|
|
Post by GiantsGM (Adam) on Jan 6, 2022 15:09:17 GMT -5
Hey all, thanks for the start to the discussion this morning. Here are my initial thoughts on the matter! Would love to hear the league's thoughts.
Options for penalties for missing IP limits As I see it, there are two different things we as a league need to figure out. One is a vote on how to proceed from this point forward. And two, what to do, if anything, about last season and the fines currently in place. For the “how to move forward” part…there are many options as i see it, and I think this will only serve as the starting point of a larger discussion. I think we still need to vote on something concrete before the start of the season, but I expect the discussion to take a while to flush out all the ideas people have and find the best ones! Potential options for penalties starting in 2022 season for missing IP limits: -Budget Fines - this can be either a flat rate (500k a week, 1mil a week, etc), or a sliding bar where it starts low and increases the more infractions and caps at a certain point. It could be something like a warning first offense, then 250k, then 500k, then 1mil, then 2mil, then 2mil every time after up to X amount, or something like that. -International $$ restrictions - I can see this in a couple different ways. We could limit the overall $$ that a team can spend in international FA. Or, alternatively, we could say something like a team cannot bid on a player that exceeds $10mil. That would keep the team from being in the running for the mega stars, which seems to me to be more of an incentive for a team to hit the IP requirement. However, that might actually be too punitive. Im curious to hear the league's thoughts on this. -Draft pick punishment - Either you lose out on a certain number of draft picks (first offense is a warning, second time you lose 5th rounder, next time you lose 4th rounder, etc). Or we could say that if that team finishes in the bottom four of the league, making that team normally eligible for the “lottery” and potential #1 overall pick, is no longer eligible. They will automatically be given the 4th pick, and the other three teams (assuming they are eligible) would be given #1-3. Or that a team's 1st round picks are pushed to their equivalent second round slot. So if a team misses IP limits, and they have picks 1.03 and 1.06 in the upcoming MILB draft, those picks would change to 2.03 and 2.06 (and the picks after those all get slid down one or two spots, so the previous pick 2.03 would now pick at 2.04, etc) These were the options i initially thought of, but ill continue to think on some more ideas. As for how to deal with fines given last year (with an upcoming vote before this season), my issue is not the fines themselves, but with how the fines were applied. The solution that I see (as just one owner, appreciate input) is fine everyone the same amount per warning, regardless of what the manager “tried” to do. Whether we want that amount to be $1mil, $5mil, $10mil, $14mil, $25mil, whatever, just apply it as a blanket law and apply it to this season. Thank you again for the discourse - i appreciate the openness and civil discussion. Sorry if i came off as personally attacking or anything like that. That was not my intention. |
|
|
|
Post by DodgersGM (Stephen) on Jan 6, 2022 17:16:16 GMT -5
If you are gonna fine owners- then MAKE IT HURT.
If you have a guy in your minors who is getting regular starts, and you would rather take the fine then promote the guy- the fine is not high enough.
2 misses, and then $1.5 million per week. First and last weeks of the season are exempt from miss/penalty because pitchers are building up arm strength or taking rest for the playoffs.
To start for 2023 so owners have 2 auctions to get squared away.
I am opposed to any changes based on off last season. With the mess it was concerning spring training, and the possible implications of a short spring this year with the lock out. But if we are gonna be reactionary, let’s make a good “WTF were we thinking” reaction so we hurt ourselves only once as we look back..
|
|
|
|
Post by AthleticsGM (Mike) on Jan 6, 2022 17:58:31 GMT -5
I'd like to hear more about what we're really trying to accomplish with the rule.
I understand that having a min inning pitched makes it so a manager can't try to get a cheap ERA or WHIP win with one or two good outings, but if you're not eligible to win those categories unless you reach a certain number of innings, then isn't losing those categories already a penalty?
Are we trying to discourage tanking?
Are we trying to prevent managers from stashing fantasy relevant talent in their minors system?
Should there also be a min AB rule as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by DodgersGM (Stephen) on Jan 6, 2022 23:27:13 GMT -5
Most baseball teams have 5 or 6 starters. I would say the objective is to mimic that approach. Most teams need to get 54 outs per week, we set it at 35 innings. 30 MLB franchises, we have 20 here. We have devalued pitching about 35% on an outs per week basis.
Minimum AB’s - hell yes… we should definitely have a minimum. If we do it before the draft, kick it in for 2023. After the draft 2024.
Maybe no more then $30 million unspent by May1 each season.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhilliesGM (Jacob) on Jan 7, 2022 8:33:25 GMT -5
4-5 years ago these rules were put in place because an owner could pitch one inning, avoid playing anyone else and win WHIP and ERA. Since then it helps ensure a competitive matchup, a precaution against full-on tanking.
Let's figure this out then we can discuss and vote on a minimum AB
I would like to point out that we already have a sliding scale in place for fines. See below as it can be seen in the constitution.
1st time rule is violated: no penalty
2nd time rule is violated: no penalty
3rd time rule is violated: $2,000,000 fine assessed in the FOLLOWING season. So if this happens in 2018, the fine will be assessed for 2019
4th time rule is violated: $5,000,000 fine is assessed in following season
5th time rule is violated: $7,000,000 fine is assessed in following season
6th time rule is violated: Team cannot sign franchise free agents until the start of the next season
7th time rule is violated: The commissioners will review the situation and take further action (potential loss of draft picks, further fines, or even replacing the owner - the further action will be dependent on how hard the owner is trying to rectify the situation)
The commissioners have only implemented the monetary fines because we felt that last year was an outlier. To Dodgers point, if we are going to fine someone...make it hurt. Given the response thus far I believe these fines hurt. I think a big issue appears to be is the "human" aspect in owners can make their case (injuries, FA market, trade market) which commissioners can use their best judgement to provide exceptions or leniency. If we want to eliminate that then it will be a hard line rule. The main beneficiary of the commissioners ruling is Dodgers because we felt he was making great efforts to hit his innings.
Dodgers has agreed to be fined further so that we don't have to retroactively mess with anything from a previous season which I agree with. As Dodgers treatment is a main issue then he can be further fined to the tune of $14m which is aligned with Red Sox and Giants so there isn't a need to vote on previous season sanctions
Here are things to be voted on
Fines
Option 1) Current System aka "Sliding Scale"
1st time rule is violated: no penalty
2nd time rule is violated: no penalty
3rd time rule is violated: $2,000,000 fine assessed in the FOLLOWING season. So if this happens in 2018, the fine will be assessed for 2019
4th time rule is violated: $5,000,000 fine is assessed in following season
5th time rule is violated: $7,000,000 fine is assessed in following season
6th time rule is violated: Team cannot sign franchise free agents until the start of the next season
7th time rule is violated: The commissioners will review the situation and take further action (potential loss of draft picks, further fines, or even replacing the owner - the further action will be dependent on how hard the owner is trying to rectify the situation)
Option 2) Flat Rate
1st & 2nd violations: Warning / No Penalty
3 and more violations: $2,000,000 fine per violation assessed in the following season (This is the same $ as the 3rd violation in Option 1)
7 or more violations: The commissioners will review the situation and take further action (potential loss of draft picks, further fines, or even replacing the owner - the further action will be dependent on how hard the owner is trying to rectify the situation)
Exemptions / Extenuating Circumstances
Option 1) Current System aka allows Commissioners to hear owners and make case by case decisions on struggles (injuries, FA / Trade troubles, etc. )that could result in exemptions / leniency
Option 2) No Exemptions
Minimum Innings Pitched
Option 1) Current limit of 35 innings
Option 2) 30 innings (This basically removes 1 start)
Additional Sanctions
Option 1) Include Draft Pick punishments and International J2 restrictions to 3rd - 7th violations
Option 2) Do not include.
Option 3) Include but only at commissioners discretion for 7 or more violations
Does all that sound ok in terms of the voting options?
|
|
|
|
Post by AthleticsGM (Mike) on Jan 7, 2022 9:25:38 GMT -5
I don't think this rule is about preventing cheap category wins. Winning two out of seven pitching categories is not an incentive to carry just a few pitchers. Any kind of IP floor, whether it's 35 IP or 30 IP, already establishes a penalty. If you don't surpass the IP floor, then you lose the categories.
As I understand it (though it hasn't really been talked about much), we're trying to disincentivize tanking. Why is important to try to prevent tanking? I think the answer is because we have unbalanced schedules. With twenty teams in the league and weekly match-ups, you typically play each team once during the regular season; however, there are a small handful of teams that you play twice. If you are lucky and happen to draw one of the teams that is tanking then you've been given an advantage that other teams didn't get. And for as many wins and losses there are in a season, our playoff race came down to the last week of the season. So it does matter.
What measures do we have in place to try to balance schedules? How do we determine what teams you play only once vs the teams you play twice?
Is there an option in our league setting to create additional scoring periods? For example, instead of a (Mon-Sun) scoring period, is there a (Mon-Thurs) + (Fri-Sat) option?
As much as I think it would be cool if all teams were competing for a championship every year, I understand there are reasons why teams deprioritize winning in the short-term in order to gain strength for the long-term. Since this is a dynasty format, I think we should allow teams to do that. What I don't think is cool is if a team that is competing is robbed of an opportunity because a rebuilding team gifts something to his competitor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red SoxGM (Brandon) on Jan 7, 2022 9:39:35 GMT -5
Mike makes a good point. Its clear that this is only an issue for rebuilding teams, as the 4 teams with fines are the first 4 picks in the draft. Stephen will probably jump in and say something like "14 mil is the price you pay for a top pick" but that doesn't seem right to me as this can hurt a team once they are starting to compete, you shouldn't have to pay hefty fines just for trying to rebuild.
My team for instance, I am now starting to compete, Im trying to win this year and now Im doing so with $14 MILLION less than other competing teams. That's a legit #2 or #3 starter. Its a huge punishment just for the sin of "rebuilding". I had tons of pitchers on my active roster last year and still couldn't reach the min. Lets not punish rebuilding teams so harshly.
This isn't me arguing against a minimum, Im arguing its too difficult to reach for rebuilding teams without constantly adding and dropping random useless players.
|
|
|
|
Post by GuardiansGM (Brian) on Jan 7, 2022 10:58:18 GMT -5
As the new guy coming into the league just a couple of observations from the outside looking in.
1. It appears as though a lot of owners have differencing opinions on the Min IP limit so I think the best thing to do is vote and what the results are everyone has to adjust their teams accordingly. (35, 30, 25)
2. Fines - Based on what I'm hearing it sounds like everyone agrees that there needs to be fines for not hitting Min IP we just need to vote on what those fines should be and set them in stone, i.e no penalties 1st and 2nd time, increase amount each time thereafter or a set amount for times 3-7 and then loss of draft picks 8-12 as in 8th offense is round 5, 9th is round 4, etc. If 12 times is too many maybe 3rd through 6th time is $$ amount fine and 7-11 is draft picks. If I'm a rebuilding team wth do I care if I get fined 12m I'm not competing anyway but if you start taking away my draft picks then I have some stake in the game because it impacts my rebuild timeline
3. I don't think we want to prevent teams from rebuilding just not tanking which hopefully the Min IP helps to resolve. I guess in addition to the Min IP what areas can we implement to prevent tanking? I don't think we want to prevent teams from trading Wheeler who is on his last year of his contract to a contending team for prospects/draft pick and then penalizing them for trying to rebuild MLB teams do that all the time I should know I've been watching it for 40 years in Cleveland. Some options that I can think of is Minimum AB per week along with Minimum IP that way teams are playing starters at least.
a. Min AB
b. Min IP
c. Min salary floor (30m) or something like that so teams are fielding a MLB team - I wish MLB had this rule
d. Implement MLB service 130 AB / 50 IP for promotion to active or 40 man roster that way teams can't keep players who have played 3-4 seasons in the majors in their minors and "stash" them so to say until they are ready to compete. I'm not sure how I feel about this one because this is the only league out of the 6 I'm in that doesn't have the service rule, i.e. once a player loses his MiLB eligibility he has to be promoted to the 40 man or maybe we say 130 AB / 50 IP / years or when MiLB years runs out. Or another option is for these players that lose their eligibility 130 AB / 50 IP at the end of the year an owner has a choice of promoting them to the 40 man roster during the season or they are put into a rule 5 draft and the draft order is set based on last years standings... the picks are not tradeable and the team does not have to pick a player if they choose not to. This way a team can't keep a player who is 27 and has played 3 years in the majors in their minors they either have to sign them or the last place team from last year can select them in the rule 5 draft to improve their roster but that said player would have zero options meaning they have to stay on the 40 man roster and are assigned the norm 6 year contract / they can be traded but must remain on a 40 man roster until they are waived or their arb year is declined.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhilliesGM (Jacob) on Jan 7, 2022 13:12:16 GMT -5
Thanks Brian. Alright guys, reading through everything right now we have the following that has enough support (2 or more people) to vote on: FinesOption 1) Current System aka "Sliding Scale" Option 2) Flat Rate Exemptions / Extenuating CircumstancesOption 1) Current System aka allows Commissioners to hear owners and make case by case decisions on struggles (injuries, FA / Trade troubles, etc. )that could result in exemptions / leniency Option 2) No Exemptions Minimum Innings PitchedOption 1) Current limit of 35 innings Option 2) 30 innings (This basically removes 1 start) Option 3) 25 innings (NEW)Additional SanctionsOption 1) Include Draft Pick punishments and International J2 restrictions to 3rd - 7th+ violations. If this wins then we will dive into more details Option 2) Do not include. Option 3) Include but only at commissioners discretion for 7 or more violations Minimum At Bats - What are Recommendations for options? The below has been proposed and needs one other member to support for a vote. If you want to support this then please reply on this thread. - Minimum Salary Floor
- Implement MLB service 130 AB / 50 IP for AUTOMATIC Promotion
- Adjusting the matchup weeks / timeframe (ex. 1 week to 2 week matchup)
We will look to have feedback until EOD today. After today we will post polls for everyone to vote on. Please keep up the feedback and remember the focus is NOT to call out other owners, but to look forward and provide recommendations for rule changes. |
|
|
|
Post by AthleticsGM (Mike) on Jan 7, 2022 14:58:53 GMT -5
Thanks Jacob for organizing everything.
I second a vote to implement MLB service time for automatic promotion. What would be the specific rule? Would need to know exactly how the rule is worded and implemented before I decide how I feel about it, but I think it's something worth voting on.
I'll just throw out a number for minimum ABs - how about 135? Just glancing at last year's results, if you had less than this number of ABs it was because you were leaving positions empty and/or not replacing injured players. Think of it like 9 players X 3 ABs per game X 5 games = 135. We can adjust the voting options up and down from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by RaysGM (Paul) on Jan 7, 2022 15:13:09 GMT -5
I would like to implement MLB service time for automatic promotion also.
Minimum ABs, I can take or leave.
Keep the weekly matchups as is.
|
|
|
|
Post by GuardiansGM (Brian) on Jan 7, 2022 16:50:31 GMT -5
I would also like to vote on the service time promotion
Min AB I’m good with either way
The schedule I would like to review I’m fine the way it is but if we can improve it I’m all for improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by YanksGM(Matt) on Jan 7, 2022 17:03:24 GMT -5
Yankees input:
Fines
Option 1) Current System aka "Sliding Scale"
Exemptions / Extenuating Circumstances
Option 2) No Exemptions
Minimum Innings Pitched
Option 1) Current limit of 35 innings
Additional Sanctions
Option 2) Do not include.
Minimum At Bats - What are Recommendations for options? Believe the math around 135 AB's felt appropriate
The below has been proposed and needs one other member to support for a vote. If you want to support this then please reply on this thread.
Minimum Salary Floor - NO
Implement MLB service 130 AB / 50 IP for AUTOMATIC Promotion - NO
Adjusting the matchup weeks / timeframe (ex. 1 week to 2 week matchup) - NO
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM (Scott) on Jan 7, 2022 20:50:08 GMT -5
I second the minimum ABs. We should at least vote on this idea. The 135 number seems appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by PadresGM (Dave) on Jan 7, 2022 22:07:11 GMT -5
Hi All,
I'm finally all caught up. This league will typically have 100+ messages over the course of one season. We did that in an afternoon yesterday. Lol.
Overall, I thought the messages and posts here are all good, constructive dialogue. Some very good ideas emerged, and I think we have some items to bring to the voting table, and I think these will only make the league better.
Some overall thoughts.
1. Minimum At Bats - I'm all in favor of minimum at bats. I'm not sure what this number is, but on the surface 135 sounds reasonable. I'm in a few leagues where we use this so I may take a look at those to see what the number is given a similar number of positional starters. If we need to have minimum IP to qualify for pitching ratios, the same should apply to hitting.
2. Schedule - If there is an imbalance, this should be fixed. There are many scheduling tools out there to make this easy. If there are weeks left after we play everyone once, maybe use the leftover to play teams in your division or league (NL/AL). Another option is going old school and not having interleague play. I also like splitting the week into 2 so that we have more match-ups overall. However, if we're having difficulties with IP over a 7 day period, it may get compounded if we go with 4 and 3 game matchup periods.
3. IP Threshold - I'm open to a IP threshold vote. My only thought here is if the IP is higher (i.e. 35), the penalties would be more modest, and if the IP is lower (i.e. 25), the penalties would be more punitive. See #5 below for options that can be included
4. Rulings - Subjectivity should be removed from the equation. Rules and penalties should be objective, concrete, easy to understand, and fair.
5. Fines - I like the sliding scale approach... warnings for the first 2, increasing penalties for future infractions with a cap on total penalties. If we're going into the 10+ weeks of issues, then that's a different discussion. I like salary cap penalties, but maybe those are no more than $15-$20M for the future season. I also like the idea of expanding the lottery teams to 6, to further discourage tanking. I also like penalizing teams by "relocating" picks starting with round 5... for example, if you're in violation for the xx time, you lose your 5th round pick, the xx time +1, you lose your 4th round pick. But, instead of a pure loss of pick, that pick gets added to the end of the 5th round... if multiple offenders, those picks are ordered in reverse order of standings and round of lost pick. The reason I mention is because these picks are free signings and still allows a team to build minors for free without having to bid on players via the minors auction. I'm also heavily in favor of limiting J2 dollars for violators of IP and/or AB thresholds. In my opinion, way too much is saved up and spent on 16-17 year players in which most won't sniff a MLB roster. I think teams do this to the detriment of fielding a competitive team and a bare minimum competitive roster.
6. Team Salary Floor - I like this but somehow feel this could hurt the league overall, just not sue how as I haven't given it much thought.
7. MLB Service Time - I really prefer the way we have it now, but the one thing that would sway me is the Rule 5 draft proposition that was mentioned in this thread... great idea.
8. Comment - I really appreciate some of the research and math that was provided by all of you... really helps the decision making process and drives home some key points in the discussion.
Lastly, I think it all comes down to being accountable for your actions. Much like the J2 issue I mentioned above where I've seen teams spend in excess of $30-$40M+ on J2 players at the expense of being more competitive in any given season, we're now approaching the biggest reset and free agency period in league history. Based on past observations, I'm expecting to see lots of big $$ contracts for max years. Just like in pro sports, signing day is always exciting, but what happens when that 32 year old is in year 6, and he has spent half of his team tenure on the IL... and even worse, what if that player is a pitcher and can't contribute to your innings threshold? I'm not expecting this comment to change anything, but we should all remember that bad decisions lead to bad consequences. And when we're talking about players with high total contracts, buyouts will be nearly impossible, and then all you're hoping for is that insurance to kick in.
Thanks for listening.
|
|
