Suggestions for Rule Changes (split from topic by mrmetsman)

[mrmetsman]

It's OK Kenny.
We had a different interpretation of the constitution.
Nothing wrong with that.
I said my piece,that closes any issue for me.

I do suggest we adjust the rules on trades like this somewhat.
Give owners a 48 hours timeperiod for instance to adjust their rosters and give owners the freedom to put traded players in the minors if they still qualify as minor league player[miaximum150AB/50IP/20IP for instance]even if the traded player was on the previopus owner 40 man roster.The new owner shouldn't be at an disadvantage because of an other owners tactics or rosterstrategy.

[kenny]

The problem with using the 150ab/50 ip is that we don't use that to count who is a minor leaguer and who isn't. The current system of tracking MLB service time is more manageable with over two thousand players in our system. There is no easy way to look up the AB's and IP for each person. Right now, we can track everything off the spreadsheet, independently of what happens in MLB. You would also be at the mercy of the real MLB teams and when they call up their minor leaguers. In this system, you get to choose when to call people up and get to keep them for the 6 years. If the MLB team calls somebody up before you'd want them to, then tough luck.

This will also open up a loophole for owners wanting to demote players. If somebody wanted to send John Davidson to the minors, you'd just trade him to another team and then trade him right back. You can think of this as acting in the player's best interest, so it's more realistic. If I don't do that in the rules, then nobody will. I disagree with the usage of the word "disadvantage" because you already know (I know it wasn't the case this time though) which minor leaguers can and cannot be removed from the 40 man rosters.

In my opinion, this is better because you have to manage your 40 man roster more strategically. However, I will definitely listen to other people's opinions and will adjust if there is strong support.

Can you clarify what you mean about 48 hours for GM's to adjust rosters? Do you mean the trade should be processed prior to the adjustments? If so, the main issue will be with Fantrax, as it will not allow you to accumulate any points during the illegal roster period. It will also set a precedent to allowing illegal rosters, albeit for a short period of time. We'd have to investigate the potential long-term consequences first.

[kenny]

The Cliff Notes version of the above post:

- We have to look at the potential loopholes and consequences for gameplay of the possible changes.

- We have to look at the logistics of running the league with the above suggestions.

[jrmatt73]

I like the the rules the way they are. It stays more realistic to "real baseball" and as kenny said when we're talking monitoring thousands of players it is easier to manage.

[mrmetsman]

The "trade loophole"could be countered by disallowing to trade for a player you already had that season.
But to be honest even that wouldn't prefent all "demotion trades" i guess.
Owners could still make an agreement to trade in the next season and/or trade at the end of season to take shortcuts.

The "there's no easy way to look up the AB and IP" part i don't agree with.
Each player has a personal page at MLB.com with all their info.
As back up Baseballreference and fangraphs will do as well.
Each AB,SB,PH etc,etc is logged on several sites.

In the "real MLB" these stats are often used.
Think rookie eligibility,mlb service time,when a player is ARB eligible.

So using such a cut-off point would in fact make it more realistic.
It's a bit more logistical work,but certainly workable.

With the 48 hours i mean that an owner has 48 hours to adjust his rosters accordingly whenever a transaction is approved.

For instance my trade with Indians.
For this trade to be legal i have to adjust my 40 man roster[i have to put players on waivers] before the trade is even approved.
I know owners can add that info in the trade thread but to be honest the waiverpart shouldn't have anything to do with the trade.
This should be handled separately.

If in case this trade would be vetoed i already had to let the league know which players i would have put on waivers.
This might seem insignificant,but this info could be used at a later date when i'm in negotiations with another owner and i want to trade a player that i earlier wanted to put on waiver.
It decreases his value significantly.

The 48 hours[or whatever number we want to give it] would counter this cause with this system you only have to put players on waivers when a trade actually occured.
You'll be rid of the "what if's" and "this happens when"
Once a trade is approved each owner has an alloted time to adjust their roster.
If they fail to do so the commishes cancel the trade.
This is also the realistic way it's been done in the "real MLB"
Have you ever seen a transaction on mlb.com that says "Reds waive player A" when "trade B" will be done"?
I think not.

Hence my suggestion.

[kenny]

You would have to look up the AB's and IP's for each of the 2000 players though. It's not easy at all to keep up to date. The MLB uses those statistics to determine who is or is not considered a rookie. They do not use it to determine who is or is not on the 40 man roster.

I think I may end up agreeing with you on the 48 hours to adjust rosters. We can evaluate the trades independent of the roster adjustments necessary. After it is approved but before the players change teams, the GM's would then post the transactions they need to get their rosters legal. This way, you wouldn't have to give up any information that you don't have to and we also won't have illegal rosters at any point.

[mrmetsman]

 
 

[kenny]

What should the consequences be if a team does not have a legal roster 48 hours after a trade is approved? This is assuming we will implement proposed rule above.

[mrmetsman]

Well just of the top of my head here.

1.infraction - warning
2.infraction - disallow players involved in the trade to be used for 1 week[7days]
3.infraction - disallow players involved in the trade to be used for 1 month
4.infraction - mandatory drop of the players involved in the trade[only owner who made the infraction].players will become FA
5.infraction - you just don't want to play by the rules. we'll find something who does care.get out!

[snbts]

I like the idea the Reds Gm has, but how about get rid of 3 and 4.  Just use 1,2 &5.