Here are the Rule proposals that I have received for this season. Each Manager gets one vote (regardless of the number of teams owned). Proposals receiveing a majority of the votes cast will be passed, so please vote!
Since I didn't post these as timely as I originally anticipated, I will extend the deadline for voting on them to NOON CENTRAL TIME FRIDAY OCTOBER 26.
Here are the proposals, with explanation where one was provided:
(1) Change financial system from money to a salary cap. Salary cap to be determined. Each year each team would have salary cap to retain current players, sign free agents, bid on C players and draft minor leaguers. No team can have roster over salary cap. This gets rid of teams ability to save millions and never again have to worry about having enough money to pay players. Evens financial playing field. So no advantage to scrap team to save money.
(2) Teams get % increase in salary cap for winning division.
[NOTE: #2 is only applicable to the extent that #1 passes. Please vote on #2 even if you vote NO on #1, however. Obviously, if #1 passes we will need to have a quick debate and vote about the specifics.]
(3) Expand rosters to 35 major league and 40 minors. Only 25 active players per series. If player on MLB roster and team wants to move to minors, must pass through waivers. For example, this year Mark Mulder with FTW and Jesse Crain with HOU will not be eligible for the MLB roster next year due to lack of ip's due to injury. As it is now they go to minors, get paid e contract and start over at b1 next time they get carded. New rule would require them to pass through waivers to be placed in minors.
(4) Give teams option of using players with less than 50 ab's or 25 ip's by moving them from minor league roster to major league roster. Of course this starts their MLB service time and may make it difficult to move them back down. See rule above.
[NOTE: #4 is only applicable to the extent that #3 passes. Again, please vote for #4 even if you vote NO on #3]
(5) Draft Lottery for first 5 picks. Team with worst record gets 5 "balls", etc.
(6) The 20 teams that don't make the playoffs will be in a lottery for draft position for the 1st round only - the rest of their draft postion will be in order of finish for non-playoff teams and order they finished in playoffs for playoff teams.
How lottery will work: each team will be given a number chances which will be determined by regular season record
chances
worst record 1 20
worst record 2 19
worst record 3 18
worst record 4 17
worst record 5 16
worst record 6 15
worst record 7 14
worst record 8 13
worst record 9 12
worst record 10 11
worst record 11 10
worst record 12 9
worst record 13 8
worst record 14 7
worst record 15 6
worst record 16 5
worst record 17 4
worst record 18 3
worst record 19 2
worst record 20 1
Playoff teams will draft in the first round in the order in which they finished the playoffs (ties determined randomly).
[NOTE: Obviously, #5 and #6 cannot both be implemented. If both pass, we will have a runoff to see which system is implemented.]
(7) All players that are coming off A contracts be put at the top of the C list. In doing this the teams with such players will have a litle more money to get other players.
If anyone feels that I have not presented a proposal correctly or that I forgot a proposal, please let me know ASAP.
Thanks, and everyone please vote by FRIDAY OCT 26 at NOON CENTRAL.
I feel strongly that our system is broken and something needs to be done to bring more parity into the league. My biggest fear is that those of us who would like to see some change ( and I know there are others ) will all split our votes and nothing passes. Therefore, I am voting yes for every rule proposal. Hopefully, something passes. I don't really care which one it is, as long as some change gets made. I can deal with the change and treat it as another challenge that we all face in building our teams if it brings more parity to the league. If more than one passes and they have conflict with each other, we can sort it out with a runoff.
Rule proposal 1: I won't vote for a rule proposal without the salary cap being proposed at the same time. Will there be a grace period? The teams with oodles of money should have a chance to spend it before they lose it.
Rule proposal 2: Same problem. What's the % increase?
Rule proposal 3: As it stands now I won't vote for rule three. An owner should at least have the option of paying an injured uncarded player his current major league salary in order to keep him.
I'll use Francisco Liriano as an example. He has no card for the upcoming season. Under the proposed rule Belfast would assuredly lose him to waivers since he would have to be placed in the minors. Hardly seems fair. If the rule were amended to give an owner the choice of paying a major league contract or put him through waivers I might vote for it.
I also don't see the need to expand rosters.
Rule proposal 4: No issue with it but don't see how it helps the league achieve competetiveness.
Rules proposals 5 and 6: I prefer rule proposal 5 to proposal 6.
Rule proposal 7: sounds good.
I also don't see the need to expand rosters.
If the rule were amended to give an owner the choice of paying a major league contract or put him through waivers I might vote for it.
This is a response to Dave on rule proposal number 1.
The rule does not say you would lose your money. Money would still be important for trades and bidding on free agents and C players. Where the rule helps is this scenario.
Most contenders will have the majority of their money tied up in salaries and thus not be able to bid highly on C players / free agents. Take ARod for example this last year. Brooklyn would never have been able to pay ARod the salary he did and field the rest of his team. Thus the rich (talent wise) can't get richer just because they have a ton of money. Rebuilding teams would now have incentive to use some of their war chest to buy ARod and keep him for the next few years. They can afford the high bid because the rest of their team is not getting high salaries. Results: more high dollar free agents sign with rebuilding / middle tier teams that have room under the CAP. Fewer Uber teams get created. More parity in the league.
Tom, is there a way we can settle on the CAP before votes are cast? I see Dave's concern as a real issue with other managers and feel this probably has no chance of passing w/o it being resolved.
If each team has a salary cap each year then in essence you are losing your money because you can only spend so much and everyone starts with the same amount of money. If the rule says "change the financial system from money to a salary cap" then I think that implies we are doing away with money.
It seems we are trying to help out the owners that put less time into drafting quality players. It is impossible to build a team strictly through cash, you have to be able to bring up some of your own minor leaguers. Brooklyn built up his team through the draft and then went out and spent the cash needed to finish out his team. Should Brooklyn be punished because he drafted or traded for young players in Reyes, Dontrelle, Webb, Tex, and others? So because he does well in the draft he should not be able to keep his star players because it is unfair to everyone else that doesn't draft as well? This doesn't sound right to me.
Ahhh...but BRK was only able to do that once. I guarantee it won't be happening this year. BLF went hog wild last year as well and can't do it again this year. The current system is working...maybe not the way some want it to but it does work. In my opinion we shouldn't be penalizing anyone that has suffered long and hard for eventual success. We should be putting forth rules that reward teams to perform better. Something like reaching 50 wins rewards a team with a first round pick and place money. Otherwise no 1st round pick and no place money. I'm betting that would work better than reinventing our current system.
Will you guys quit saying someone is being penalized. Everyone would be playing with the same rule and the same requirements. There is no penalty. You still have your money and it doesn't go away. It just comes into play in a different way with a salary cap.
The whole idea is to bring parity to the league and no it is not working. If you don't like the idea then just nut up and say I don't want parity. I don't want change.
Nut up? If it takes nutting up to make a statement about a replay baseball league then alot of people in this league are in trouble in life. I don't want change. You can't make a change in the league and then not give it time to work. Nothing happens over night you need to let the changes we made not too long have time to work.
And another thing, I don't care how hard you try and force parity, it will never happen unless you clone one person in this league and let them run every team. Different people in this league are better at different aspects of building a team than others. Some are good at drafting while others tend to get the better end of trades. There is no such thing as parity, the closest thing to parity is every one having to follow the same rules.
They are both reinventing the current system. Forcing teams to win 50 games or not receive finish money or get an early draft pick is penalizing that team. Funny how it is okay to penalize these teams. Why should they be penalized for trying to build a team the same old way you did before you got where you are today? You didn't have to win 50 games to build your war chest and get early draft picks. You want to call this incentive, I say it is just your choice of how to get closer to parity. I am not saying a CAP is the only way to go and if it gets voted down then so be it, I just don't understand why the ones that oppose it keep saying teams will be penalized. Just say you don't like the idea and want to go another route. Thru a CAP, you are not being penalized for not succeeding. You still have the choice to be as ugly as you want, but you did have the opportunity to get players and be more successful because your money is building for nothing if you don't use it.
The 50 win rule might get us a little closer but it won't bring parity very quickly. A CAP would definitely bring parity a lot quicker. I am willing to make that sacrifice. As I said above, I am voting yes for every rule hoping that something passes. My guess is none pass which means most managers are okay with the current system and don't mind playing a ton of meaningless games during the season. Makes for a really fun time playing the games.
sigh...BTM absolutely had to make the 40 win criteria for a couple of years. And upping the minimum games needed to earn money and adding a draft pick to that is a lot less than increasing roster sizes, installing salary caps, and using some half thought out waiver system.
And since you're casting aspersions as to my motivation, I will point out that you want a salary cap after you've exhausted your bank.
Really, this shouldn't turn into an unproductive argument. The proposals have merit but could use a little tweaking in my opinion. I can wait another year to get it right. Or maybe Tom can allow another rule proposal this year. But, I'm not voting for wholesale changes that aren't completely thought out.
And my point about being penalized is for the teams with big bank rolls currently. (BTM is one of them but I would argue this anyway) If a cap is used (depending on the cap level which hasn't been clarified), how does BTM ever spend it's 15 mil? The 5 years I've spent suffering through crappy seasons with crappy players in order to rebuild prospects, players, and cash to compete gets punished with a salary cap.
Dave is right. I have no bank. I have enough talent to make another run and possibly get to the wild card but I am choosing to not go that route because under the current system I have no chance to advance past the 1st round and would only be prolonging the rebuilding process. So I choose to start a year early while I still have enough talent that I can afford to keep and get back to respectability in about 2 years instead of 4 or 5. However, under a CAP I would still be restricted because I am keeping several "A" players and not having the money to buy players; I couldn't even trade for players with high salaries because it would put me over the CAP anayway. So yes, a CAP does affect me too.
Yes he has a lot to lose in that he has 15 mil in the bank and wouldn't be able spend it all for himself. However, he doesn't lose the money. He can trade it to other managers that don't have those huge balances or he can keep it and when the time comes that he has to go the rebuilding route he has plenty of money to rebuild at a much quicker rate. It also means he doesn't have to sell off all his assets and trade away his draft picks to rebuild. He already has everything in place to get started without giving up anything to get money. With any rule changes, they always affect some teams more harshly than others. It comes with the change. I try to look at the bigger picture. I seriously am not having any fun and I can't believe that those of you that are playing meaningless games are really enjoying the season. I won 121 games this year because I got tired of being an also ran. I had to sell out my future to get there. I gambled and lost. I did not enjoy the season and regretted making that decision early on. I don't wish anyone the same mistake I made.
I am aware that I will never change Dave or Travis mind on this issue. I am being argumentative for a reason. I am trying to reach out to the managers that don't want to have to sell out everything to get an Uber team. I am arguing with two managers that fielded Uber teams and thus have a vested interest to not want change. Under a CAP, Uber teams would almost become extinct. Not that it is impossible, but highly unlikely that you would ever see a team win 120 games again. Highly probable that 100+ win teams would become rare as well. How many of you guys have thought that you know you could get to 85-90 wins without wholesaling your minor leagues and giving up all your draft picks? If you thought 85-90 wins had a chance to win your division and make it past the first round in the playoffs wouldn't you be more aggressive and go for it? Instead, we all know that under the current system there will always be the next Austin or High Desert or Brooklyn that is willing to give up their future for a run at the top. The next set of Uber teams is always just over the horizon. What are your odds of being one of them. If the cards don't line up just right with stud minor leaguers and high draft picks they are pretty slim. We all think that if other teams can do it we should be able to also, but when most teams are trying the start from the bottom approach what makes you believe that you will be the one that is successful? So you suck for 3-5 years and still don't get over the top. What a waste. Why can't we have a system that allows us to go for it without wholeselling everything to get there?
I don't need to convince Dave and Travis, I just need to convince enough of the voting managers that the league would a lot more enjoyable for them if they thought they had a chance to be successful without having to build an Uber team to get there. There will always be some managers that are astute enough to draft wisely, bring up quality players thru their own system and keep their payrolls low enough that they can still bid on some high salaries and afford them. They will undoubtedly be crowned the quality GMs and what every other manager tries to emulate. I have no doubt that the managers that are currently successful wouldn't also be successful under a CAP. They would just do it a different way. All the while, the rest of the talent would be spread out due to the CAP. Races would be closer and the odds of runaway divisions with champions being crowned at 3/4 mark of the season probably wouldn't happen. My goal is not to convince Dave and Travis, but to convince enough of the rest of you that it would be worthwhile and more enjoyable.
I agree with Dave that there are issues that need to be worked out under a CAP, but I am also willing to believe that if it got voted in, the league thru another vote would come to some type of agreement that would be fair.
I think the purpose of some of the rule changes is getting lost in the salvos. The purpose is to create a more competitive league that doesn't have such a wide gap between the losers and the winners. When I began this discussion awhile back I qualified it by saying "IF others even think it is problem." If you fall into the category of not finding the huge gap in winning percentages a problem for the league then vote against the proposals. If you agree there is problem then consider a change. If ARBA is nothing else, it is a democracy.
If a problem is thought to exist, many in the league are going to have to possibly lose something for the greater good of the league. If poeple are only concerned about how things affect them individually and not how the league is affected for the better then we will get nowhere.
Amazing how what I just wrote sounds like a political stump speech.......
I'm definitely not against trying something new. But, I'm not voting for the proposals in their current form. I'd also point out that rules get voted on once a year by simple majority. Any other rule proposal during the year needs to be unanimous, even a proposal that would complete another proposal.
I am proposing right now that we take another week for the rule proposals to be submitted. I would expect that Gary, Tom S., and whoever else wants these to pass take the time to flesh the proposals out and answer the various questions that are sure to follow. We can then at least vote on finished proposals instead of incomplete ones.
My poposal to allow another week would need to be passed unanimously per league rules. I'm hoping everyone will vote yes to this and let the chips fall where they may.
If not, I will not vote for proposals that are incomplete.
I think that the CAP needs to be defined. I initially brought up the CAP rule. Since I didn't get much interest at the time I did not pursue it and never defined CAP or what my initial CAP would be to the league. I don't know who submitted a CAP rule, but since it is there I will continue to argue for it. My definition of the CAP was the total salary of your roster at the end of the offseason. That total could not exceed the CAP. You would able to spend and trade whatever amount of money you wanted during the offseason, but your final roster must come in under the CAP. I agree this would be harder to enforce but I contend it is manageable.
So in theory, you could spend 2 million of your war chest to buy a B1 player from another manager. That 2 million would not come into play for either manager under the CAP. You only have to report 200k under the CAP. The other team now has 2 million to defer to the future or spend any way he desires as long as he stays under the CAP. Successful bids on players in the C auction or free agent bidding would count as the CAP amount for that player. AROD goes for 3.9 mil, then your roster would have to account for that 3.9 mil under the CAP. So in essence, BTM would have a resource that the rest of the league doesn't have if the rule were adopted.
My original CAP amount was the average final roster salaries last year rounded up to the next increment of 250k. The average total salary last year was 8.243 million. That would round to a CAP of 8.25 million per team. Nine teams exceeded that amount last year. They were BRK 12,115; BLF 11,785; HAR 9,875; NIK 9,700; AUS 9,550, SPR 8,795; HDT 8,785; DAV 8,465; and SOU 8,360. BRK, BLF, HAR, AUS, and HDT were Uber teams. I know AUS would not have been able to field the team I did under the CAP. Could I have made the playoffs? Who knows but i doubt it. I contend that BRK, BLF, HAR, and HDT could have come in under the CAP and still made the playoffs. BRK still makes it without AROD. HDT and SOU were barely over. Kudos to Keith under this system. HDT was probably still an Uber team even if they would have needed to reduce payroll by about .5 million. PBG and IOW made the playoffs under the CAP.
Take away the players that the teams over the CAP could not afford and spread the wealth throughout the rest of the league and the races would have been a lot more interesting. Keith may have still run away with the FL South, but the rest of the conferences probably wouldn't have been decided nearly as soon. The way I see it, teams like PBG, DAV, HDT, SOU, IOW, FTW, SPR and WAS should be all over this deal. They have already proved that they can field competitive teams under a CAP, especially if they are not having to compete with UBER teams. Well, Keith may be the exception, but if he can build HDT so close to the CAP and not contend with other Uber teams, then why would he be against it. Oh, I know; because I am for it and he is against anything I am for.
The CAP amount would need to be modified each year under some scenario of last year's average plus 5 or 10% rounded. Something along those lines. Since the average would always be less than the CAP amount, the CAP would always go down each year, so it would need to be modified up in some way. That is debateable. It could just be decided that it is always a fixed amount. I just used last year's average for a starting point.
Why would you not just cap the amount of money that could be carried from one year to the next? It would be much less confusing and it would keep teams from building the large war chest you complain about.
Okay...still need a number to vote for but that's a start. And we need to address salary cap % increase for winning.
My other big problem is with waiviing uncarded players. I would never want to lose a Liriano type just because he's injured. It would be more acceptable if BLF would be able to pay him his next step in salary instead of losing him. So...BLF would have to pay Liriano and B2 contract (he's a B1 this past year) in order not to expose him to waivers. My other concern is how would the waivers be handled. Worst record gets first choice?
I still won't vote for this one because of the roster increase...tracking 60 players is enough. The length of the draft and auction are almost intolerable as it is. It also has little to do with parity.
That's an option. It might be a viable one too, but it was not proposed this year. I also remember it being brought up earlier and there was plenty oppostion to it at the time. Bottom line, its not up for vote.
Dave, You are right on the 60 player limit increase to 75. That is a 25% increase in roster sizes. Increasing the roster size doesn't haven't anything to do with parity. In order to have an affect on parity, roster sizes would need to be reduced. That would create more free agents and IOD players. More carded players available to everyone in the league. This rule would probably reduce the IOD list to almost nothing. When I submit my official votes I will vote no on this proposal.
Nope, not implying anything, there might be plenty of opposition to everything, but at least it is up for vote and I can try to persuade others to vote for it. Capping the balance forward idea isn't an option this year so it is not even up for discussion. I know I will never persuade you, I have given up on that so continuing to argue with me is pointless. Make some valid points as to why it shouldn't be voted on and I will listen. I will then give you the point or give you my position on why I disagree. Your not wanting change is valid. I disagree because I think change is needed. What is your next valid point. Believe me there are some cons to this rule, they are not all pros. I just believe the pros outweigh the cons. There may be more cons that I have not thought of but so far I haven't heard any that I think are legitimate.
The only pro you have given is more parity in the league thus making the games more fun. To which I replied a rule alone does not create parity. You have agreed with me when you said that..... "I have no doubt that the managers that are currently successful wouldn't also be successful under a CAP. They would just do it a different way." Like I said earlier some teams are just better at drafting and working out trades.
The rules have already been posted for vote. I'm not making any adjustments to ones I proposed. Vote as you may. I don't count on them passing anyway. I've proposed similar ones in the past without success. I doubt I'll make rule proposals in the future. The league has demonstrated that the majority like the league as is and are not interested in making changes. I have another league, as I've stated in the past, that meets my needs for a more realistic and competitive experience. I enjoy ARBA for the long time relationships that have formed and the attachment to my teams. I do appreciate the fact that you at least cared enough to state your position and what you felt needed to happen for you to feel more comfortable voting for the proposals. In the future we should probably send out a pre-ballot post to allow for discussion and any tweaking of the proposals needed.
Gary,
I appreciate your passion for change for the good of the league. I wish there was more support for it but there isnt and traditionally never has been.
On the parity front, I will point out that we are going to have our 7th different champion in 8 years this season. I'm not sure that there is general agreement that there is a parity issue over the long term, notwithstanding the wide disparity between the best and worst teams in any given season.
Also, maybe I am an anomoly, but I really enjoy playing the games. I probably enjoyed playing them a bit more when I was winning 100+ regularly, but I enjoy them even playing a bunch of scrubs and having the worst records in the league. It's baseball - there is something wacky and interesting in almost every game. In SFE's wretched season, Carlos Marmol (3-27, 6.15) and Jorge De la Rosa (7-20, 6.83) each tossed shutouts on the road, Michael Tucker walked an absurd 187 times despite hitting .211, and Andy Sisco managed a 1.98 ERA with a WHIP around 1.7. Crazy stuff happens, and the possibility of that stuff every game makes it interesting for me even when I know that I have virtually no chance of winning.
