|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Tim) on Jun 25, 2019 18:45:31 GMT -5
I’ve mentioned this before, but Alex thought it’d be a good idea to get an official discussion going on the topic. Our current rules for the draft order awards the better pick of teams with identical records to the team with the fewest points scored. With the league starting to sour on teams “tanking”, this may prevent it to an extent.
For example, the Padres and Orioles finish with identical 1-18 records, the Padres scored 1800 points and the Orioles scored 1500 points. Under the current rules, the Orioles would be awarded the 1st overall pick and the Padres would be awarded the 2nd pick. Under the proposal, the Padres would be awarded the 1st overall pick since they scored more points.
Another suggestion would be to have a “points threshold” rule. For example, if a team fails to score 1750 points over the whole regular season, they are moved down the draft board 3 slots. 1750 is just a random number I picked so it can be any number. Again, this might alleviate some teams from totally selling off all MlB assets if they know they’ve got a points threshold to meet. I think this change would be a little less popular so I won’t add a poll for it. Just post some feedback on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Jun 25, 2019 18:53:20 GMT -5
A formal suggestion we can tinker with:
--> Change the rule to make MOST Points Scored to be the tiebreaker for the draft order.
--> Add the following point thresholds penalties to teams.
Failure to score 1,000 points (apr. 50 points a week) results in moving down 10 spots in the draft order.
Failure to score 1,500 points (apr. 75 points a week) results in moving down 5 spots in the draft order.
Failure to score 2,000 points (apr. 100 points a week) results in moving down 3 spots in the draft order.
Failure to score 2,500 points (apr. 125 points a week) results in moving down 1 spots in the draft order.
Not set on having all four of those thresholds, but just an idea. If we incentivize teams to get to at least 125 points a week, that lowers the ceiling of the upper tier of teams being we don't have 7-8 teams completely selling for the least amount of points possible every season. Might make for some more fun upsets as well during the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Jun 25, 2019 20:32:51 GMT -5
What is the risk of a team quitting after having a sanction placed upon them? What is the protocol there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Tim) on Jun 25, 2019 20:36:07 GMT -5
You mean to tell me you don’t have some fancy calculator to figure out the likelihood of that ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Marlins GM (Travis) on Jun 25, 2019 20:45:33 GMT -5
You mean to tell me you don’t have some fancy calculator to figure out the likelihood of that ? Tim's growing on me. |
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Tim) on Jun 25, 2019 20:54:23 GMT -5
You mean to tell me you don’t have some fancy calculator to figure out the likelihood of that ? Tim's growing on me. like a genital wart I’m sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Jun 26, 2019 2:04:30 GMT -5
I guess I'll continue being devil's advocate and respond to my own questions since everyone else just wants to watch a Travis and Tim's love story unfold.
New owner penalty - if the owner takes over a team midseason or during the offseason, they are exempt from the draft pick penalty.
What about draft pick trades? We should indicate that this only affects the pick's current owner rather than the original owner (is there a terminology for this?).
What if we have a 2019 Nationals situation where they own picks 1.1 and 1.2 - would the same still apply? If we move back Pick 1.1 due to the tanking penalty, then Pick 1.2 moves up to... 1.1? Perhaps have this apply to all picks in the Top 5 overall based on the owner of the pick at the time the draft starts.
If we apply this to the Top 5 picks overall, does this create a scenario where the penalized teams are incentivized to trade the pick away? I don't think this is much of an issue, but trading would probably result in some sort of workaround to whatever rule gets applied.
With all this said, I think it will be annoying to implement and I hope that the threat of chaos would discourage anyone from ever being penalized. But what if we just dock the team a draft pick instead? This can be implemented at the end of the BK regular season once we have all the info we need. Since we allow these draft picks to be traded before the season ends, there could still be trade shenanigans, but I think docking a full pick, say 2nd Round pick value?
My point is, we need a more fleshed out idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Tim) on Jun 26, 2019 7:24:56 GMT -5
I guess I'll continue being devil's advocate and respond to my own questions since everyone else just wants to watch a Travis and Tim's love story unfold. New owner penalty - if the owner takes over a team midseason or during the offseason, they are exempt from the draft pick penalty. What about draft pick trades? We should indicate that this only affects the pick's current owner rather than the original owner (is there a terminology for this?). What if we have a 2019 Nationals situation where they own picks 1.1 and 1.2 - would the same still apply? If we move back Pick 1.1 due to the tanking penalty, then Pick 1.2 moves up to... 1.1? Perhaps have this apply to all picks in the Top 5 overall based on the owner of the pick at the time the draft starts. If we apply this to the Top 5 picks overall, does this create a scenario where the penalized teams are incentivized to trade the pick away? I don't think this is much of an issue, but trading would probably result in some sort of workaround to whatever rule gets applied. With all this said, I think it will be annoying to implement and I hope that the threat of chaos would discourage anyone from ever being penalized. But what if we just dock the team a draft pick instead? This can be implemented at the end of the BK regular season once we have all the info we need. Since we allow these draft picks to be traded before the season ends, there could still be trade shenanigans, but I think docking a full pick, say 2nd Round pick value? My point is, we need a more fleshed out idea. Yes, these are valid concerns. I think we could add some sort of specification to the rule. And there could be ways to skirt it I’m sure, but with critical thinking, we could probably figure out a way to avoid that. |
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Tim) on Jun 26, 2019 14:24:00 GMT -5
I think docking a pick might be better than moving down picks. I also lean towards - penalty applies only if you tank for more than a year ... in other words, something like if two year point total less than X, then lose X round pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene (Former Athletics GM) on Jun 27, 2019 8:18:07 GMT -5
I'm not in favor of some of this - a team may get hit with a rash of injuries and as a result fall short of point thresholds. It shouldn't get penalized for things outside its control nor should it be forced to make unfavorable trades just to not be penalized. Also, rebuilding teams need to have good picks to rebuild and not be penalized. My understanding of this league is that some teams that are competitive now did in fact go through tough times; it would be unfair to change the system now as other teams are doing the same. In the end, systems like this help teams that don't need help and hurt teams that need to get better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Jun 27, 2019 15:39:35 GMT -5
Gene (Former Athletics GM), All valid points Gene. But the level of competition we're talking about is only not achievable if you are selling nearly EVERY active player on your roster, not paying attention to free agency, and not playing your called up prospects on your MLB roster. 50/75 points a week can be achievable by having one starting pitcher, two playing relievers, and two active hitters. That's a healthy minimum to me. It's more fun to have at least a 1% chance to win a game during a week like in real life... this would at least have people fielding a roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM (Scott) on Jun 27, 2019 16:19:37 GMT -5
I'm in favor of the tie breaker going to the team that scores more points. I do not like the pick docking idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Jays GM (Stephen) on Jun 27, 2019 17:34:48 GMT -5
Definitely like the tiebreaker update, but what about implementing an NBA style lottery? Where the bottom however many teams get the same odds and then if you want to add point thresholds to meet you could add some and it just docks odds slightly in favor of those who produce more points. Then there is no point in completely bottoming our you may not get the top pick. Also doing a separate draw between MiLB and Amatuer that way there is a double chance that you may get the top pick or not. Just tossing out an idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Jun 27, 2019 23:08:49 GMT -5
Thoughts:
- I like Tim (Brewers)'s suggestion of the two-year window. I think it helps us make sure that a GM doesn't go inactive, make his team get penalized, and then leave. If a GM goes inactive for a long period of time, that franchise is often times already in rough shape already, so even if one spot isn't that significant, it still seems unfair to leave a new GM in a tougher spot. The two-year window would seem to help cut that down, and I'd also be in favor of making sure that a 2-year clock resets with a new GM.
- I'm not in favor of lottery. Even if it disincentives tanking some, at least our current system can provide a relatively quick turnaround if a GM does it right, so there's a clear path for any team to climb back into contention. This seems to at least run a higher risk of creating a top-heavy league that's harder to reverse. Not trying to be over-the-top, since obviously I don't think we'll suddenly have all the mid-range teams getting the #1/2/3 picks every year, I do like that right now, there is rhyme and reason to the way a non-contending team can get back into things. Especially if a team is already at the bottom despite NOT doing a full sell-off, and then misses on a top pick (say they get #13...), it really only stands to delay their return to contention. Creates more mediocrity. I'll budge on a tiebreaker if that's what the league wants, but wouldn't be a fan of a lottery.
- Ultimately, I think we should separate tanking from something like a team not setting their lineup. This league is established enough that owners should know up front that the expectation is they set lineups, so if an owner is clearly ignoring that responsibility, we should work out a penalty system for that separately from how we address the idea of tanking. I think it's a valid concern, but one that is totally different from an active owner who is taking steps to rebuild a team, so we should deal with them separately.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marlins GM (Travis) on Jun 28, 2019 8:01:22 GMT -5
Leave it alone. Some teams may tank on purpose. Fine, they need the higher pick, let em have it. Mike Trout was drafted 25th I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Aug 12, 2019 18:20:56 GMT -5
I want to bring attention to this again. A lot discussed... but I think the best, simplest addition to our league rules would be to award the higher draft pick to the team that scores more points in the case of a W/L tie. This is a slight change, but doesn't incentivize gutting every playable player off your roster and might give us more competitive games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Jays GM (Stephen) on Aug 13, 2019 7:12:22 GMT -5
I like that idea. It is simple and solves the problem without too much extra work.
On a separate note, I personally would also like to see the draft order more like the NFL rather than the MLB where it is reverse standings up until the playoff teams then playoff results are taken into account after that so the World Series champ would draft last rather than the regular season champ drafting last.
Doesn’t make sense to me that we put division winners on a pedestal for the playoffs, but allow them to have a mid/early round draft pick if they weren’t really that good. All playoff teams should be the last 12 picks of the draft every time.
|
|
