2018 Rule Ideas

2018 Rule Ideas

Postby Rick Smetana » Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:09 pm

Does anyone see any rule changes we need to make? Opening this up for discussion.
Rick Smetana
DodgerBlu@aol.com
User avatar
Rick Smetana
The Commish
 
Posts: 16322
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Greenfield, Indiana

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby Rick Smetana » Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:23 pm

1. I would like your thoughts on allowing teams to roster as many minor leaguers as they want during the season, but then only allow only 5 minor league roster freezes the following year. You would either have to put on the active roster, or lose them.

We have had two cases, where (with the current system of only allowing 5 minor leaguers at one time) a couple of owners had to activate a minor league player and then immediately reserve, using a charged transaction, then turn right around and reserve them, picking up a new player, and losing the rights to the minor league freeze the following year. Right now that is a loop hole that I don't like.

=========================

2. Speaking of that loop hole, I would like to do away with that loop hole on all transactions, making it impossible to activate, then immediately reserve him or vice versa. I would like to see a minimum 48 hour waiting period before any player that has been activated/reserved, before he can transacted again.
Rick Smetana
DodgerBlu@aol.com
User avatar
Rick Smetana
The Commish
 
Posts: 16322
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Greenfield, Indiana

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby geoflin » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:57 am

Rick Smetana wrote:2. Speaking of that loop hole, I would like to do away with that loop hole on all transactions, making it impossible to activate, then immediately reserve him or vice versa. I would like to see a minimum 48 hour waiting period before any player that has been activated/reserved, before he can transacted again.

I agree but with an exception for any player who is activated off the DL, reinjures himself, and goes back on the DL.
Geoff
Sparky - Blue Sox
Bell - Sapphire Sox 2016 Champions
Bob - Indigo Sox
Robinson - Azure Sox 2017 Champions
User avatar
geoflin
In the pantheon of greats
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:42 pm
Location: Melrose MA

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby Steve Shiffrin » Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:15 pm

I agree that the number of minor leaguers should not be restricted during the season, but only 5 should be permitted as keepers. This new system already negatively impacts teams trying to rebuild and eliminating the restriction would help rebuilding teams.
Bell Champion 2017
Clemente Champion 2016
Berra Champion 2014
User avatar
Steve Shiffrin
Frozen for DNA
 
Posts: 4023
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Ithaca, New York

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby Crosley » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:22 am

Either I'm completely missing something or something really is missing:

Rick Smetana wrote:1. I would like your thoughts on allowing teams to roster as many minor leaguers as they want during the season,

What would be the mechanics of this? If I don't have to drop another player - which seems to be implied here - how do I add minor leaguers #6 - #100? Can I just copy and paste the entire roster of every minor league team into one Mocksports transaction? I could be the Emperor of Minor League Baseball in 15 minutes.

No. Minor Leaguers are only allowed to be acquired by way of a trade. Right now we have a max of 5 minor leaguers, so if you have 5 and make a trade, you cannot roster him as a farm hand. Someone has to activated, then reserved, and I want to do away with that rule, allowing us to roster an unlimited number of minor leaguers, but the following year, can only freeze 5 farm hands with the minor league roster.

but then only allow only 5 minor league roster freezes the following year. You would either have to put on the active roster, or lose them.

But in the interim, you've shut out the rest of the league for this season from claiming a desirable minor leaguer through FAAB.

Yes, unless they are activated by their parent club, then they become available through FAAB. This has not changed from previous years. If a minor leaguer was not drafted, then he was not available until he was brought up by his parent club, then he became available.

We have had two cases, where (with the current system of only allowing 5 minor leaguers at one time) a couple of owners had to activate a minor league player

The rules don't require an owner to activate a promoted minor leaguer from his minor league roster. They only have to add them to the active roster in the offseason and then only if they either were activated or they have exceeded the threshold total of at-bats or innings pitched.

The rules as written now, say that each owner is only allowed five (5) minor leaguers in the farm system, so you are unable to acquire anymore minor leaguers and stash them on your farm system.

and then immediately reserve, using a charged transaction,

What transaction that involves reserving a reservable player is ever counted as a charge? I'm really confused about this one.

When you early activate a player who is not actively on the 25-man roster, has always been a charged transaction. Basically, to activate a player from the farm system, who has not been activated by the parent club, is basically an early activation, therefore a charged transaction.

then turn right around and reserve them, picking up a new player, and losing the rights to the minor league freeze the following year. Right now that is a loop hole that I don't like.

How is this a "loophole"? The newly acquired player can only be reserved if he's reservable - i.e., suspended (with his MLB team being allowed to replace him), injured, demoted or traded to the other league. There's nothing different about how this works for players activated from the minor league roster vs. players activated from the major league roster. If an owner chooses to "expose" a minor leaguer for next year by activating him just to create the possibility that he can quickly reserve that player and add another major league body to his team, he will either be rewarded for somewhat better management of his team or burned by having to freeze or lose that minor leaguer next season.

See above!

=========================

2. Speaking of that loop hole, I would like to do away with that loop hole on all transactions, making it impossible to activate, then immediately reserve him or vice versa. I would like to see a minimum 48 hour waiting period before any player that has been activated/reserved, before he can transacted again.

Confused again - why would we want to restrict an owner from managing his team in line with what is happening in real world baseball?? No owner can simply choose to activate or reserve a player. That player has to have been either activated or "reserved" (per any of that word's meanings in Mocksports) by his MLB team in order for a valid transaction to be posted.

And where do we get the new LAs after the current, short-handed roster of them dwindles because NO ONE will want to start counting minutes between transactions?

In short, I just don't get this. :?
    "Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field?"

      ― Jim Bouton
User avatar
Crosley
Frozen for DNA
 
Posts: 7213
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby Steve Shiffrin » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:03 am

I must say that the restriction also harms contending teams. Ordinarily, a dump trade involves prospects, but the value of trading a prospect declines if the weaker team must give up a member of the farm. If the minor league draft is not scrapped altogether (keeping the current farm rosters), I would give all future acquisitions the same price ($3)(this would give more flexibility for trades), would eliminate the restriction on the in season farm roster, and would not increase the price of the roster players from year to year until the year after they have been activated.
Bell Champion 2017
Clemente Champion 2016
Berra Champion 2014
User avatar
Steve Shiffrin
Frozen for DNA
 
Posts: 4023
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Ithaca, New York

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby geoflin » Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:57 pm

I'm OK with the limit of 5 minor leaguers but could also live without that limit under certain conditions. I think the only way to add a minor leaguer to any team should be via trade. I think if you trade away a minor leaguer and do not receive one in return you should not be allowed to pick up a free agent minor leaguer. I do not think we should allow minor leaguers to be waived and a different one claimed. I also think that any minor leaguers drafted in the June draft should be off limits until the following spring.
I like the idea of minor league salaries not increasing over time, or possibly having a cap on the highest salary for a minor leaguer. One of the problems with the current rules is that if I draft a team's top prospect into my $5 slot, but he happens to be in Single A ball, it might be 3 years or more before he reaches the majors, and keeping him as a rookie at $8 is not necessarily desirable or representative of his draft value.
One of the things we used to do in a league I was in 35 years ago was to have a small supplemental draft at the All Star break. It gave us something fun to do when there were no games being played. How about if during the All Star break we were to allow each owner to waive one or two current minor leaguers (using the same rolling format as we used this spring in the minor league draft) and claim new ones because during the season many minor leaguers see their values change - highly rated ones have poor years or get injured and their values decrease, some minor leaguers who were not on the radar in the spring suddenly develop quickly and become much more highly rated. Maybe if we did this it would be a possible time to allow claims of players drafted in June and thus add some excitement to our leagues at mid-season.
Geoff
Sparky - Blue Sox
Bell - Sapphire Sox 2016 Champions
Bob - Indigo Sox
Robinson - Azure Sox 2017 Champions
User avatar
geoflin
In the pantheon of greats
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:42 pm
Location: Melrose MA

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby Rick Smetana » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:43 pm

^
Rick Smetana
DodgerBlu@aol.com
User avatar
Rick Smetana
The Commish
 
Posts: 16322
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Greenfield, Indiana

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby Steve Shiffrin » Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:23 pm

I may be the only one who thinks this, but I would not have a minor league draft. The institution of that draft makes trading more difficult and it means that fewer prospects are available in FAAB. It has entirely changed the way Mocksports operates from the draft, through the FAAB process to trading, and in my opinion not to the good.
A word about Fantrax: Fantrax does not allow you to prioritize free agents mixed with waived players. So if you want to reserve a player and pick up a waived player, followed by a free agent if you do not get the waived player, if both of your claims are successful, you will get both players while dropping one (which, of course is unfair to the owner who might also have bid on the free agent). This also creates an illegal lineup. Dropping one of the players sometimes does not solve the illegal lineup problem and the commissioner has to intervene.
The work around in most leagues is to have waiver claims one night and free agent claims the next. On Roto allows you to prioritize waived players with free agents.
Bell Champion 2017
Clemente Champion 2016
Berra Champion 2014
User avatar
Steve Shiffrin
Frozen for DNA
 
Posts: 4023
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Ithaca, New York

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby Rick Smetana » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:52 pm

Steve Shiffrin wrote:I may be the only one who thinks this, but I would not have a minor league draft. The institution of that draft makes trading more difficult and it means that fewer prospects are available in FAAB. It has entirely changed the way Mocksports operates from the draft, through the FAAB process to trading, and in my opinion not to the good.
A word about Fantrax: Fantrax does not allow you to prioritize free agents mixed with waived players. So if you want to reserve a player and pick up a waived player, followed by a free agent if you do not get the waived player, if both of your claims are successful, you will get both players while dropping one (which, of course is unfair to the owner who might also have bid on the free agent). This also creates an illegal lineup. Dropping one of the players sometimes does not solve the illegal lineup problem and the commissioner has to intervene.
The work around in most leagues is to have waiver claims one night and free agent claims the next. On Roto allows you to prioritize waived players with free agents.

Well, while I do think there are some refinements needed, I have to disagree with you. I think it allows each owner to get their share of prospects and allows them to build for the future. I believe we need to allow more prospects to be rosterable during the season, but to limit to no more than five to be frozen at the season's start.
I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say, when you mention claiming waived players. Fantrax may not offer the ability to prioritize free agent with waived players, but the way I envision it, we would still have the LA's perform the FAAB Bids for at least the first year if we decide to use Fantrax next year. So in that case it wouldn't be much different than what we have no, but each owner would be able to post the transaction on the Mocksports thread and then make the move themselves on Fantrax, with the LA just verifying that no rules have been overlooked.
With all the problems we have with OnRoto, I believe Fantrax is far superior than what we are getting from OnRoto. But, it will not be my decision to make the move to Fantrax, we will all have to decide on that. I just know I don't have the time necessary to handle the number of leagues I have in the past. And I have heard that from other LA's also.
Rick Smetana
DodgerBlu@aol.com
User avatar
Rick Smetana
The Commish
 
Posts: 16322
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Greenfield, Indiana

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby Steve Shiffrin » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:14 am

I would like the following rule to be considered: VICKREY FAAB: For winning bids, the number of units deducted from the winner’s FAAB budget shall be the amount of the second highest bid, plus one (1). Under this rule, if an owner bids $4 and no one else bids, the owner gets the player for $1. I am in a 12 team league which uses this method. Every member of the league favors this method. We have used it for many years, but could not use it this year because a different service we went to could not handle it. So we are moving back to OnRoto which can. (I realize that the plan is to have LA's handle FAAB rather than the service).
The advantage of this Vickrey method is that it helps teams to rebuild. In the Mocksports context, it would also mean that teams would have more keepers leading to shorter auctions. Theoretically, it might mean more FAAB bids because owners do not pay as much for players, but it is rare that any owner in our leagues uses up the entire FAAB budget. In fact, I found only one instance in a spot check of 7 or so of our leagues of an owner who used up his entire FAAB budget.
Bell Champion 2017
Clemente Champion 2016
Berra Champion 2014
User avatar
Steve Shiffrin
Frozen for DNA
 
Posts: 4023
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Ithaca, New York

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby Rick Smetana » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:49 am

That is a good idea. Will look at it when we start gearing up for 2018.
Rick Smetana
DodgerBlu@aol.com
User avatar
Rick Smetana
The Commish
 
Posts: 16322
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Greenfield, Indiana

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas any chance?

Postby Steve Shiffrin » Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:35 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas
Postby Steve Shiffrin » 11 Oct 2017 10:14 am

I would like the following rule to be considered: VICKREY FAAB: For winning bids, the number of units deducted from the winner’s FAAB budget shall be the amount of the second highest bid, plus one (1). Under this rule, if an owner bids $4 and no one else bids, the owner gets the player for $1. I am in a 12 team league which uses this method. Every member of the league favors this method. We have used it for many years, but could not use it this year because a different service we went to could not handle it. So we are moving back to OnRoto which can. (I realize that the plan is to have LA's handle FAAB rather than the service).
The advantage of this Vickrey method is that it helps teams to rebuild. In the Mocksports context, it would also mean that teams would have more keepers leading to shorter auctions. Theoretically, it might mean more FAAB bids because owners do not pay as much for players, but it is rare that any owner in our leagues uses up the entire FAAB budget. In fact, I found only one instance in a spot check of 7 or so of our leagues of an owner who used up his entire FAAB budget.
Clemente Champion 2016
Berra Champion 2014
User avatar
Steve Shiffrin
Frozen for DNA

Posts: 3905
Joined: 31 Dec 1969 08:00 pm
Location: Ithaca, New York
Top
Re: 2018 Rule Ideas
Postby Rick Smetana » 12 Oct 2017 08:49 am

That is a good idea. Will look at it when we start gearing up for 2018.
Bell Champion 2017
Clemente Champion 2016
Berra Champion 2014
User avatar
Steve Shiffrin
Frozen for DNA
 
Posts: 4023
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Ithaca, New York

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby geoflin » Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:57 am

I am in favor of Steve's idea for Vickrey FAAB bidding. Particularly after seeing the results of some of this year's bidding where there has been a large dollar discrepancy between the winning bid and the runner up (if anyone else even bid) I would like to see us move to this method.
Geoff
Sparky - Blue Sox
Bell - Sapphire Sox 2016 Champions
Bob - Indigo Sox
Robinson - Azure Sox 2017 Champions
User avatar
geoflin
In the pantheon of greats
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:42 pm
Location: Melrose MA

Re: 2018 Rule Ideas

Postby Rick Smetana » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:15 am

geoflin wrote:I am in favor of Steve's idea for Vickrey FAAB bidding. Particularly after seeing the results of some of this year's bidding where there has been a large dollar discrepancy between the winning bid and the runner up (if anyone else even bid) I would like to see us move to this method.

Let me look at this when I get home in a week.

We would not be able to enact this until the 2019 season, if we decided to do it.
Rick Smetana
DodgerBlu@aol.com
User avatar
Rick Smetana
The Commish
 
Posts: 16322
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Greenfield, Indiana

Next

Return to FBB 2018

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest