|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Aug 16, 2019 11:44:38 GMT -5
Hey guys!
We've had a suggestion floating around the league for awhile now, so I figured it's time to put it up for a vote. The rule change would be simple. The higher draft pick (closer to 1st) would be awarded to the team that scored MORE points, not less, in the case of a tie of records between teams. This would play out from the top to the bottom.
Example 1: Reds, Orioles, and Padres finish the season 1-18. Reds would pick 1st overall with the most points, Orioles 2nd, Padres 3rd.
Example 2: Rockies finish the season 17-2, Giants finish the season 17-2. I pick 29th, he picks 30th, because I scored more points.
Feel free to add to the discussion, but voting would be great! As usual, all changes would only take place with a majority vote and would only affect future seasons.
Thanks!
Alex
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Aug 16, 2019 14:24:33 GMT -5
If anything, I think this should only affect the top pick. It makes no sense to apply it at the bottom of the order.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Jays GM (Stephen) on Aug 16, 2019 14:54:59 GMT -5
I think we are headed in the right direction. I will throw in this proposal to discuss as well: Top 8 picks decided with the tiebreaker currently proposed, 9-18 "normal", 19-30 reverse playoff standings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Aug 16, 2019 16:28:58 GMT -5
For teams that make the playoffs, sure, it doesn't have to be like this. But it just seems simpler to change the rule for everyone if that's what we want to do. I would be fine with the tiers... but I just think that might be overcomplicating it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Jays GM (Stephen) on Aug 16, 2019 18:12:02 GMT -5
Fair enough. I would be ok with this being the tiebreaker for everyone up until playoff teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Aug 16, 2019 19:20:19 GMT -5
I think we are headed in the right direction. I will throw in this proposal to discuss as well: Top 8 picks decided with the tiebreaker currently proposed, 9-18 "normal", 19-30 reverse playoff standings. I really don't like this. I already think the idea is trying to do too much as it is and this is just overkill. If the WS favorite COL/SFG wins, why should they be additionally rewarded by moving up 11 spots? I think we need to find better ways to encourage participation, that will get rid of 75% of the very limited problems that we have in this league. We can start by replacing the Cardinals owner, but this may be an unpopular opinion. In the GroupMe discussion I mentioned that I prefer to use force starts, but there is a fine line between an owner not paying attention at all and just missing that one 5-point Ryan Borucki spot start that was announced a few hours before lineup setting time. The downside to this option is that no one wants to be a baby sitter. Ultimately, I think this is not a problem and therefore doesn't warrant 'solving'. We have 99% participation during free agency, a high volume of trading, good amount of turnover in top teams from year-to-year for the most part, and lots of league discussion year-round. I don't know what more you can want out of the league, and changing a tiebreaker isn't going to make it better. it's just going to make 'tanking' for the #2 overall pick a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by D'backs GM (Kyle) on Aug 16, 2019 19:58:45 GMT -5
I think we are headed in the right direction. I will throw in this proposal to discuss as well: Top 8 picks decided with the tiebreaker currently proposed, 9-18 "normal", 19-30 reverse playoff standings. I really don't like this. I already think the idea is trying to do too much as it is and this is just overkill. If the WS favorite COL/SFG wins, why should they be additionally rewarded by moving up 11 spots? I think we need to find better ways to encourage participation, that will get rid of 75% of the very limited problems that we have in this league. We can start by replacing the Cardinals owner, but this may be an unpopular opinion. In the GroupMe discussion I mentioned that I prefer to use force starts, but there is a fine line between an owner not paying attention at all and just missing that one 5-point Ryan Borucki spot start that was announced a few hours before lineup setting time. The downside to this option is that no one wants to be a baby sitter. Ultimately, I think this is not a problem and therefore doesn't warrant 'solving'. We have 99% participation during free agency, a high volume of trading, good amount of turnover in top teams from year-to-year for the most part, and lots of league discussion year-round. I don't know what more you can want out of the league, and changing a tiebreaker isn't going to make it better. it's just going to make 'tanking' for the #2 overall pick a thing. Move up 11 spots?!? Huh? Will what are you reading/smoking? |
|
|
|
Post by D'backs GM (Kyle) on Aug 16, 2019 19:59:33 GMT -5
Reverse playoff standings aka the WS winner gets the last pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Aug 16, 2019 20:18:32 GMT -5
Yeah... I think you read that wrong Will. Good points though. I wanted to put up a poll to see what the consensus was right now. If people feel there doesn't need to be change, okay with that.
And I definitely don't want to babysit teams and force them to start players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Aug 17, 2019 1:21:42 GMT -5
I just don't think a team getting pick 2 instead of pick 1 will change anything. Getting Pick 1 is a perk of tanking, not the sole purpose. The purpose is to get the most out of your current MLB assets. But (let's take me for example), if I have Gleyber Torres and Miguel Andujar, I'd rather trade them for multiple top 100 prospects each plus the #2 pick than keep them and get #1. I just think this is going to add some really weird and quirky rule all for something that won't stop tanking. Ask Tim or Denver or Scott or Josh or I if they would've done anything different knowing they wouldn't end up with the #1 pick (which we all already conceded was a possibility when we rebuilt since we all were....). Have a feeling that most if not all of us would've done things the exact same way under this new rule. Really think y'all are just setting yourselves up for disappointment hoping things will be different because a marginally "better" team is now getting 1.1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Aug 19, 2019 17:04:26 GMT -5
Reverse playoff standings aka the WS winner gets the last pick. My bad, this wasn't immediately clear to me since 9-18 were listed as normal. My other discussion points still stand though. |
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Aug 26, 2019 20:33:17 GMT -5
Seeing 10-3 in the vote, but not as much consensus in the discussion. This one needs to be ironed out more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Sept 22, 2019 17:33:11 GMT -5
Still need more votes on this. Would love to get at least 25 owners. Currently at 11-6 in favor with 17/30 voting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Oct 11, 2019 18:13:02 GMT -5
20 votes and we're dead even. Not an idea enough people are behind. We'll come back to it in the future if it has more support.
|
|
