Fair play standards

[Manila Folders]

We have seen an increase in expanding what constitutes a legitimate rebuilding effort.  There have been several examples of multiple teams using 8-12 players either on the injured list or in the minor leagues on their active 25 man roster.  There were cases where teams made little effort to sign free agents in the off season in order to field a competitive team even with millions in unsued cap space.  Even the Baltimore Orioles field a full team every game.

The concern of course is that teams would perversely compete to "win" the top pick in both the MLFAD and FYPD.  Each is typically a top 50 rated prospect.  In the case of this year's # 1 pick, Adley Rutschman, Baseball America has him at # 5.  Two top 50 guys is quite an incentive for a rebuilding team.

This makes for a serious lack of competition when teams routinely lose 2-8  or worse.  The question is how to encourage teams to field a workable roster while planning for the future. If we do nothing the trend will likely become more widespread.

We have discussed an NBA type of draft lottery among all non playoff teams to give every non playoff team a shot at the top pick. We have discussed incentives to use your budget to field active players.  We really want to focus on incentives rather than penalties.  We had hoped that the free agent comp pick would incentivize all owners to compete for the best players.  Perhaps moving the comp picks to the front of the round would do some good. 

NOTE, THIS IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT MOVING FORWARD.  WE ARE AWARE THAT NOBODY HAS BROKEN ANY RULES HERE AND WE ARE NOT LOOKING TO BLAME ANYBODY.

We would welcome your suggestions or comments. 

The question is how to address it without removing the ability to rebuild.   

[Hasan4978]

One of the other (non-cap dynasty) leagues I do has this as a draft pick incentive...use a consolation bracket of the playoffs with non-playoff teams to determine draft position at least in the first round - the non-playoff team that wins, gets the top pick, the team that finishes second the second pick and so on.  Then regular season tanking wouldn't really benefit you other than a better 'seed' in the consolation tournament but you would at least have to earn your top pick by setting a roster and winning against other non-playoff teams.

Maybe you could just do the bottom four teams for this tournament, or bottom eight since there are twelve non-playoff teams here, that might also prevent the borderline playoff teams from tanking to gain entry into the draft pick tournament.

[Jason]

I like this as well. Here's how I'd do it personally

Bottom 8 teams in the draft pick playoff.  Finish in that playoffs determines picks 1-6 or 1-4 and pick 11-12 or 9-12. Teams that lose first two playoff matchups get picks 11-12 or all first week losers play for 8-12. Finish in the draft pick playoffs beyond that is based on place.

To give last four teams out of playoffs an incentive to keep playing for playoffs, give them picks 7-10 or picks 5-8. It could be either order of finish or a random draw.

Alternatively, we could make FYPD based on overall finish to help rebuilders and then make MLFAD either a lottery or a draft play-in with picks similar to above.  The theory here is that getting just Rutschman is a little less incentive to tank than getting both Rutschman and Luciano.

[Jax Pratts]

The issue goes way beyond draft picks. It's really more of a question of the integrity of the league and our overall standings. Teams not making an effort to field a competitive team are cheapening the weekly matchups and it becomes a situation where it becomes which teams you play and when you play them. We have 20 teams and 23 scoring periods so we have to play some teams twice. If you are lucky enough to play teams with few active players twice you have a definite advantage over teams who don't play them twice. We might consider requiring a certain percentage of the players who are active at roster lock to actually be active in MLB. Next season, MLB will have 26 man rosters so there are 780 on a MLB roster at any given time. Our 20 teams have 25 active roster spots so that would be 500 players. Any owner who tries at all could easily have 20 active players every week.

If we are going to change how draft picks are allotted, I'd prefer that we base the change on the whole season rather than just a couple week snapshot at the end. Why not give the first pick to the first team who finishes out of the playoffs? Then work down from there. That would give every team an incentive to field their best lineup every week and keep trying to the end. The last place team would have the 12th pick in each draft.

[Columbus Wild]

Some good ideas so far on how to incentive every team to field as competitive a line up as possible. 

Keep them coming!

[Hasan4978]

I've never been in favor of the pure backwards standings approach to draft picks, it doesn't really help parity to have the bottom teams not get a chance at all for that kind of help.  Plus if I'm a borderline playoff team likely to get punted out early by one of the favorites with a stacked roster I'm thinking long and hard about putting on the brakes and getting a sure high pick instead under that system.  I'd rather not de-incentivize actually making the playoffs.

I do think there should be a minimum requirement for fielding a roster.  Doesn't even have to be every spot.  Something similar to my other league where it's every specific position (C, 1B, 2B, 3B, OF, SP, RP) that has to be filled with players currently on a 25-man roster while corner infield, middle infield, utility and maybe the P spot can be the injury forgiveness spots.

[Boulder Ball Busters]

Couple of things from me;

-Set a defined baseline standard every team needs to achieve.  Dont use subjective wording like "field a competitive team" and/or "no injured of minor guys on active roster for extended lengths of time".  Be specific as it is only fair for those rebuilding teams to know what is required first and foremost.

-When it comes to getting good players with expiring contracts in order to compensation picks, I think we need to explain why this is good.  I simply think at least a few teams don't understand/realize this strategy.  Education here.

-Look at what real life leagues do to account for teams tanking in their leagues.  For instance, the Miami Marlins get the city to pay for a new park then field a team with a combined salary of 2 players on a good team.  In this case, MLB has a revenue sharing system for the worst teams so the Marlins would get something like $22m from other teams...well take that away if they dont meet a certain standard.  Maybe something there for us?  Just an example.

-Look to see if the problem is really tanking strategy for some teams or something else.  For instance, see how many times they log in during a season, change line-up, post on forum, etc.  I bet in some cases it is not purposeful strategy to tank but inactivity which requires a different response/action from commissioner

-I too have used the consolation bracket for pick seeding.  I like it a lot.  Maybe we combine that with a lottery system...winner of consolation gets xx number of chances more than others in descending order BUT minimum floor for worst regular season ending teams.

-Do a mandatory call-up system if you have minor or hurt guys in a line-up too long.  Commissioner does it after warning for owner to do it.

-

[Shrewsbury Big Flies]

The solutions need to go beyond determining draft order.  I enjoyed the #1 pick this year, but had I had any of the top 5 I would have had a potential difference maker in the first round, and by the 2nd and 3rd rounds, that advantage disappears.  A playoff, a lottery, or I'm in a football league where 8 make the playoffs, and team #9 gets first pick, team 10 the second, and so on - any of these would help minimize what tanking might occur.

Here are a few things to consider that would have helped me keep a full roster at different points of the season:

1. One catcher.  I started the off season free agency with none.  I have 4 now. 3 on the IL and one DFA'd this week. 
2. Let owners put 10 day IL players on the IL.  Even if there were catchers to get, I've moved my minors eligible players to the minors and would have to put players like E5 and Dietrich on waivers to make roster space.  Judging by the IL lists on my other fantasy teams, I'm sure I'm not alone here.
3. One catcher.  Frankly, I can score more points without the bottom of the barrel catchers bringing the team down.
4. Did I mention one catcher?

Overall, I know I'll approach next year's off-season FA period with a different strategy now that I've experienced a full year. I like this league and the rules are great, but difficult to really grasp them just from reading them all in the off-season.

And for what it's worth, I am trying to finish on top of the "Gang of 4" who are bringing up the rear, I don't think i have a prayer at catching up to Utah. 

[Hasan4978]

Yeah I agree that two catchers in a twenty-team league hardly seem neccesary though I think starting bad catchers only really hurt one category (OBP) and in theory are supposed to help the other counting stats, though not by very much.

[Columbus Wild]

Just to chime in on the two catchers concern.  Two catchers has been a staple of the league, like 5 OF, 5 SP, etc. that make up a 25 man roster.  I don't know that we're looking to change that at the moment.  However, everyone has the same difficulties fielding two catchers.  Each owner must choose how they want to spend their money to field that position vs others.   Personally, I have never spent a lot of money on catchers and I've had success so take that for what's it worth.  I typically spend my cap on other positions.  However, other owners really focus on it and they've had success.  My point is that position doesn't typically make or break your team.

We went into this discussion wondering what people thought of a lottery system but it seems many have an idea and experience on what to do with the bottom 12 or bottom 8 to help encourage all teams pushing hard to the finish.

We understand it's a long season and rosters are large.  From a commish standpoint we're not looking to add a lot more rules that will be hard for people to understand and hard for us to enforce.   Like Manila said in his opening post, we're hoping to see if the majority of the league agree on incentives instead of more rules and especially not punishments.

[Jason]

 In general, I'm against any rule that moves us further away from the experience of running a MLB team.

I don't see any reason to do away with the two catchers.  The weekly lineup is designed to mimic a 25 man MLB roster, which is the reason for 2 catchers and 5 OFs. If people want to blow their budget overpaying for two catchers who will likely have hugely negative surplus value, by all means let them do it as it will allow me to get actual good players at a lower cost.

With respect to the current 10-day IL suggestion, major league rosters are 40-man rosters. In MLB, players are not removed from the 40-man when they go on the 10-day IL. I don't see why we should do it differently.

With respect to the 25-man, my only suggestion would be to take out one Util spot and replace it with another RP. But that isn't what we're discussing right now.

[Glenside Pride]

From my perspective I have been trying to build my team for the past couple of years.  The issue I see is that for me to call up a player at this point in the season I would be burning year 1 of their contract for a couple of weeks of action.  Since the player might not help me win anyway this year I would rather lose the game this year and get a full year out of the player starting next year.

Any chance we could "September call-ups" but have the period start earlier since our season ends earlier?  That way a team could make more roster moves but not worry about burning a whole roster year?

[Cincinnati Tsunami]

I guess I dont understand why some teams are unable to fill starting lineups.  I think this league needs to look at what bottom feeding teams are doing with their rosters. We have several noncontenders that are millions of dollars under the cap. What are they waiting to spend their money on and what are they trying to accomplish? Teams rebuilding in this league aren't rebuilding like a major league team. Teams in this league can sign the majority of free agents to one year contracts. If those guys break out you can trade them for prospects. After a season you can let them go and add a draft pick to your system. If there are are holes on your roster and you don't want your prospect to use up his 300K season then add someone through in season free agency. Those guys aren't world beaters but they at least have the possibility of having a hot week. These noncontenders also can also make trades taking on bad contracts to add picks or prospects. I have dealt a few bad contracts this way but few of the owners seem interesting in making these trades. I think a lot of the noncontenders are people that aren't purposefully tanking but are just inactive.

I do like Chicago's idea of making the draft order being different for the the free agent draft and the first year draft. If we did a loser bracket there are some really bad teams who would have a hard time of working their way into contention. This way the worst teams have a way of acquiring some talent while at the same time reducing the incentive to tank.

[SLC Bums]

I guess I'm in the minority....i don't see tanking...i saw all but 3 teams have less than 10 mil cap and  half of those less than 5. When looking at trading I see the same teams trading ..lower ranked teams taking on dead salary from higher ranked teams..the rule of 2 year minimums for 10 mil or more players discourages owners from bidding on better players when they are at the bottom..cant trade them no room on other teams cap.   

I also think too many comp picks are awarded.. There should be no comp picks after round 3 and I think comp levels should be 12.5 1st round 10.mil 2nd round 8 mil 3rd round nothing more..Comp  picks has made all rounds after round 2 worthless.

I would prefer FA at beginning of year to be position by position. I personally find it hard to spend more than 10 mil on a player when i have 15 holes and I can only pick 5 players at one time to bid on. position by position keeps owners from cycling (just bidiing on player who is just about to  come off the board.

I think signing in weekly should be mandatory.

In the FYPD  I think the 1st 5 rounds should be mandatory..If you dont pick you lose the corresponding round the following season. this helps with keeping Minors stocked a bit better so if owners do leave new owners are'nt strapped for talent.


Just my thoughts

[Utah Sandlot]

Its hard to get a active 'good' team every week when I have had almost my entire team hurt all at once. When I have people retire in the middle of the season. When I have very few active assets I can trade but nobody wants because of their contract or they have no cap. Not to mention I have no minors.

I hate to complain but there really isn't a whole lot I can do. Except for picking up a bunch of bench player to maybe get playing time from.

[Manila Folders]

Its hard to get a active 'good' team every week when I have had almost my entire team hurt all at once. When I have people retire in the middle of the season. When I have very few active assets I can trade but nobody wants because of their contract or they have no cap. Not to mention I have no minors.

I hate to complain but there really isn't a whole lot I can do. Except for picking up a bunch of bench player to maybe get playing time from.

As far as the commissioners are concerned, we understand.  This is about approaching next season in a way that brings more competitive teams that can avoid the challenges that you are dealing with this season.  We realize that teams like yours are in need of refits and everything that you have done is 100% withing the rules as you attempt to do so.  The nice thing about our league is that there are tons of talent in free agency every spring and rebuilds don't have to look like the Houston Astros of 2012.