|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2018 22:40:12 GMT -5
OK, I've listened to the ideas brought up to date.
Looking for a better idea of preferred methods to maintain the integrity of the league. Again, this is not to pick on someone in particular, I just have an issue when teams cannot win 40 games. I firmly believe it is impacting wild card races meaning it doesn't affect just the tanking team, but others in the entire league.
Please select as many ideas that you like.
FYI, when referring the COMMISH making roster moves, the threshold I would run with is that any batter with AVG/BB that add up to less than 10 and any pitcher with an AR of less than 5, are subject to benching and/or demotion, to be replaced with top talent in FA. If no money is available, I will force the signing.
|
|
RoyalsGM
General Manager 
Kansas City Royals
Posts: 4,599 
|
Post by RoyalsGM on Aug 1, 2018 22:42:57 GMT -5
You should probably exempt any future expansion teams from this, at least for Year 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2018 22:44:56 GMT -5
You should probably exempt any future expansion teams from this, at least for Year 1. Agreed 110%. Whatever I end up doing, it will be phased in, maybe not start until 1984. And expansion teams are given a 5-year window of protection. |
|
RoyalsGM
General Manager
Kansas City Royals
Posts: 4,599
|
Post by RoyalsGM on Aug 1, 2018 22:45:33 GMT -5
Also, for the fines option, perhaps you can allow a GM to instead "buy" a year of tanking once every so many seasons at a reduced price, but come in with heavy fines for those who tank and did not purchase the right upfront.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2018 22:48:18 GMT -5
lol. Sir, I am going to rob the bank. OK?
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2018 22:48:52 GMT -5
I should note that I would probably do the roster management effective immediately, depending on how much support there is for the rule.
|
|
bub6708
Other 
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
Posts: 998
|
Post by bub6708 on Aug 1, 2018 22:55:00 GMT -5
Also, for the fines option, perhaps you can allow a GM to instead "buy" a year of tanking once every so many seasons at a reduced price, but come in with heavy fines for those who tank and did not purchase the right upfront.
I'm not following.
'Buy' a year of tanking? With points? You'd have to make the cost of that package pretty high. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2018 23:15:11 GMT -5
I'll take a 40 win season for 500 Alex.
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Aug 1, 2018 23:22:29 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of the no reversal part. Thirty apparently suck already, don't let them not fix prospects.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Aug 1, 2018 23:24:55 GMT -5
I have a problem with the rules punishing a team that has made every effort to put together the best team within their existing roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Aug 1, 2018 23:25:48 GMT -5
I'm gonna be forced to sign guys to start over my 4 and 5 AR 24 year olds? Not ok with me. They might develop or PD up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Aug 1, 2018 23:27:35 GMT -5
How many more games is replacing my young 4/2/2 catcher with a 5/3/3 catcher REALLY going to win me?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Aug 1, 2018 23:29:10 GMT -5
No matter how it's framed this reeks of certain people not being ok with other people following the rules and selling off everything they can.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Aug 1, 2018 23:31:11 GMT -5
Also how is it fair to possibly fuck over team #3 who got to the threshold when they dive to #5 because team #1 didn't make it by 3 games?
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2018 23:37:14 GMT -5
I'm gonna be forced to sign guys to start over my 4 and 5 AR 24 year olds? Not ok with me. They might develop or PD up. I'm talking about 0 AR pitchers still in majors. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Aug 1, 2018 23:38:11 GMT -5
I'm gonna be forced to sign guys to start over my 4 and 5 AR 24 year olds? Not ok with me. They might develop or PD up. I'm talking about 0 AR pitchers still in majors. Well I've got none of those and my worst player is the aforementioned catcher so how should I deserve punishment for going under the arbitrary number? |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2018 23:38:32 GMT -5
I have a problem with the rules punishing a team that has made every effort to put together the best team within their existing roster. I'm just talking about enhancing the existing rules to clarify more clearly the best team a team can field should be on the field. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2018 23:38:58 GMT -5
I'm talking about 0 AR pitchers still in majors. Well I've got none of those and my worst player is the aforementioned catcher so how should I deserve punishment for going under the arbitrary number? So you'll be fine! |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Aug 1, 2018 23:46:50 GMT -5
Well I've got none of those and my worst player is the aforementioned catcher so how should I deserve punishment for going under the arbitrary number? So you'll be fine! So what you're saying is multiple criteria need to be met to trigger the lottery? |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2018 23:48:22 GMT -5
So what you're saying is multiple criteria need to be met to trigger the lottery? Don't know if I'm going to do the lottery. I'm just looking for input. Personally I'm in favor of the enhancing the roster management rules. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2018 23:49:46 GMT -5
That alone may prevent the 30/40 win seasons. I don't care if teams tank and only win 50.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Aug 1, 2018 23:51:25 GMT -5
Roster management is the least intrusive to the teams freedom to make decisions out of this list so i guess that then.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2018 23:52:15 GMT -5
Roster management is the least intrusive to the teams freedom to make decisions out of this list so i guess that then. Thank you for the constructive feedback lol |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2018 23:53:42 GMT -5
Gonna call this the break rule just because you think it's all about you =p
Then in 1985 I'll call it the Spencer rule. And in 1991 I'll call it the Chris rule.
|
|
RoyalsGM
General Manager
Kansas City Royals
Posts: 4,599
|
Post by RoyalsGM on Aug 2, 2018 1:37:00 GMT -5
Also, for the fines option, perhaps you can allow a GM to instead "buy" a year of tanking once every so many seasons at a reduced price, but come in with heavy fines for those who tank and did not purchase the right upfront.
I'm not following.
'Buy' a year of tanking? With points? You'd have to make the cost of that package pretty high. Basically you could buy an exemption from the tanking rule with cash or points. Perhaps the price changes based on the winning pct predicted by the fan expectation sims right after opening day...less predicted wins = higher cost. It's only good for one season, and you can only do it, let's say, every 15 seasons. Kinda like the franchise player reservation in reverse. This limits extensive or repeated tanking, but gives the GM flexibility in selecting a year to be horrid in order to get a high draft pick. We exempt going negative for cash for one season, which is used strategically. Why not this? |
|
