Suggestions for 2019

[Cubs GM (Heller)]

Hey all, making this thread to centralize all suggestions for this league for next season. Please reply with anything you might have in mind (and make sure to check the League Rules to confirm it isn't already a thing)!

[Cubs GM (Heller)]

I'll kick things off. I think that, since we have a max roster limit, we should have a minimum requirement. I don't think it has been too big of an issue this year, but maybe, say, a 15-man requirement for the active roster? This could be any players that owner calls up, I just feel like we have some owners in the future who may really, REALLY try to tank, and this could help counter-act that.

EDIT: 15-man minimum rosters will be implemented for 2019.

[Cubs GM (Heller)]

Another one, this one will probably be more debated. Not that any *horrible* deals were made, but maybe we can implement a short trading freeze period for new owners taking over a team? This way, owners can get acclimated to their teams before mortgaging their playoff hopes/their futures (I think someone mentioned it in the GC, possibly DBacks GM (David) ? Whoever it was, good idea!)

EDIT: 1-week trade freeze for new owners will be implemented for 2019.

[Red Sox GM (Alex)]

1) I think it should be 10 min with the current roster rules

2) 40 man rosters, with the rules on not being able to demote guys after year 2, its hard to hold more than 25 guys at a time, most 30 teamers have a 40 man roster

EDIT: 40-man rosters will not be implemented this season, but will be a topic for the future.

[Marlins GM (Andrew)]

Couple of thoughts on prior ideas;
- Roster minimum is a good idea. I'd be fine with either 15 or 10.

- Weeklong trading freeze for new owners wouldn't be a bad idea.
- I wouldn't mind expanding the MLB rosters or allowing a limited # of MLB'ers to get demoted. I think I'd rather keep the 25 player active roster limit (mirroring real-life) but perhaps allow 2-3 players beyond 2 years of experience to get demoted per team.

New thoughts:
- I'd consider a hard roster cap across all levels (MLB + MiLB). Maybe like 110-125 players total...just to avoid over-concentration of players on any team
- MLB Draft: Not sure when we're thinking of holding our FYPD, but for 2019 I'd delay it and expand the player universe to include drafted players & the international players signed on July 2nd. Otherwise we're going to have a flurry of waiver wire claims on July 2nd instead of being able to spread prospects out in a more organized fashion based on picks. There'll be some high-end prospects available via int'l signing and it'd make more sense to spread them via draft than WW (for those of you wondering, I don't have a 1st round pick, so this is not self-interest speaking .

In future years, it could be worthwhile to shift all prospect acquisition into a draft format (annually drafting from the universe of all unowned prospects in the offseason) and expand the # of rounds we draft. This'd put some more organization around a chaotic process, avoid making Josh do all the weekly claim work and spread the prospect wealth around more evenly versus today's claim system that tends to concentrate players into the folks that are actively posting claims. This'd make free agency of MLB players the only way to expand the player universe in-season.

Competitive Balance - If we see more turnover, or see some teams get into rough shape, it might be worth thinking through the balance draft concept laid out in the rule set more. Not sure what this looks like, but I could see value in throwing the ChiSox & Tigers (maybe others) a bone for joining in despite rosters that have taken some hits from prior owners.

EDIT: Competitive balance will be a topic for future discussions.

[Deleted]

I second everything that Marlins just said. 👍👍

[Tigers GM (Ryan)]

Limit cap trading... both in how much you can trade away and how much help you can get to pay for your players. Having teams with complete all star teams that other teams are paying for is totally against any competitive balance.

EDIT: Cap trade limiting will occur in 2020.

[Pirates GM (Alex)]

Two things: I don't think there should be a cap on the amount of players a team can own. If a team like myself has the salary cap space, why should I not be allowed to continue to add players until I run out of cap space? It just seems like a way to penalize teams who are rebuilding. Along with that, why should we take away the ability of a team who does the research to claim prospects and spread them around? Any team has a chance to top any claim made, so I'm not sure why this would be an issue.

A couple suggestions:
- I'd love to see the three outfield spots changed from LF, CF, RF, to just three OF spots. They're pretty fluid in the MLB, so why not have it the same way here?
- I think it'd be good to have a cap of 50%-75% coverage on any given year of a contract. I'm all for allowing teams with a lot of cap to use it improve there teams, but there should be a limit.
- Why do we have batting average, on base percentage, and then OPS? It seems like we're double awarding on base percentage for teams, wouldn't slugging percentage make more sense as a seventh category? Or maybe we could just get rid of OBP and have AVG and OPS, follow that up with choosing either W or QS, not sure why we have both?

Just my thoughts!

EDIT: Three OF spots will be put to a poll.

[Deleted]

We should remove Wins as a category for next year. Record really means nothing in todays age for a pitcher, unless u can't pitch or get a ridiculous amount of run support. If we have losses and QS it will balance out just a better way IMO.

EDIT: Categories will stay for now but will be a topic of future discussion.

[Deleted]

Waiver wire priorities should be anonymous. People who post a lot of claims constantly have people come later and claim a couple spots better to "game" the waiver process. This system should match the actual anonymous system of the MLB. All players being claimed should post and each owner wishing to claim a player submits a list to Heller with priorities to be opened sunday night.

EDIT: There will be a poll for this on a couple options.

[Mets GM (Phil)]

Jul 30, 2018 17:08:04 GMT @rockiesgm said:

Waiver wire priorities should be anonymous. People who post a lot of claims constantly have people come later and claim a couple spots better to "game" the waiver process. This system should match the actual anonymous system of the MLB. All players being claimed should post and each owner wishing to claim a player submits a list to Heller with priorities to be opened sunday night.

totally agree but even so the Cubs also need to make claims

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2018 23:09:51 GMT Mets GM (Phil) said:

Jul 30, 2018 17:08:04 GMT @rockiesgm said:

Waiver wire priorities should be anonymous. People who post a lot of claims constantly have people come later and claim a couple spots better to "game" the waiver process. This system should match the actual anonymous system of the MLB. All players being claimed should post and each owner wishing to claim a player submits a list to Heller with priorities to be opened sunday night.

totally agree but even so the Cubs also need to make claims

Perhaps make an account that claims can be sent to and Heller will sign into it only after claim period ends each week

[Deleted]

Change the way paying for waived players work. I feel like this can be added now, but if there is pushback on doing it now we can wait till the offseason. In real life and most of the leagues on pro boards that are built similarly to this one, you can choose how to pay off a player, whether its all at once or stretched out over a few years. I would tweak it a little and say that you still make your waiver post the same and if you want to pay some off right away put it in post, but afterwards whenever u get some cap open you can make a new post and pay off a little more. I think this would help rebuilding teams and since we are limiting cap trading in 2020 i feel like this would be a great addition. 

EDIT: This will not change for the 2019 season but can change for the future, if it gets enough support.

[Tigers GM (Ryan)]

Aug 3, 2018 17:34:53 GMT @njdevo said:

Change the way paying for waived players work. I feel like this can be added now, but if there is pushback on doing it now we can wait till the offseason. In real life and most of the leagues on pro boards that are built similarly to this one, you can choose how to pay off a player, whether its all at once or stretched out over a few years. I would tweak it a little and say that you still make your waiver post the same and if you want to pay some off right away put it in post, but afterwards whenever u get some cap open you can make a new post and pay off a little more. I think this would help rebuilding teams and since we are limiting cap trading in 2020 i feel like this would be a great addition. 

i love this idea... but you cant do it now when teams ahve been trading their spare cap instead of being able to use it on their own buyouts... just wouldnt be fair.  Selfishly in my own team for example I had $20 that I would have gladly used to pay off my own debts rather than just give it away for other people to take my debt lol.  

but I disagree about being able to keep changing how its paid off.  You should have to decide then and there how to pay it off... if you pay off $15 this year and the remaining $15 in 2019 you should be locked into those prices.  Otherwise i think it becomes a nightmare to track the funds etc.  



My own suggestion for 2020 when we limit cap trading, just add or subtract the cap from the team, not the individual players.  I shouldnt lose money I accumulated through trades because at the time I put it on Player X but then he gets traded in real life, I sour on him and want to trade him.  Money belongs to the team... not the player.  In real life if the team trades for cash, they can technically use it however, they dont have to say we'll use it to pay for Andre Dawson... 

[Deleted]

Aug 3, 2018 17:57:30 GMT Tigers GM (Ryan) said:

Aug 3, 2018 17:34:53 GMT @njdevo said:

Change the way paying for waived players work. I feel like this can be added now, but if there is pushback on doing it now we can wait till the offseason. In real life and most of the leagues on pro boards that are built similarly to this one, you can choose how to pay off a player, whether its all at once or stretched out over a few years. I would tweak it a little and say that you still make your waiver post the same and if you want to pay some off right away put it in post, but afterwards whenever u get some cap open you can make a new post and pay off a little more. I think this would help rebuilding teams and since we are limiting cap trading in 2020 i feel like this would be a great addition. 

i love this idea... but you cant do it now when teams ahve been trading their spare cap instead of being able to use it on their own buyouts... just wouldnt be fair.  Selfishly in my own team for example I had $20 that I would have gladly used to pay off my own debts rather than just give it away for other people to take my debt lol.  

but I disagree about being able to keep changing how its paid off.  You should have to decide then and there how to pay it off... if you pay off $15 this year and the remaining $15 in 2019 you should be locked into those prices.  Otherwise i think it becomes a nightmare to track the funds etc.  



My own suggestion for 2020 when we limit cap trading, just add or subtract the cap from the team, not the individual players.  I shouldnt lose money I accumulated through trades because at the time I put it on Player X but then he gets traded in real life, I sour on him and want to trade him.  Money belongs to the team... not the player.  In real life if the team trades for cash, they can technically use it however, they dont have to say we'll use it to pay for Andre Dawson... 

Well to go on that last point, if a team can use cash how they want, why should we need to decide how much to pay off right away.