and wait to address all of this another year down the line? viewtopic.php?t=6564

Regarding the TRC I don't really care one way or another ... on the positive side it does keep those involved engaged in the league. On the negative side, no one likes getting second guessed but overall the TRC has been fairly consistent over my tenure in this league ...

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:20 pm

WhiteSox wrote:
Tigers wrote:... I think we clearly need to update the rules page and we need to at the very least rule that any playoff H2H needs to start only after mlb playoff rosters are announced...
I agree that this issue must get done before the season starts and we are close ... certainly conceptually in agreement. Just need to nail down language and procedure. Then get it posted.

Do we have a clear policy on how we are handling drug suspensions in real life vs the IBC? At least one real life example looms on the horizon. Nick's b/u Catcher on the Phillies appears to be Randy Read:

Nationals catching prospect Raudy Read has been suspended 80 games without pay for testing positive for a performance-enhancing substance.

Read, 23, tested positive for Boldenone, a drug that is on the list of banned PEDs under Major League Baseball's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program. The suspension will be effective at the beginning of the 2018 regular season. Read hit 17 homers with a .767 OPS for Double-A Harrisburg in 2017 and received a September callup to the Nationals after his minor league season was completed. [Feb 7]

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/mlb/8526/raudy-read

Yes, if a player is suspended in the MLB then he is suspended in the IBC.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:24 pm

Rangers wrote:Likewise, are we just going to stick with having a TRC for another year and wait to address all of this another year down the line? viewtopic.php?t=6564

Let's get rid of the TRC and create a new policy for challenging bad trades.

In lieu of a TRC, if five GMs (18% of the 28 teams not involved) vote for a deal to be challenged, then it can go to a vote similar to our current trade process.

We can stick with the same 20 votes needed to overturn it (71%).

This way we can at least get rid of the inconsistencies in the TRC and make transactions instant. Horrible trades are already passing (see: Andrus, Votto take 1 last year), so I don't really see the need for the TRC anymore.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:44 pm

I'm fine with abandoning the TRC and going to a gm-led challenge system. Let's just agree on the definition and put it clearly in rule.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:10 pm

Pirates wrote:
Rangers wrote:Likewise, are we just going to stick with having a TRC for another year and wait to address all of this another year down the line? viewtopic.php?t=6564
Let's get rid of the TRC and create a new policy for challenging bad trades.

In lieu of a TRC, if five GMs (18% of the 28 teams not involved) vote for a deal to be challenged, then it can go to a vote similar to our current trade process.

We can stick with the same 20 votes needed to overturn it (71%).

This way we can at least get rid of the inconsistencies in the TRC and make transactions instant. Horrible trades are already passing (see: Andrus, Votto take 1 last year), so I don't really see the need for the TRC anymore.

I support this approach. One small point that I would make is that I think that the two-thirds majority on a trade should be among the other 28 GMs, not the two involved, so I would propose 19 rather than 20. Just a suggestion, I think the mechanics working like JP described is the main thing.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:23 pm

That sounds good to me, you need 2/3 to overturn a veto in Congress, might as well be the same here

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:38 pm

Let's go with 19 to overturn.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:49 pm

Good with me.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:51 pm

Just need Shawn and Jim to weigh in on TRC and we can move forward to other topics. We should keep it focused on one at a time and get everything done before March.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:13 am

I concur with the concept and "19".

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:59 pm

Challenge/19 is fine. It seems like there probably needs to be some guidance for everyone in terms of what constitutes a "fair" trade though?

FWIW, I hate you guys since I already implemented the old TRC logic in new OOPSS version

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:07 pm

Dodgers wrote:Challenge/19 is fine. It seems like there probably needs to be some guidance for everyone in terms of what constitutes a "fair" trade though?

FWIW, I hate you guys since I already implemented the old TRC logic in new OOPSS version

Haha. Sorry Shawn. Can you use that logic to allow players to be easily moved in the draft queue?

I think the only potential downside is people calling for votes simply because the trade hurts their chances. But, I think that would have been a bigger problem 15 years ago than now.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:25 pm

Don’t worry, draft stuff is getting a complete rewrite too.

If you can get 18 other votes on a trade that hurts your chances, all the more power to you.

IBC

2018 issues

2018 issues

Re: 2018 issues

Re: 2018 issues