|
|
Post by Mariners GM (David) on Jun 10, 2022 10:16:08 GMT -5
Hello All,
With the recent discussions we've been having in chat regarding the weekly minimums, teams tanking and teams sitting their players to try to get the first overall draft pick, we're proposing a few changes below for the 2023 season. Please use this thread to give your opinion on the below changes. They may be tweaked based on feedback.
1. Expanded Playoffs
We'll expand playoffs to 12 teams, just like the MLB did. We'll now have 3 wild card spots.
2. Season Long Weekly Minimums
Weekly AB/IP minimums of 75 AB and 15 IP will be implemented until a week before the trade deadline, then they will drop to 50 AB and 10 IP for the remainder of the regular season. Missing the weekly minimums will result in the below penalties:
Before the Trade Deadline
You will be fined $7M for not hitting the AB minimum and or $7M the following year for not hitting the IP minimum of 75 AB and 15 IP.
After the Trade Deadline
You will be fined $4M for not hitting the AB minimum and or $4M the following year for not hitting the IP minimum of 50 AB and 10 IP.
3. Waiver Wire Eligibility
Eligible waiver wire players need to accrue 1PA/.1IP minimum in their MLB career to be claimed. This will allow more teams to acquire players to meet the season long minimum requirement and with the current irrevocable waivers and in-season scale player penalty for cutting them, it makes sense.
4. Draft Lottery Change
To determine the first six draft slots, we will now use a draft lottery for the six teams. We'll take the worst three teams and the first three non-playoff teams and put them in a lottery for the first six draft slots. The remaining 24 teams will go from worst to best.
5. Competitive Franchise Boost
Teams with a winning percentage will receive a financial cash boost for the following year, only for the following year, structured below:
.500 - .575% = $3M
.576 - .625% = $5M
.626 - .699% = $7M
>.700% = $10M
**Potential update to the above structure**
.350 - .425% = $2M
Please leave your feedback below and let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
ODC Team
,
|
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Alex) on Jun 10, 2022 16:26:13 GMT -5
I'm fine with all of them except number 5... where did that come from? Teams at the top are already getting tons of players salaries covered and going way over the salary cap with adjustments included. I don't think they need more cap space.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Bill) on Jun 10, 2022 18:08:40 GMT -5
Agree with Alex. All are good but giving the best teams even more of an advantage makes no sense. Vote no on Proposition 5!
|
|
|
|
Post by Royals GM (Adam) on Jun 10, 2022 21:21:02 GMT -5
1 PA and 1 IP seems low but not a deal breaker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (David) on Jun 10, 2022 21:26:10 GMT -5
The idea behind #5 is no top team can stay on top forever, so it just gives them a reward for a great season.
Look at the past WS winners, they only stay highly competitive for at most 2 seasons before having to retool or rebuild.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (David) on Jun 10, 2022 21:26:39 GMT -5
1 PA and 1 IP seems low but not a deal breaker. This is what it was originally (a few years ago). |
|
|
|
Post by Tigers GM (Alex) on Jun 11, 2022 12:19:34 GMT -5
I like the competitive franchise boost and agree with Dave - it's really hard to stay good over a long time period. Regarding the already getting players with salaries covered/cap adjustments, teams are typically giving up assets to get those, and usually taking on a lot of future salary so it's not really a viable indefinite long term strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (Michael) on Jun 11, 2022 16:24:33 GMT -5
IMO the competitive franchise boost isn't granular enough - if a team is .350 talent, there is no incentive for them to finish .400
Should be a small cap penalty for being rly bad. We can start w/ small #s and see how the league responds.
Edit to expand on my thoughts, sorry for being wordy but it's better than throwing this all in chat: In general, what may be helpful is to clearly state the goal(s) of the league and how said rule change can achieve that goal.
For the case of rule 5, I think it is trying to address the lack of care that teams put into the current season since winning more games in 2022 does nothing but hurt their chances in 2023 and beyond. So GMs will tear their teams down to the studs, sell every bit of unused $ for future assets like prospects and picks. I think we all agree that this is, to an extent, a viable strategy, but it has been adopted by an overwhelming majority of the league (like in the real MLB).
Couple this with a lack of teams competing for the middle of the pack/last postseason spots, and I think the structure of the league could use a better incentive system. At least in MLB you have profits (or "cap space") sorta tied to winning, here you don't.
The only reasons to try, besides for the strongest contenders with their focus on 2022 success, are true incentives that benefit the franchise for future seasons. Ways to do that include manipulating the draft order/comp picks (unpopular), or cash incentives.
If you skip everything else I said, still read this:
At the very least, teams should not be penalized for trying. In effect, that's what happens here - for every dollar spent on your MLB roster, it's not going toward trading for some A ball prospect. (Never mind that you can sign good MLB players once in a while who can do well for team *and* later fetch something good in a trade if he doesn't fit your timeline.) Cash incentive or not, I am interested in a league structure which encourages making your MLB team better, or at least forces some sort of confines where you have to play *somebody* so you have to be good. I guess the mins does this job but it clearly hasn't done enough, and I think the cash incentives provide a good extra nudge for trying a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Alex) on Jun 11, 2022 16:34:59 GMT -5
Isn't that what you'd want in a healthy league? Teams not being able to stay on top forever? Having to shuffle up their rosters and not giving them salary cap bonuses?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Alex) on Jun 11, 2022 16:35:58 GMT -5
I like the competitive franchise boost and agree with Dave - it's really hard to stay good over a long time period. Regarding the already getting players with salaries covered/cap adjustments, teams are typically giving up assets to get those, and usually taking on a lot of future salary so it's not really a viable indefinite long term strategy. That's literally what is supposed to happen to really good teams. They should have to trade their good players for young assets and re-shuffle the roster if they want to remain competitive, not just be gifted a roster bonus. |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (Caleb) on Jun 11, 2022 19:00:28 GMT -5
IMO the competitive franchise boost isn't granular enough - if a team is .350 talent, there is no incentive for them to finish .400 Should be a small cap penalty for being rly bad. We can start w/ small #s and see how the league responds. This. Tanks already meet the new PA/IP mins and they're the reason this is all a discussion to begin with. I've also said they could go even higher and it would still be incredibly easy to tank around, especially if you prep FA like myself. I lost the mins battle and I'm ok with that but at the *very* least penalize sucking balls so it takes more resources to do so. Need to remember that real life teams tank and they're forced to field full teams. Tanking is not a quanitity issue it's a quality one. Have to get as much value away from it as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (Michael) on Jun 11, 2022 19:11:24 GMT -5
Oh also I propose a weekly start limit (like idk 8 a week? 9?) so there's less reason to hoard MLB talent. This will make it easier for the "have-nots" of the league to acquire pitching.
Also we need better enforcement of 40 man roster, and I would cut it down at least to 38. Again to reduce hoarding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Padres GM (Noah) on Jun 12, 2022 1:30:17 GMT -5
Shouldnt the league outcome be based on skill / effort?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Bill) on Jun 12, 2022 12:09:23 GMT -5
The idea behind #5 is no top team can stay on top forever, so it just gives them a reward for a great season. Look at the past WS winners, they only stay highly competitive for at most 2 seasons before having to retool or rebuild. I would say that winning s title snd being a good team is the reward. It’s supposed to be hard to stay on top. That encourages new teams competing for championships. Subsidizing good teams artificially keeps them in power. Ban the bonus money. |
|
|
|
Post by Royals GM (Adam) on Jun 12, 2022 12:18:21 GMT -5
Oh also I propose a weekly start limit (like idk 8 a week? 9?) so there's less reason to hoard MLB talent. This will make it easier for the "have-nots" of the league to acquire pitching. Also we need better enforcement of 40 man roster, and I would cut it down at least to 38. Again to reduce hoarding. I kind of like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Alex) on Jun 12, 2022 14:18:28 GMT -5
These are all big league changes that I feel each deserve their own individual thread to perfect.... this is a lot to change in one swoop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Jeff) on Jun 12, 2022 14:39:40 GMT -5
I like all 5...well done
|
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (David) on Jun 13, 2022 10:11:08 GMT -5
Isn't that what you'd want in a healthy league? Teams not being able to stay on top forever? Having to shuffle up their rosters and not giving them salary cap bonuses? The idea with #5 is to reward top teams that are going all in for a WS...We've never had a repeat WS winner in 12 years, so I think that reiterates how hard it is to win a WS in here. Rewarding the top teams $7M or $10M helps them keep the competition window open slightly longer...that amount isn't going to guarantee they stay on top for years to come, since most top teams carry huge payrolls and expensive FA's. It just helps them compete a little longer or even gives them a little more incentive to compete the following year with the small cap boost instead of tearing down. On top of this league never having a repeat WS winner, the previous WS winner usually doesn't fully compete the following year because of their lack of assets/high payroll. (props to John for winning the league in 2020 and then making it back to the playoffs in 2021). Giving the top teams a small boost in cash for the following year should increase their competitiveness and it also rewards other teams who may not make the playoffs but still have a solid winning percentage. |
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (David) on Jun 13, 2022 15:34:33 GMT -5
The idea behind #5 is no top team can stay on top forever, so it just gives them a reward for a great season. Look at the past WS winners, they only stay highly competitive for at most 2 seasons before having to retool or rebuild. I would say that winning s title snd being a good team is the reward. It’s supposed to be hard to stay on top. That encourages new teams competing for championships. Subsidizing good teams artificially keeps them in power. Ban the bonus money. True but what about the teams that lose in the WS...most of them go all in and then have to decide whether to try to fully compete again for a WS or in most cases they have to rebuild. This helps those teams and even rewards them a little even though they might have lost the WS or in the Championship matchup. |
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Alex) on Jun 13, 2022 17:32:55 GMT -5
Mariners GM (David) thanks for clarifying. I don't agree with it, but not going to make the point any longer if we're not voting on it.
|
|
2019 On Deck Circle Champions!
