FGM Rule Change

[Flash]

@Flash: It seems like you are missing the entire point. What makes the EDR system unique is that it gives value to the draft and we all agree that the draft is one of the things that makes this league so special. We already have very few prospects that can be signed in FA and with these changes the Yankees of this world get a huge advantage by being allowed to stow their signings in this EDR roster. I am saying that this rule gives further advantage to teams with ample salary cap because now they can invest heavily on signing bonuses for the few FA prospects that hit the market and keep them in an EDR until they are ready so their day to day roster is unaffected. I think this allows the richer teams to maintain a very complete roster and at the same time to have a much better prospect core in their MiLB than they would otherwise have in their EDR.

I'm not missing the point, I simply disagree with you.  I think this is a good rule change.  That's why I proposed it and voted for it's implementation.

[Daniel]

I challenge you to name a prospect that was "stashed" 3-4 years on an EDR, then went thru the 3- year ARB period as a P-xxxx on the same team. Just isn't realistic here.

I am not really sure what you mean to accomplish by this challenge, but I feel like you are missing my point.
There was a rule in place that forced teams to promote prospects when they reached major league status under our league rules. The fact that this rule is being eliminated to allow player stashing in this 20-man roster is precisely my point of concern. We already have 40 active spots which is way too much as it should be 25 15 like in the majors, and forcing major league players to be promoted to the 40 man at least forces teams to cut other players from their roster, something that is good for our FA pool. It is not that I am against change, it is that I think that the way this rule is being implemented is inadequate and that it is not getting this league any closer to more activity. Your initial idea seems to me like a significantly better solution. Having 25 man roster with 15 MiLB and an EDR is much better than having 40 man rosters and 20MiLB. I even think the 5 MiLB proposal was better than this, although I would had proposed to make part of the EDR MiLB instead of adding further roster spots and make it 2 or 3 instead of 5. Some flexibility is ok, but the 20 man MiLB allows this stashing of players that the league should would want to avoid. And whether it happens now, 3 years from now or never, I just do not like the idea of having a rule that allows this.

I wish I was as good as Excel so I could do what you ask of me, but sadly I am not. I do think that this proposal is way too far away from what you just mentioned, something I would wholeheartedly support as it definitely emulates better the MLB and does not hamper the balance of the league. I also think that if the reason this rule is being passed instead of what you just mentioned is because you did not want to further confuse owners is a very poor argument. Again, this league is supposed to be an advanced league, a bit of complexity is good, not bad.

@Flash: It seems like you are missing the entire point. What makes the EDR system unique is that it gives value to the draft and we all agree that the draft is one of the things that makes this league so special. We already have very few prospects that can be signed in FA and with these changes the Yankees of this world get a huge advantage by being allowed to stow their signings in this EDR roster. I am saying that this rule gives further advantage to teams with ample salary cap because now they can invest heavily on signing bonuses for the few FA prospects that hit the market and keep them in an EDR until they are ready so their day to day roster is unaffected. I think this allows the richer teams to maintain a very complete roster and at the same time to have a much better prospect core in their MiLB than they would otherwise have in their EDR. 

[Flash]

Please excuse the long-winded post, but what is really the issue here?  Is it the departure from the past?  Is it a perception that FGM will no longer be a "unique league"?  Is it a question of trust?  Is it really a belief that everyone will start having a different approach to play because our EDRs are now MiLBs?

I have been in this league since the latter stages of the 2010 season.  In it's first two years in the league, my franchise, the San Francisco Giants, had three different GMs.  The last GM took over another FGM franchise in 2011.  My reason for pointing this out is that the level of difficulty in this league is an attraction, and will always remain so, because, regardless of the allegations that we are losing our "uniqueness", this league is much more than a league with an EDR roster.

FGM has a variety of unique characteristics.  Our scoring is unique.  Our emphasis on hitting over pitching is unique (although we do need a good set of SPs and RPs to be competitive).  Our salary cap structure being tied to our success is unique.  Our buy-out provisions are unique.  Our pitching limits are unique.  Our system of August waivers is unique.   We have a lot of "unique" components, and yes, the EDR roster was very unique to this league.

During my time in FGM, I have seen some things change and some things which are never resolved.  When I first came into the league, GMs had to have enough salary cap room to pay EDRs a signing bonus, and at times, had to drop a variety of MLB players to cover the bonus.  I don't remember anyone saying that we should preserve that rule because it was a departure from history or that it gave anyone a distinct advantage.  As a league, we have some things which may never be resolved because our Rules Committee discussions get bogged down in personality clashes and sidebars.  Does anyone remember the fiasco involving the change in team ownership and how we went round and round, with a GM threatening to quit, a GM shouting injustice, and the questioning of what constitutes an effective GM?   We got bogged down in "post wars" when we discussing seniority vs. effectiveness in relation to a particular change in ownership--and later, when asked to come up with some guidelines, we couldn't agree on anything.  Is that because the Rules Committee is ineffective or is it because of the arbitrary nature of what we perceive as viable qualifications? 

There is nothing arbitrary about his rule.  It has specific criteria to be used in it's implementation.  Let's stop crying wolf and think for a moment.

How is it that I was asked to be a Co-Commissioner?  Was  it the result of an election?  Was I a part of a coup d'etat?  Or was I just some poor soul who agreed to fill a void in a league I enjoy being a part of?  As a GM, I have slowly progressed up the ranks in this league, first as a member of the Trade Committee, then as a member of the Rules Committee, then as a Transactions Moderator and Amateur Draft facilitator, and now as a Co-Commissioner.  I'm not drunk with power, but I don't happen to subscribe to the notion that any league can be run as a pure democracy.  There have to be times when leaders take the initiative to move the league in a direction it believes will help sustain it's viability.  Are we going to have complete agreement?  Hardly, but it is equally important for leadership to recognize that there are going to be a variety of times when decisions are susceptible to criticism and disdain.  When a vote is taken, the results are pretty clear.  In this case, the vote was 6-2 in favor of having an MiLB roster.  It would be nice to have something be unanimous, but if the vote is not favorable to a particular member, it is not reason enough to say let's get rid of the process.

As Co-Commissioners, we are not shoving anything down anyone's throat.  Unlike past rule change proposals, we placed the issue before the Rules Committee as a vote because we wanted a definitive answer.  Change is hard sometimes, and it may account for some of the arguments I am reading here in this thread.  Yet, there is nothing sneaky or dishonorable in the process of how the EDR roster was changed to an MiLB roster.  In my time in FGM, the EDR rule was an issue of discussion many, many times.  I fully respect the views of the Founder of FGM and his support of the EDR roster rules, but isn't it curious that two former Commissioners who presided over this league before the current Co-Commissioners supported the establishment of an MiLB roster?  Why is it that they could not get the league to move in that direction during their tenure?  Were they ineffective?  Was the Rules Committee ineffective?  Or is it because we have GMs who are members of various Profsl leagues where an MiLB roster is effective and in full operation?  Sometimes the winds of change happen because the timing is right. 

This rule change is not going to change the dynamics of the league.  It doesn't promote the use of MiLB players to be used in our daily line-ups.  It is not in bad form.  It does not give the anyone an advantage over anyone else.  Trading, drafting, deciding who to extend and who to release, deciding which positions to address during free agency,  deciding which match-ups make the most effective line-up, those facets of the league still remain.  There's no magic formula.  Everyone has their own idea of how to effectively operate their teams and this rule does not change that. 

Every member of the Rules Committee is a veteran GM who has history in this league and they all take their responsibilties very seriously.  I'm all for having an active league with active participants.  Personally, I agree with the essence of the following statement made by one of our veteran GMs:  "This rule change, as I see it, is to wake this league the eff up and get everyone involved." 

[BHows]

@BHows: If it is emulation you guys want, then why not make the 40 man roster a 25 man roster with a 15 MiLB?

Also, I read the discussion and I think it was not discussed properly enough as several of the points and implications I touched were not even mentioned. Plus, the rule proposed may have been mentioned exactly like that in the discussion, but very near the end of it. For days you guys were discussing adding a 5 man MiLB.

With the implementation, your example is not a good point as the draft occurs after mid-season and the effects of the rule are not seen until the season after. This rule has immediate effects and even affects how FA  is handled. It does have major implications on a team's strategy.

Finally, regarding the competitiveness, my point is precisely that a good drafter can right now do a good job of rebuilding and he can just promote his rookies when they hit the majors (he has no reason not to). What the MiLB does is basically allow prospect FA signings and prospects obtained in trades in the same roster as draftees (something that occurs way more often than you are making it seem like) and it allows owners to keep these major-league ready prospects stowed away in the minors forever if they never promote them. So basically draft strategy loses importance and trading ability becomes more important. I would say this is a regression for what this league represents.

@Daniel- What I original wanted was pretty much along these lines. In fact my idea would have included an option system along the lines of MLB. The difference was I WOULD HAVE KEPT the EDR. Go back to 8/14 and follow the discussion. Add 5 to the EDR, keep it the same, add an MiLb,do away with the EDR, pretty much chasing our tails; no way I was going to add to the confusion.
Let me ask you this: Are you well versed in Excel? Can you engineer the formulas and do the coding to incorporate this into our record keeping system? If you are I will gladly bring this before the RC for consideration. I do know this- The EDR as we knew it does even remotely resemble what actually happens in major league baseball.
And free agency be damned- There is no argument you can make that will convince me that it will be even slightly changed by this rule. The majority of free agents will be 30+ and/or were too high priced to resign. Also, those who have the most money at the start of FA will be the winners. This league is deep enough that mediocre prospects will be  signed to prospect extension and will only reach the market when they are past their prime. I challenge you to name a prospect that was "stashed" 3-4 years on an EDR, then went thru the 3- year ARB period as a P-xxxx on the same team. Just isn't realistic here.

[Dan Wood]

I play in another league that has a MILB roster, and believe me when I say this, it is much better. Plus when teams aren't trading they are prospecting, at least giving life to the boards. I have been in this league pretty much from the outset and I will say this, it isn't as much fun anymore, it borders on boring. One of the reasons I left, there were many teams that were just purely unmanaged and dying on the vine. Much like the direction of this league, which at one point in time was the most fun and interactive league I played in. This rule change, as I see it, is to wake this league the eff up and get everyone involved. Just my two cents

[joeshmoe]

As a major point, this added rule, rick should never have been added. You as leadership created a rule without vote of rc by doing such. It is a complete violation of the idea of an RC.

Furthermore, the rule addition does nothing to address the issue of milb players scoring. I have addressed this at length in previous posts. Your rule means that when I want to have my milb slot opened up, it just has to wait. It is a clerical rule and not one ounce of it talks about scoring.

A true attempt to fix the rule would have been one simple sentence, "milb players cannot score points". Yet this point was berated and dismissed. Your rule was for you, not for me.

As the rules currently sit, milb players can score points, just as edr players could. The rules allow for this.

[BHows]

This rule has been voted on and has passed. With 30 teams some owners will agree and like the change and some won't. This subject has been beaten to death and we need to move on.

I guess the old adage is true "No matter how hard you try, you can't please everyone"

[papps]

This rule has been voted on and has passed. With 30 teams some owners will agree and like the change and some won't. This subject has been beaten to death and we need to move on.

[Daniel]

@BHows: If it is emulation you guys want, then why not make the 40 man roster a 25 man roster with a 15 MiLB?

Also, I read the discussion and I think it was not discussed properly enough as several of the points and implications I touched were not even mentioned. Plus, the rule proposed may have been mentioned exactly like that in the discussion, but very near the end of it. For days you guys were discussing adding a 5 man MiLB.

With the implementation, your example is not a good point as the draft occurs after mid-season and the effects of the rule are not seen until the season after. This rule has immediate effects and even affects how FA  is handled. It does have major implications on a team's strategy.

Finally, regarding the competitiveness, my point is precisely that a good drafter can right now do a good job of rebuilding and he can just promote his rookies when they hit the majors (he has no reason not to). What the MiLB does is basically allow prospect FA signings and prospects obtained in trades in the same roster as draftees (something that occurs way more often than you are making it seem like) and it allows owners to keep these major-league ready prospects stowed away in the minors forever if they never promote them. So basically draft strategy loses importance and trading ability becomes more important. I would say this is a regression for what this league represents.

[BHows]

The original discussion started on 8/27/14 and continued until 9/10/14 without a vote. I don't recall why it was rekindled but it was on 1/16/15 thru 1/24/15 again without a vote. We were just like dogs chasing our tails.  It was at that point that Ernie and I decided to take a FORMAL POLL SITING EXACTLY what was being proposed and allowed RC members 5 days to vote/comment. So, yes there was structure and more than enough time for discussion.
The rule posted on the site are pretty much EXACTLY what was proposed in the poll. All I did was restructure for clarification and, IRONICALLY, add Line B.4 "Owners are not permitted to move players between the 40 man and MiLB rosters. All such moves must be approved and executed by the league office. Post all promotion/demotion requests on the "Transaction" page."
As far as implementation- If you take the time to research when the EDR was originally instated you will see that discussions started in the Fall of 2009 and was implemented before the 2010 season. Creating the EDR presented many more issues than these modifications do. In fact, the only rule I recall off hand that was phased in was Pitching Limitations. This was done to allow teams that had drafted/invested heavily in pitching to adjust to from unlimited to 65IP/8 starts. There are no adjustments of that magnitude in this rule.