Rule Change Discussion

[EastCoastGonzo]

The Commissioners Office invites all General Managers to proposal rule changes or additions that they would be interested in the league discussing. Feasible rule changes will be put up for a vote.

[Shannonlwalker2]

Possible rule change suggestions:

A:
The allowance to extend all of a teams FA.   Not having it limited to 3.  A team should be allowed to extend as many players as they have cap space to extend.   

B:    The ability to match a real life contract for our impending FA. 
Player X (OF) is a 2022 FA  the existing rules says I can extend him for up to 5years, and he will cost $15m per year to extend.    Player X is currently on a REAL LIFE contract for another 2years at $12m per year. I would like see the option to match the 2 year deal at $12  OR be allowed to extend him for longer at the league's approved FA extension rate.
It would add an extra layer of strategy.    I can save $ for 2 years.  OR I can lock him in for longer-term (with the increase) .    --- I was looking at a trade offer last season, 1 of the players involved was a FA (this year in our league) we estimated his extension price would be roughly $9m.   He is currently signed to MLB contract for like $4 (expires after 2023)  It would have been nice to have the option to extend him this season and next for $4.   I passed on the deal as I don't think ANYBODY will see him as a $9m player. 

Just a couple ideas to maybe kick down the road.

[indiansnation]

I like the idea

[EastCoastGonzo]

Possible rule change suggestions:

A:
The allowance to extend all of a teams FA.   Not having it limited to 3.  A team should be allowed to extend as many players as they have cap space to extend.   

The problem with being able to extend every FA on your team is it locks all the talent and concentrates good players to a few teams. We already have a similar problem having 2-3 extensions per offseason. If you look for example there are no starting or backup catchers in FA this year because all of them were locked up via extensions. It sounds like a good argument to say that well I drafted these guys and traded for these guys and I shouldn't be penalized for being good at that, and while that is true, it just doesn't work in a 30 team dynamic like this.

[RyanJames5]

I'll disagree that allowing all the extensions you want, doesn't work in a 30 team league.  FGM is a 30 team league and typically has a few impact free agents while also having role players available...

The difference is this is a 30 team league where we roster 60 "starting catchers" 120 "starting outfielders" and 180 "starting infielders" when the MLB only has 30 starting catchers, 90 starting outfielders and 120 starting infielders.  It's just not possible to have any free agents when we're starting, in some cases double, the amount of players that actually start games in the real MLB. 

My proposal, rather than limiting extensions further, is to reduce the starting positions down to a more manageable number.  If we limit free agents, all we end up with is teams trading impending free agents to teams with space to accommodate them for prospects and players on longer deals and in my opinion that just shuffles talent around amongst the teams that are able to acquire it young, so it doesn't create more free agents...

A league I'm in off-site has some very unique rules and it allows 2 "extensions" and 2 restricted free agents and every year, teams make trades moving impending free agents, solely because they'll lose them if they don't trade them.  For reference sake, I traded Tommy Edman straight up for Aaron Nola this off-season because I had a spot to be able to extend Nola and his current owner didn't and Edman is not a free agent for 3 years.  This allowed me to acquire Nola and extend him and get up to 7 years of Nola for 3 years of Edman.  While it's an interesting wrinkle, it's certainly not mimicking the MLB in any sense.

[EastCoastGonzo]

I'll disagree that allowing all the extensions you want, doesn't work in a 30 team league.  FGM is a 30 team league and typically has a few impact free agents while also having role players available...

The difference is this is a 30 team league where we roster 60 "starting catchers" 120 "starting outfielders" and 180 "starting infielders" when the MLB only has 30 starting catchers, 90 starting outfielders and 120 starting infielders.  It's just not possible to have any free agents when we're starting, in some cases double, the amount of players that actually start games in the real MLB. 

My proposal, rather than limiting extensions further, is to reduce the starting positions down to a more manageable number.  If we limit free agents, all we end up with is teams trading impending free agents to teams with space to accommodate them for prospects and players on longer deals and in my opinion that just shuffles talent around amongst the teams that are able to acquire it young, so it doesn't create more free agents...

A league I'm in off-site has some very unique rules and it allows 2 "extensions" and 2 restricted free agents and every year, teams make trades moving impending free agents, solely because they'll lose them if they don't trade them.  For reference sake, I traded Tommy Edman straight up for Aaron Nola this off-season because I had a spot to be able to extend Nola and his current owner didn't and Edman is not a free agent for 3 years.  This allowed me to acquire Nola and extend him and get up to 7 years of Nola for 3 years of Edman.  While it's an interesting wrinkle, it's certainly not mimicking the MLB in any sense.

Interesting. I think I'd be more in favor of reducing roster spots to a more manageable size. I wasn't here when the league was created but I imagine 25 spots was choosen to mimic the 25 man roster, which should be 28 now. You could eliminate all the double position players and that would reduce the need of "starting players" by 5.

[RyanJames5]

Interesting. I think I'd be more in favor of reducing roster spots to a more manageable size. I wasn't here when the league was created but I imagine 25 spots was choosen to mimic the 25 man roster, which should be 28 now. You could eliminate all the double position players and that would reduce the need of "starting players" by 5.

I joined maybe 2 years into the league, so I'm not certain of the thought process behind the volume of players we start, but I think if we eliminated 1 C, the CI and MI positions and the OF position at a minimum we would be better off.

[BayAreaBallers]

For int fa the ability to post another player if the one you posted gets bid on. Having to wait 24 hours to post is a bit Crapty imo

[Shannonlwalker2]

BIG TIME in favor of the above J2 comment   💯👍👌

[EastCoastGonzo]

For int fa the ability to post another player if the one you posted gets bid on. Having to wait 24 hours to post is a bit Crapty imo

I'm not opposed to this necessarily. I think the original rule is in place because the first person who posts a player has such an advantage since the subsequent bid has to be double the initial. And because the bonus pool is limited it could cause issues if you can just keep posting players. 24HRS gives everyone an opportunity to post at least one player.