|
Post by OaklandGM on Oct 6, 2019 9:04:27 GMT -6
I suppose you can see the blatant examples of this when teams completely bench everyone throughout the matchup, but it’ll be tough to enforce any specific rule tied to “benching” since teams may do so strategically to hold onto categories during any particular matchup. I think the solution is typically going to need to directly address the motivation. Just curious why a lottery system is definitely off the table? I’m assuming it’s the challenge of actually holding the lottery transparently in an online league, but I’ve been in leagues that managed this well. Not that I recall how, but I’m sure some research could fill in the blanks. i think we used: www.draftpicklottery.com/#weighted
|
|
|
Tanking
Oct 6, 2019 16:02:46 GMT -6
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Oct 6, 2019 16:02:46 GMT -6
I suppose you can see the blatant examples of this when teams completely bench everyone throughout the matchup, but it’ll be tough to enforce any specific rule tied to “benching” since teams may do so strategically to hold onto categories during any particular matchup. I think the solution is typically going to need to directly address the motivation. Just curious why a lottery system is definitely off the table? I’m assuming it’s the challenge of actually holding the lottery transparently in an online league, but I’ve been in leagues that managed this well. Not that I recall how, but I’m sure some research could fill in the blanks. i think we used: www.draftpicklottery.com/#weightedJust not a fan. I know at least a few others GM here are also not a fan of a lottery idea. I know at least one other is a fan besides you of some kind of lottery idea.
|
|
|
Tanking
Oct 7, 2019 19:49:46 GMT -6
Post by Rangers GM (Pete) on Oct 7, 2019 19:49:46 GMT -6
I will admit, I was a late adopter of the tanking strategy. I complained a few times and I knew this was going to be tabled to the offseason, I figured, if you can't beat them, join them. In addition to obvious tanking, I think we should also lump in the strategy of never picking up either free agents or promoted minor leaguers who could obviously help any major league club, yeah, I hear the argument about saving the roster spot or not having to pay someone, but I doubt adding the league minimum salary is going to put anyone over their cap. Keeping them in the minors does not add years of control like in RL, it is basically the same as benching top guys.
I am for any solution that works and is fairly easy to implement consistently. I am not a huge fan of the lottery idea, but I think not guaranteeing the last place team the first pick isn't a bad idea in order to avoid people actually playing (or not playing) to finish last. I like the idea of some sort of penalty for not playing your better players, but the problem is someone has to police fantrax and enforce the rule also at times during the long season it is easy to leave someone on the DL or bench accidentally for too long.
Again, I know it is not a popular idea, but just for a minute consider flipping the draft order for just the first round. The first round goes top to bottom with the reward for finishing in first place being the first overall pick. Then the second and third rounds go back to the normal last to first order. And maybe add in one or two competitive rounds for the teams in the bottom half or quarter. We don't have box office and TV revenue to add to payroll, we don't have championship rings, all we have is the pride of winning with I would assume in most cases a bunch of strangers. Since this isn't a cash league, I am trying to add some additional motivation for all teams to strive to do better. Again, I suggest this fully knowing it will not be popular. But just consider it for a minute, when I brought up comments about tanking, someone jumped and claimed the top picks don't always work out anyway, so what's the difference. In my scenario let's say Team 1 and Team 28 (first and last). In the draft Team 1 gets picks 1.01, 2.28 and 3.28 while Team 28 gets picks 1.28, 1.29 (comp round A), 2.01, 2.29 (comp round B), 3.01. Let's assume the competitive round goes 10 picks so 1.29-1.39 and again 2.29-2.39 and these picks cannot be traded. Again, just offering a different perspective. The bottom teams lose out in the first round, but gain two additional slots. The winning teams get first choice up front, but lose some depth later in the draft.
|
|
|
Tanking
Oct 7, 2019 20:40:27 GMT -6
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Oct 7, 2019 20:40:27 GMT -6
Again, I know it is not a popular idea, but just for a minute consider flipping the draft order for just the first round. The first round goes top to bottom with the reward for finishing in first place being the first overall pick. Then the second and third rounds go back to the normal last to first order. And maybe add in one or two competitive rounds for the teams in the bottom half or quarter. We don't have box office and TV revenue to add to payroll, we don't have championship rings, all we have is the pride of winning with I would assume in most cases a bunch of strangers. Since this isn't a cash league, I am trying to add some additional motivation for all teams to strive to do better. Again, I suggest this fully knowing it will not be popular. But just consider it for a minute, when I brought up comments about tanking, someone jumped and claimed the top picks don't always work out anyway, so what's the difference. In my scenario let's say Team 1 and Team 28 (first and last). In the draft Team 1 gets picks 1.01, 2.28 and 3.28 while Team 28 gets picks 1.28, 1.29 (comp round A), 2.01, 2.29 (comp round B), 3.01. Let's assume the competitive round goes 10 picks so 1.29-1.39 and again 2.29-2.39 and these picks cannot be traded. Again, just offering a different perspective. The bottom teams lose out in the first round, but gain two additional slots. The winning teams get first choice up front, but lose some depth later in the draft. I don't see this having any chance. I think people would vote for a lottery before allowing the top teams to have the best picks in Round 1. I would rather have some roster min rule than allow the best teams to have the top picks. That does not make the league better IMO allowing the best teams in the league to pick the best players in the draft while the worst teams pick later.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Pete) on Oct 8, 2019 12:01:41 GMT -6
Again, I know it is not a popular idea, but just for a minute consider flipping the draft order for just the first round. The first round goes top to bottom with the reward for finishing in first place being the first overall pick. Then the second and third rounds go back to the normal last to first order. And maybe add in one or two competitive rounds for the teams in the bottom half or quarter. We don't have box office and TV revenue to add to payroll, we don't have championship rings, all we have is the pride of winning with I would assume in most cases a bunch of strangers. Since this isn't a cash league, I am trying to add some additional motivation for all teams to strive to do better. Again, I suggest this fully knowing it will not be popular. But just consider it for a minute, when I brought up comments about tanking, someone jumped and claimed the top picks don't always work out anyway, so what's the difference. In my scenario let's say Team 1 and Team 28 (first and last). In the draft Team 1 gets picks 1.01, 2.28 and 3.28 while Team 28 gets picks 1.28, 1.29 (comp round A), 2.01, 2.29 (comp round B), 3.01. Let's assume the competitive round goes 10 picks so 1.29-1.39 and again 2.29-2.39 and these picks cannot be traded. Again, just offering a different perspective. The bottom teams lose out in the first round, but gain two additional slots. The winning teams get first choice up front, but lose some depth later in the draft. I don't see this having any chance. I think people would vote for a lottery before allowing the top teams to have the best picks in Round 1. I would rather have some roster min rule than allow the best teams to have the top picks. That does not make the league better IMO allowing the best teams in the league to pick the best players in the draft while the worst teams pick later. Like I said, I knew it wouldn't be popular with most or all, just offering another idea. The approach was to reward the top teams, but then also help the lower teams by having the competitive rounds and giving additional picks. Problem I see with a lottery is transparency around it, not saying I don't trust whoever is running it, just seems open to questions. I was trying to think of a way to create an incentive for teams to compete and remove the burden of policing what people are doing and take the subjectivity out of it. Having minimums just gives teams the chance to sign crappy players to fill their stats while still tanking.
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Oct 8, 2019 12:09:11 GMT -6
Tanking is part of sports. We aren't trying to end tanking. We are trying to change how you tank basically.
I am a firm believer that tanking should be allowed but you should have to earn it in some form. Playing a empty roster is crap. No team really wants to face teams like that makes that week boring.
Even this year I played most of my guys I had on my ML roster Mon-Thu then maybe benched guys on weekend. Did I avoid calling some guys up? Sure. But I still had almost 20 guys on my ML roster when everyone was healthy which was at times tough sledding too.
|
|
|
Tanking
Oct 8, 2019 21:16:04 GMT -6
Post by OaklandGM on Oct 8, 2019 21:16:04 GMT -6
I don't see this having any chance. I think people would vote for a lottery before allowing the top teams to have the best picks in Round 1. I would rather have some roster min rule than allow the best teams to have the top picks. That does not make the league better IMO allowing the best teams in the league to pick the best players in the draft while the worst teams pick later. Like I said, I knew it wouldn't be popular with most or all, just offering another idea. The approach was to reward the top teams, but then also help the lower teams by having the competitive rounds and giving additional picks. Problem I see with a lottery is transparency around it, not saying I don't trust whoever is running it, just seems open to questions. I was trying to think of a way to create an incentive for teams to compete and remove the burden of policing what people are doing and take the subjectivity out of it. Having minimums just gives teams the chance to sign crappy players to fill their stats while still tanking. I initially thought this was a bad idea, and I could not support it for round 1 of the draft....but I’d be open to flipping round 2 and/or 3 as a deterrent/reward for tanking/success (bad use of quotes above, was referring to flipping suggestion in draft)
|
|
|
Tanking
Oct 8, 2019 22:42:17 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Phillies GM (Keith) on Oct 8, 2019 22:42:17 GMT -6
There are several ways to make sure transparency is not an issue with a lottery.
There might be reasons to dislike a lottery but transparency shouldn't be one.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Pete) on Oct 9, 2019 9:28:11 GMT -6
There are several ways to make sure transparency is not an issue with a lottery. There might be reasons to dislike a lottery but transparency shouldn't be one. If that is the case, I'd be open to a lottery, maybe just for the first round. Automatically giving the last place team the #1 overall pick just rewards someone for doing a better job of tanking than everyone else. Not a great incentive to try. Especially in a year where there are clear #1 picks. If a lottery was used, I'd do something similar to NBA, where lower teams get a better chance, for our league I'd go pretty deep or even consider all teams in a weighted lottery. Also makes trading draft picks a little more risky, because they might be more or less valuable depending on lottery results.
|
|
|
Tanking
Oct 9, 2019 13:59:26 GMT -6
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Oct 9, 2019 13:59:26 GMT -6
I remain 100% against any lottery idea. There are a lot of ideas I would support I would not support a lottery of any kind.
But I am just one person but I do know several others feel the same way about lottery of any kind.
|
|
|
Tanking
Oct 11, 2019 17:41:39 GMT -6
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Oct 11, 2019 17:41:39 GMT -6
Once I think we have all the ideas we will have I will start a open poll where teams can select however many of the ideas they would be okay with. We would then narrow the list from all options down to like 2-3 with another vote to determine what we would use moving forward.
I will probably renew fantrax this weekend/week then send out a email about this.
|
|
|
Tanking
Oct 21, 2019 15:56:41 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by morf1980 (Rays GM) on Oct 21, 2019 15:56:41 GMT -6
I’m also against a lottery.
I want the worst teams to get the best picks.
I say just say blatant tanking is not allowed. The TAB will monitor, but won’t catch everything. If you get asked to fix something just fix it or explain why it is the way it is. Fill your lineup as best you can with active players.
We will obviously be watching the worst teams closely since the main concern is the top few picks.
|
|
|
Tanking
Nov 1, 2019 10:07:30 GMT -6
Post by NY Mets GM (Bob) on Nov 1, 2019 10:07:30 GMT -6
I am against a lottery as well
But I am anti-tanking- Best lineup should be played
|
|
|
Tanking
Nov 6, 2019 20:45:04 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Giants on Nov 6, 2019 20:45:04 GMT -6
Eff the lotto. I Don't think altering drafts is a good way to discourage tanking anyway. Though bench sitting reduces the player pool in an unfair way. But without going the nuclear option, tab monitoring and some sort of penalizition that doesn't harm potential future owners would have to be in place.
|
|
|
Tanking
Nov 7, 2019 14:37:05 GMT -6
Post by rymiller (Angels GM) on Nov 7, 2019 14:37:05 GMT -6
Thinking about this...how about a bench minimum and a paid minors cap? A bench minimum would keep players active, and a paid minors cap would minimize FA signed being sent down to stash and tank. IL players could be exempt from the cap since they can’t be played anyway.
|
|