Offseason Discussion

[Padres GM (Matt)]

That makes sense. I just wasn’t sure if there is any possibility that it gets reevaluated given the Padres real life spending as my salary cap reflects a fairly “low market” team. Just a thought! It’s never really gotten in the way of any of my business yet

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

lol its a fair ask tbh. The Padres operate WAY differently than they did 15 years ago when the league started. I can't think of a fair way to do that bump change though. I think Ty at this point will just say they are what they are.

[Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11)]

Question on the draft. International signing day is now typically mid January and most high profile international guys sign on that day. But its running now pretty close to the start of the draft and there looks to be a potential situation where a guy wouldn't qualify to be drafted at the start of the draft but would be eligible sometime during it. What I'm wondering is should the draft eligible guys have to be signed to a minor league contract by the start of the draft and if they were to sign during the draft they would go through the FA process?

Say there was a 22 year old cuban SP who would go #1 overall. He has to delay his signing for a short time for legal reasons. The draft starts and the first 10-15 picks go by and on the first weekend while the draft is going on he signs with an MLB team. Is that just tough luck for earlier teams and he is eligible to be drafted right away or would we be in that dead period since he wasn't available to draft from the start he needs to go through the FA process?

[Cubs GM (Scott B)]

He wouldnt be eligible to be drafted. All players must be signed prior to the draft to be eligible for the draft.

[Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11)]

Perfect! Thanks.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

You can't gain (due to signing) OR lose (due to age) eligibility once the draft starts.The player pool is the player pool once the draft begins.

[Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11)]

Thats what I figured but with the movement in 21 of the international signing day to mid January this seems like it could potentially come up and overlap with the draft.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

Yeah makes sense. At least we don't need to clarify that you cant post J2 signings every year now haha

[Nationals GM (corkzilla)]

Dec 8, 2022 10:56:29 GMT -5 Padres GM (Matt) said:

That makes sense. I just wasn’t sure if there is any possibility that it gets reevaluated given the Padres real life spending as my salary cap reflects a fairly “low market” team. Just a thought! It’s never really gotten in the way of any of my business yet

We’ve done a lot of changes in here to make it fairer for us to act on our own minus the real teams positioning.

When we first started, our rookie draft was just picking 5 players that your team drafted. Was a real kick in the gut when this changed right before the Nats drafted Strasburg and Harper 😂. It was a necessary change though for sure.

[Mets GM (barnstormers)]

I would like to circle back to the position eligibility brought up the Phillies. Looks like no decision has been made, as yet.

Did this discussion pertain only to Minor League players?

Regarding players who do not accrue 20 games at any position the previous year and are only UT eligible.

Reading Ty's comments from December 5th (I'd copy here if I knew how) I quote," I could be easily convinced that-contingent on an owner bringing it to the LO's attention-players such as this should be manually granted eligibility at the position where they made the most appearances in the prior season".

I have not posted my Tags yet, waiting for a decision on this.

Example, I have Mitch Garver with an expired contract. Qualified at catcher the past 6 seasons. Last year he had 17 games at C and 20 games at UT before he was shut down with arm surgery. If I tag him, who knows how long it will take him to get his 5 games in to re qualify at C. He's worth tagging if he qualifies at C. Flip side, who wants to pay a shitload of money to a UT guy that hits 20 HR's but bats .230.

Personally, I think we should keep the rules as they are. But, if we are going with a special dispensation on position eligibility, can we decide by Next Week.

Thanks

Happy New Year

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

Examples like this are why I don't want to get into this at all and let fantrax do its thing. This is a VERY different case than Phillies were talking about.

[Twins GM (Mike)]

I feel like this whole thing creates more headaches then it solves imo.

or at least more work for LO compared to a significant impact is made. You sometimes just get the short stick 

[Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11)]

Dec 28, 2022 11:18:35 GMT -5 D Backs GM (Tyler) said:

Examples like this are why I don't want to get into this at all and let fantrax do its thing. This is a VERY different case than Phillies were talking about.

I agree this is a very different case.  I'm just asking that all games be counted from the previous season when it comes to position eligibility.  Thats it.  It doesn't take a lot of work and will only affect a handful of guys.  Can easily be handled over the course of the months of offseason.

[Nationals GM (corkzilla)]

Dec 28, 2022 11:24:30 GMT -5 Twins GM (Mike) said:

I feel like this whole thing creates more headaches then it solves imo.

or at least more work for LO compared to a significant impact is made. You sometimes just get the short stick 

This is the most fair response to all involved (those asked to make a decision and those that get the short stick). The "short stick" isn't even that short when we're talking about 5 games.

I have the same thing going on this year with Francisco Alvarez. Arguably the top catcher prospect in baseball. Came up in September and played 2 games at C and 3 at DH. He's only UTIL for now. Thems the breaks.

[Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11)]

We just need a clear ruling. All games from previous seasons count or once you play a mlb game only those do.

Having a top C prospect who played catcher 81 times in the previous season and not have C eligibility I’ve said is dumb. Why give a bad break when you don’t need to?

[Mets GM (barnstormers)]

I feel that way about Garver. I'm sure most teams have a Garver like player.

If you are going to change it for Minor Leaguers, change it for all. If not, like D Back said, let Fantrax do its' thing.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

Dec 28, 2022 16:50:07 GMT -5 Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11) said:

We just need a clear ruling. All games from previous seasons count or once you play a mlb game only those do.

Having a top C prospect who played catcher 81 times in the previous season and not have C eligibility I’ve said is dumb. Why give a bad break when you don’t need to?

The current rule is set by fantrax. Milb games don't count towards eligibility. It isn't grey, that's how it works.

[Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11)]

I’ve said this whole time the written rule says previous season! Fantrax can’t count all games, can’t total MI/CI games either but adjustments are made. That’s why I think if you have a player that clearly met the eligibility requirements even though Fantrax can’t count the multiple levels, each owner should have to let the FO know of any player that needs adjustment. Have a deadline of February 1st or before RFA starts. This isn’t a lot of work and actually gets player eligibility correct. No judgements necessary. Count the games.

[Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11)]

I won’t keep rehashing this argument. It’s been made. Quoted the rule as it’s written and especially to new owners it’s not clear or wasn’t to me. I will never think counting previous seasons games for that player regardless of level will be the wrong way to go or any kind of big lift of extra work.

I’ll really try to be done with this topic.

[Guardians GM (Ron)]

It is easy to override a players position eligibility in Fantrax using the Commissioners settings. Our league uses 20 games from the previous season but only 5 from the current season to establish position eligibility. While I completely understand the arguments in using the prior seasons positions, especially in the case of a minor leaguer getting a late promotion and not meeting those eligibility requirements at the MLB level. However, if these players are truly going to be ...a catcher let's say then very early after their promotion they should meet those requirements. We are only talking about a 5 game delay before these requirements are met. If it was a straight 20 games before eligibility was met I would definitely take issue with that.

[Red Sox GM (Ty)]

Forgive the late post here, I've got a lot of irons in the fire at the moment.

One point of clarification: I'd previously said in my initial post that the regular season was ending midweek moving forward- I was wrong. Not sure where I (mis)heard that, but it's a material fact that alters our (more limited than I'd hoped) discussion about expanding the playoffs. As such, I don't think we can implement any change for 2023. I am, however, moreinclined to sign off on expanded playoffs in 2024 and beyond than ever before. I appreciate those who have nominated novel amendments to our system to accommodate another WC team in each league, and suspect we'll end up implementing some/much of what's already been discussed, albeit with the necessary shortening of the regular season and/or World Series.

On the robust debate about positional eligibility: I understand the Phils' frustration, but our very achievable 5 games played hurdle for the current year was implemented to address the very concern being articulated. Additionally, I think the proposed fix could create as many problems as it solves, and, as such, we won't make any changes to positional eligibility at this time.

That leaves the tiebreaker, which will be our only official rule change/clarification this offseason. Per my prior post, if 2 teams are tied at the conclusion of our regular season with a playoff spot on the line, the first tiebreaker will be to score each team's regular season totals as if the entire year was a H2H matchup. Should that not resolve the tie, we will delay the start of the playoffs- reducing the World Series by the amount of days it takes to declare a winner. The regular season will effectively be over for every team not involved in the tie, so the draft order and playoff seeding (with the obvious exception of those teams) will not change as a result of the extended 'regular season.'

Thanks to all who contributed to the lively debate this offseason- I look forward to a similarly spirited competition this season. Get your tags posted and FA lists finalized, the offseason fun is right around the corner!

ELO

[Mets GM (barnstormers)]

Well ain't that the shit.

Sorry Garv's. I tried. Looks like you're bringing your catching gear to spring training.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

It ended mid week last year, it doesnt this year. idk what determines it to be honest but we'll see about the expansion anyway. I think we should just say "X days" and not worry about when in the week it falls when we pick the length of series.

[Nationals GM (corkzilla)]

Should be easy to say that our WS is more than 7 days but less than 15. That way it’s always more than a week and no more than 2. Anything in between will just be because of real life schedule fuckery.

I don’t understand the tiebreaker thing. So if there are two teams in a playoff tie, Al the teams lose out on stats until there’s a winner? So the first week matchups could be 6-4 games? Seems like there has to be a different way that doesn’t effect everyone else that’s already in…unless I’m reading that wrong.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

It would be a single day at most and if we are going full year h2h before that then it will likely never get to that point. Maybe once every 10 years.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

Also if our lord and savior Ty is ok with it, we can just keep the playoff matchup the same period. We can do one day of tiebreak and then just record playoff stats at the same time.

[Red Sox GM (Ty)]

Jan 4, 2023 11:02:17 GMT -5 D Backs GM (Tyler) said:

Also if our lord and savior Ty is ok with it, we can just keep the playoff matchup the same period. We can do one day of tiebreak and then just record playoff stats at the same time.

I could be misremembering, but I vaguely recall a discussion about this very issue, and there was some objection to the idea that the division winner was at a disadvantage because they essentially had to play 2 teams for at least a day, possibly more, of their matchup. I'm not terribly moved by that argument, as they're intended to play the better team anyway, but it hadn't been discussed at all. As such, I'm reluctant to unilaterally implement something without league input in spite of my quasi-deity status. I think, as Tyler said, that this will rarely come into play and have a negligible effect on final results, but I'm happy to re-visit and amend if there is sufficient will to do so.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

Thats fine, we can push by a single day if it happens. I dont know that we ever have had roto and h2h tied at the end of a season anyway.

[White Sox GM (alligatorchris)]

What’s most important is in that discussion he never once corrected you on his title “Lord and Savior.”

[Rays GM (karaidos)]

FA bidding next season

Thoughts on being able write up an offer where you offer a different amount based on whether or not you get a player? Example, I get player A for 30 million then I offer player B 2 million but if I don’t get player A then offer player B 10 million.