Rules Change Poll

[catcher24]

I am posting this poll to see what changes the owners are really interested in making. There has been considerable discussion but nothing concrete. If we can get a basic idea of what changes - if any - most owners want implemented, we can then hammer out the details after the playoffs are over.

[catcher24]

My choice was to decrease playing time (I would say down to 120%) and add half decade franchise players. I think everything else works very well, and I'm not real sure about decreasing the PT. I most certainly would like to see a half decade franchise player rule added.

[Erik Bedard]

I am strongly against everything except the arbitration rule.

[leecemark]

--I would be okay with decreasing the playing limit. I also be okay with adding any ONE of the opinions to make it easier to retain players; arb buy out, increased HTD or half decade franchise tags. I would be opposed to adopting multiple options. Of course, I'd be okay with making no changes too:).

[jaybird_1981]

I voted for decreasing playing time and the half decade franchise player option. However I would have also voted for the increase of the HTD instead of the half decade franchise player. Either way would be fine with me.

[jkc32]

I voted "other" because I didn't see either of the options I suggested on the list (increased salaries for all players each season and players being released if they don't play xx percent of the time). Were they included in the arbitration option?

Not sure how more franchise players, no changes, minimal decrease in PT %, or increase in HTD help us reach league parity? I am strongly opposed to adding any of the proposed rules if they don't directly address the fact we can hoard or stockpile players without consequence.

[mac195]

What's wrong with hording and stockpiling good players? Isn't that what all great teams have done throughpit baseball history? Why should there be a "consequence" for being a successful GM (other that lots of wins?)

[leecemark]

--Increased salaries for all draftees, not just those who play, would have minimal effect. If you use 30 players that would at most be a 2.5 mil cap increase for unused players. For me at least half of my unused player have generally been free agents on multi-year deals I signed for their vlaue the next year (or beyond) and would not be affected by the change, reducing the hit even more. The main advantage would be simplifying bookkeeping.
--I would be strong opposed to a rule that encouraged me (or any other owner) to put less than their best team on the field. League balance is a desirable goal, but should be achieved by teams climbing the ladder being given every opportunity to build a strong teaM. It should not be acheived by asking the already strong teams to field a weaker one than theri roster dictacts. I did offer a counter proposal suggesting we could require players above certain real life playing time thresholds to go through waivers before they could be assigned to the minors. That would prevent real life regulars from being buried while other teams were forced to patch together a position out of spare parts. Being forced to choose between rsiking the loss of a good player having an offseason or keeping him active over a role player I could live with as in the best interests of the league.

[jaybird_1981]

What's wrong with hording and stockpiling good players? Isn't that what all great teams have done throughpit baseball history? Why should there be a "consequence" for being a successful GM (other that lots of wins?)

I agree with this also the only thing I really dislike is the playing time rule it is unrealistic since it devalues tons of players who provide a lot more to their team then just the stats show and that is the reason why they played so much. 125 is a huge number to me.

[mac195]

League balance is a desirable goal, but should be achieved by teams climbing the ladder being given every opportunity to build a strong teaM.
Agreed 100%. As in real life, equality of opportunity is the best we can hope for within a just system. Equal outcomes require tyranny.

;)

[jkc32]

Looks like I'm in the minority...that's ok.

As always, I'll support whatever changes the league decides to make.:eek:

[mac195]

Actually, now that I think about it, I have never really horded good player seasons in the minors since that is counterproductive. I've always tried to deal any excess talent I've had. If your team needs a player another team is keeping in the minors, make an offer for him. Chances are you'll get a pretty good deal, since that player is less valuable to his team as a reserve than he would be to you as a regular.

[leecemark]

--You did leave Jim Bunning in the minors for all of 1963. It wasn't an especialy good season for him, but 248 IP at a 96 ERA+ would have helped somebody. Of course, if you'd had to risk losing him if you farmed him I'm sure you could have found a spot for him on your staff:).` If the usage was lower you may have even wanted him in your rotation. You got by with some fairly low inning SP that year.

[-Kyle-]

HTD rule only. Since we are playing in a league with higher offensive statics than the norm (thus higher PA) and playing more games, I think the current rules for playing time is fine. Players with lot's of PA are invaluable. Look at Mickey Stanley. I underestimated how much time my OFs had to play and all the sudden I had one real outfielder left with enough PA to finish the season so I traded for Stanley. Stanley had an 82 OPS+ and had a .670 OPS in the sim but played good CF, RF, and filled in for SS. Life saving.

[jaybird_1981]

HTD rule only. Since we are playing in a league with higher offensive statics than the norm (thus higher PA) and playing more games, I think the current rules for playing time is fine. Players with lot's of PA are invaluable. Look at Mickey Stanley. I underestimated how much time my OFs had to play and all the sudden I had one real outfielder left with enough PA to finish the season so I traded for Stanley. Stanley had an 82 OPS+ and had a .670 OPS in the sim but played good CF, RF, and filled in for SS. Life saving.

But with more teams in this league compared to real life, I think the plate appearances are too high. Let's make some of these guys who play everyday valuable again. I would much rather see names of players I recognize then some of these guys who only played one season and had 200 PAs. With the rule how it is there is no real penalty for just drafting guys who don't play much and switching them out all year long. I know the team I just took over had no business with half of my starting lineup even playing.

Jason

[leecemark]

--I would also like to see the value of everyday players rise a little - especially workhorse pitchers - and reducing the playing time allowance would accomplish that. The strongest support we show so far is for the half decade franchise player and I could support that as well (I didn't vote for any of them, but am open to most).

[Erik Bedard]

I also support the raising of the HTD.

[catcher24]

I really don't see a lot of stockpiling of players who actually had decent seasons but are kept in the minors, Joe. I had Amos Otis and Joe Rudi in the minors for three seasons each, but Otis never played enough to use except as a callup the first three years, and Rudi wasn't far behind. I finally traded Rudi this season, when his high PA seasons are coming up, because I realized I didn't want him languishing in the minors and he had decent trade value. And I do have to agree with Mac that if an owner has sacrificed in prior years to build a decent team, the owner should not be punished for that.

So far as usage goes, I think 115% is a very decent compromise. It takes into account the 4% more usage needed due to our longer season, and also gives an 11% bonus for extra usage over a player's actual PA total. That 11% bonus translates into 55 extra PA (or about 12 extra games worth) for a player with 500 real life PA, and it makes anyone with 600+ PA into a full time player.

I agree that the five year franchise player rule seems to be garnering considerable support, as does raising the Hometown Discount. I don't know as the poll really helped or not, but at least we got a bit more discussion going here. Settling the rules issue should probably be our first course of business once the playoffs are done.

[-Kyle-]

Wasn't thinking straight, I support both raising HTD and franchise players. I am okay with 115%.

[Hack_Miller]

I voted for the half-decade FP and reduced PT. I don't think the 10% less PT would be that big of deal either way. As for the half-decade franchise tag it was probably the best option listed but increased HD would be nice too.

[leecemark]

--I'd be opposed to both the extra franchise player AND an increased HTD. I could support either one, but both would virtually end the premium free agent market.

[jkc32]

I really don't see a lot of stockpiling of players who actually had decent seasons but are kept in the minors, Joe.

I think my thought is being misunderstood. We are all guilty of stockpiling players, holding them on our reserve roster, then 2-4 years down the road activating them so they can play a year or 2 before being released. I never said players with decent seasons were being kept in the minors during their decent seasons. Rosters have plenty of guys who cost $250K, and stay $250K, for seasons on end. As the commish pointed out, cumulative team salaries would only gain about $2.5M per season (on average) by upping all the salaries...BUT, that's potentially $2.5M per season. If those players were kept 3 years that's $7.5M added to salaries...suddenly salary starts becoming an issue for some teams and potentially forces different keeper choices (especially when salaries double in year 4, if players are kept that long).

Just a quick example from my team. I drafted Cito Gaston in 1967 for $250K. It's now 1970 and the only reason his salary is jumping up to $500K is because it's his 4th season on my roster and he's due his "arbitration bump". He's never even sniffed the on-deck circle the 3 years I've had him (squirreled away on my reserve roster). Honestly, the only reason I drafted him in 1967 was because I knew I could hold onto him without penalty while waiting to platoon him in 1970 with Roy White. If salaries went up each year, he'd be $1.5M this year (due to doubling). Still not a significant jump, but do the same with 3-5 players and it starts to become prohibitive. Heck, Gaston hits lefties pretty well next year too, so under the current system, I'll definately keep him for $750K and consider it a bargain, but would have a tougher choice at $1.75M under the "always" raise system.

Other players I'll stockpile in varying degrees include Fran Healy, Joe Decker (won't play until season 6) , Ken Boswell, and Marty Perez. No world beaters in this group but all play a useful role in 1-2 seasons at negligble costs.

[Windy City Fan]

I voted for the arbitration option, but the half decade franchise player and/or a large increase in the HTD are viable options to me. I voted for arbitration, as its my favorite option, but any of them work for me. If we do arbitration or half decade franchise tags, I'd still favor a slight bump in the HTD. Maybe up to 25%. Not insurmountable, but a little extra in favor of keeping players at home.

I strongly oppose the decrease in playing time. I don't see what it achieves other than forcing a few second or third tier backups onto the field if someone has a major injury or two. Full time players are playing full time and part timers need platoon partners or guys who can fill in the other at bats.

[Windy City Fan]

I think my thought is being misunderstood. We are all guilty of stockpiling players, holding them on our reserve roster, then 2-4 years down the road activating them so they can play a year or 2 before being released. I never said players with decent seasons were being kept in the minors during their decent seasons. Rosters have plenty of guys who cost $250K, and stay $250K, for seasons on end. As the commish pointed out, cumulative team salaries would only gain about $2.5M per season (on average) by upping all the salaries...BUT, that's potentially $2.5M per season. If those players were kept 3 years that's $7.5M added to salaries...suddenly salary starts becoming an issue for some teams and potentially forces different keeper choices (especially when salaries double in year 4, if players are kept that long).

Just a quick example from my team. I drafted Cito Gaston in 1967 for $250K. It's now 1970 and the only reason his salary is jumping up to $500K is because it's his 4th season on my roster and he's due his "arbitration bump". He's never even sniffed the on-deck circle the 3 years I've had him (squirreled away on my reserve roster). Honestly, the only reason I drafted him in 1967 was because I knew I could hold onto him without penalty while waiting to platoon him in 1970 with Roy White. If salaries went up each year, he'd be $1.5M this year (due to doubling). Still not a significant jump, but do the same with 3-5 players and it starts to become prohibitive. Heck, Gaston hits lefties pretty well next year too, so under the current system, I'll definately keep him for $750K and consider it a bargain, but would have a tougher choice at $1.75M under the "always" raise system.

Other players I'll stockpile in varying degrees include Fran Healy, Joe Decker (won't play until season 6) , Ken Boswell, and Marty Perez. No world beaters in this group but all play a useful role in 1-2 seasons at negligble costs.

So that's called being a good, forward thinking GM. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. I think its kinda silly for a guy like Gatson, who has never played a day in the majors, to be making 1.5 million going into next year.

I don't see parity as a major issue in this league. Remember, this was an expansion year, and not surprisingly 3 of 4 teams that lost 100+ games were expansion teams. The other one had the owner go MIA not long into the season.

I managed to make the playoffs with an expansion club and now I'm one game away from the league championship series. The Cloverleafs have turned a corner under their owner. The Gold Sox are a competitive franchise that isn't "old school". Mark, Lew, and Mac are perennial contenders not because the system favors them, but because they are quite good at this game.

[BlueBlood]

I guess the only fair way to do this is to set a bar in advance. If we're only looking for a simple majority, then instituting half-decade franchise players is the only one over a bar with 58.33% at the moment.

I was the second voter for No Changes. I think the system is perfect the way it is. Allowing for more franchise players only forces teams to rebuild less and creates dynasties. I like the fact that there will soon be only three types of players:

- Rookies that you can keep through their sixth seasons.

- Free Agents that you can keep for up to five years depending on the contract.

- One Franchise Player per decade.

It's simple, it means people will have to maximize their six year rookies and purchase contracts at a steal along with the occasional beneficial trade. I like and think it's one of the best fantasy setups I've ever seen.

[catcher24]

As I've said numerous times, I would have no problem leaving things the way they are. My top choice among increased HTD, half decade franchise players or decreased playing time would be between increased HTD or half decade franchise players. However, I would like to see all three instituted. I think a 10% decrease in playing time maximum would eliminate most of the problems with some guys playing too much and give some subs a little more PT. The half decade franchise player would allow the owners with lousy teams and low draft picks to lock up a real HOF caliber player for as long as they want at a bargain price and this would tend to create parity over a period of time. The increase in HTD should be small if we also use the half decade FP, maybe to 25%. I don't think this would eliminate the free agent market, since if you're paying one FP 12M and the second 15M, you've already got over 25% of your salary locked up in two guys. This won't allow for keeping too many top free agents, even with an increase in the HTD to 25%. If we don't do both, then I'd like to see the HTD go to 30 or 35%.

Blueblood mentions setting a bar. I would suggest that at least eight (we now have only 14 owners) must be in favor of a rule change before it will become part of our bylaws.

[leecemark]

--Eight could be a tough number to get to agree to anything, but that is not neccessarily a bad thing. It is certainly possible to improve on our format, but it is equally possible to screw things up:). I'd want to be sure a majority was on board before altering things.

[BlueBlood]

^ Good point. As of right now only 7 are on board with the half-decade HTD. 9 would be a true majority.

[catcher24]

^ Good point. As of right now only 7 are on board with the half-decade HTD. 9 would be a true majority.

Actually, eight would be - we only have 14 owners left at this point, since Mark foreclosed on Appletonia and ColonelTom decided not to take over the Diablos. And the chances of Scott being able to participate at this point are quite unfortunately very slim, so realistically at this point seven would be a majority with only 13 owners left to vote.

I think what needs to be done is to post a vote for each proposed change, starting with the most popular proposal based on this straw poll and going through each proposal one by one. Or I think you can post a poll that permits more than one vote, so we could list each proposal and see how many votes each one gets. Either way would work. But that has to wait until the playoffs are done and Mark can catch his breath for a bit.

[buppers]

Personally, I like raising HTD to 25-30%. Also in favor of franchise player every 5 years. While combining 2 looks like teams will be locking up more players, it would leave them with limited resources to bid on other FA's.
I am also in agreement with lowering usage. Lowest I would go is 110%
More thoughts as they occur.

Ed

[buppers]

Maybe, to expedite "Rules Changes" votes, we could drop lowest, revote, and keep doing that till we reach a concensus. That way, if someones fave is voted down they have option to vote on what they think is best from remaining.

Just a thought.

Ed

[leecemark]

--There seems to be general agreement on doing something to allow teams to retain more players. I think a poll to decide whether the half decade franchise option or increased HTD is the way to go would be in order. A second poll could determine whether we want to decrease playing time allowances. I don't think there is strong support for any of the other options. Discussion can contnue without a new vote during the playofs though and it may be I'm wrong about the support level for various proposals. Only being able to vote for one option here may be giving a misleading view. Or we could just run a single, multi-option poll to decide on all the issues at once.
--Lew is correct that we only have 13 active owners at this point. 8 would be a strong level of support and I'd be confident that any changes getting that much backing would be a winner for the league. 7 would be a simple majority, if we wanted to set that as the threshold. Or the league offices could vote for the 3 teams without active ownership and 9 would be a majority. That would require a supermajority (9 of 12) to approve a proposal the Commissioner did not favor to be adopted - if I was inclined to be a more of a dictorial type than I have in the past. I am leery of making too many changes at once, so I am not ruling that option out . I am not ruling it in either though:confused:. Meanwhile lets contniue discussion and try and arrive at some consensus.

[jaybird_1981]

I would like to see either each option voted for separately or a poll with each option separate.

[catcher24]

I think the most obvious mistake I made with the poll is that the only option it has for increasing HTD is "Other". With as much discussion as we've had about that, it should have been an obvious choice and apparently my brain had constipation when I put up the poll. It appears also that at least three owners choose not to make any changes, which would increase the difficulty of getting a majority for any changes.

I'm not opposed to leaving things the way they are, but I think the league would be improved by decreasing playing time to 115%, using the half decade FP rule and increasing HTD to 25%. I can put up another poll, but let's wait until after the playoffs are over. Meanwhile, all those who haven't weighed in yet please feel free to add your :twocents:.

[Hack_Miller]

I would be in favor of an increased HD maybe 35%. It would seem to be pretty easy to implement from a record keeping standpoint.

I'm still a little confused as to the half decade franchise player idea. Would this player be tied up indefinitely as long as the owner wanted to pay a set price just like the every decade franchise player? Would you be able to franchise guys in back to back years, say 1970 and 1971 or would you have to wait until 75 or later...? I may have missed the post that explained all that and if so just point me in that direction.

KW

[catcher24]

Actually, Ken, I was kind of wondering myself how this would work. Someone suggested it but I don't think the details were ever developed. Seems like it was mentioned that the second FP would come in at a set salary of 15M for as long as the owner wanted the player, compared to 12M for the first FP, but maybe that's when we were talking about having three?:confused:

Anyway, I'm not sure myself how it was to work. I think the intent was that you could designate one original draftee from the 1970 through 1974 drafts, then another from the 1975 through 1979 drafts. But the thought occurred to me that since a FP has to be designated after their third season (arbitration doubling year), you might designate one in, say, 1973 or 1974 and then designate a 1972 draftee in 1975, or a 1973 draftee in 1976. You just couldn't designate anyone else then until 1980 or later.

[leecemark]

---As proposed it was one player drafted in years 1970-74, another drated 1975-80, 80-84, etc. The initial proposal did not suggest that 2nd or 3rd franchise players would be at higher rates, although that was a follow on suggestion.

[catcher24]

It is a good suggestion and would also allow an increased HTD along with the half decade franchise player. At 15M, the cost is of course 3M higher than the first FP. Doesn't sound like much, but over say ten years of having the 2nd FP that amounts to 30M. On an annual basis, it would actually be enough to offset a HTD increase to 30% if the owner had two guys he wanted to offer 15M each, so would certainly create some tough decisions for the owner. I think implementing both changes would not have a significant impact on the number of good free agents hitting the market.

[J W]

In regards to HTD, I think the only thing that should be changed is to give the original team the opportunity to go over the top of other bids and still retain their HTD rights. Although you could call that abusive -- I for one would not have re-bid on, say, Gaylord Perry... while I can imagine other scenarios where the original team wouldn't feel cheated after seeing their careful bid blown up in smoke.

Increasing the % is one way to deter things and I believe 25% is reasonable, while anything more would be pushing it. If my suggestion doesn't work, I vote for that.

Don't agree with increasing franchise players in addition to the HTD rules. Besides, a franchise player is just that -- the franchise's "player". THE player for that franchise. Which is why I was disappointed when two of them were traded. Oh well.

Playing time, I'm undecided on. Things seem to be pretty manageable as is. We could probably get down to 120% with no problem.

[leecemark]

--I think if we reduce palying time we probably would want to phase it in. Either defere the change to say 1975 or go to 120 next year and then 115 in 1975.
--I agree with JW that multiple changes to favor holding on to your players is a bad idea. I'd be okay with any of the three proposals, but against any combination of the two. Perhaps with the introduction of the second wave of "franchise players" we could change the name and obligation. Make it a 10 year 12M a year deal, with an option to renew for an additional 5 years at the end of the deal. That would keep them through year 13 - 18 if they were one of the rare players worth it so deep into their careers.
--I wouldn't mind addressing JW's concerns about trading these players either, especially if we are going to allow multi-year franchise (or whatever we may call them). We did already put salary escalators in place if they were traded. If we go with the option every 5 years I'd be willing to go a step further and grant them free agency at the conclusion of their first year with the clubn they were traded to. Making them rent-a-players would reduce the likihood of them being traded significantly (I wouldn't want to out right eliminate the option), although a team might still go for it if they thought they were the final piece of the puzzle.
--Or we could keep the franchise tag reserved for one player per decade and go with one of the other options. Either a 5 year deal after the third year (gaining two years at a larger salary increase) or an increased HTD. Or we could just leave things as they are.

[Erik Bedard]

I really like the idea of having teams be able to re-bid and retain HTD rights. It seems more realistic to me. If a player had been with a team for his entire career, and didn't want to move, and was willing to take a pay cut to remain where he had been, why would he suddenly change that if a team offered more money?

[leecemark]

--He probably wouldn't, but it would definately complicate things to adjust the numbers on the fly. Well maybe not that much in practice.....If somebody beat your original bid by 20% or whatever and you topped their bid then somebody else would have to beat your original bid by something close to 50%. Unless you grossly underbid in the first place that would be unlikley. Not that difficult to manage in the premium auction where we are doing one player at a time. Impossible to manage down the strech in the secondary market with bids on multiple players coming in rapid fire, but we could offer a limited window to top HTD bids and the orignal owner to respond.

[buppers]

Re: HTD

An owner could declare they are reserving right to HTD on a player, let him be auctioned off and then decide whether to exercise the rights to the HTD.

Ed

[leecemark]

--I think that would suck most of the fun out of the free agent biddng. I'd hate to win a spirited auction for a player only to have his original owner say "no, I guess I'll take him for 20% less than your bid:eek:".

[buppers]

--I think that would suck most of the fun out of the free agent biddng. I'd hate to win a spirited auction for a player only to have his original owner say "no, I guess I'll take him for 20% less than your bid:eek:".

Yeah, but it would add the element of "Will original owner pay $xxx or should I go higher?"
I could see owners actually outbidding themselves to increase price original owner would have to pay :dance

[-Kyle-]

Yeah, but it would add the element of "Will original owner pay $xxx or should I go higher?"
I could see owners actually outbidding themselves to increase price original owner would have to pay :dance

That's hilarious. I would like to see that, but it would be a more like 15% HTD discount then.

[buppers]

That's hilarious. I would like to see that, but it would be a more like 15% HTD discount then.


Remember that when it comes up for vote :shhh:
Have we decided on what the HTD will be?

[-Kyle-]

I think if we were to do that, they could only sign them up to 2 years or something like that.

[leecemark]

--Please share your opinions on the following options;
1) To aid with player retention;
-a) Increase franchise tag from one per decade to one per half decade
--if so do we increase the price tag for 2nd or 3rd franchise players?
-b) Increase Home Town Discount
--if so, to what rate (25, 30, 35)?
--if so do we give owners a second chance to use it if someone tops their original offer?
-c) Arbitration buyout (option to sign players to 5 year deal instead of salary doubling after third season)
--if so what would be te salary for such deals?
Note on item one: You should be looking to pick one from this group.
2) Should we decrease the playing time limit?
--If so, to 115 or 120?
--If 115, phased in (120 next year) or simply deferred 125 til 1975 and 115 after?
3) Should players with real life playing time above a certain threshold have to go through waivers before they could be sent to the minors?
--If so, what is a reasonable threshold (my suggestion 400 PA or 300 for catchers and 150 IP)?

[jaybird_1981]

Yeah, but it would add the element of "Will original owner pay $xxx or should I go higher?"
I could see owners actually outbidding themselves to increase price original owner would have to pay :dance

I will not be voting for this option.

[catcher24]

1) To aid with player retention;
-a) Increase franchise tag from one per decade to one per half decade
--if so do we increase the price tag for 2nd or 3rd franchise players?
The more I have thought about it, the less I support this option. Under this plan, it would be possible, even probable, that a team could have three FPs at the same time (one from 1970-1974; one 1975 to 1979; one 1980 to 1984), and perhaps even four. I think I like our one per decade rule better, IF the HTD is increased. If HTD is not increased, I would favor this option instead.

-b) Increase Home Town Discount
--if so, to what rate (25, 30, 35)?
--if so do we give owners a second chance to use it if someone tops their original offer?
Yes, I would increase it to 30% the first time (after 6th season), and perhaps to 35% the second time the player comes up for free agency (at this point he's likely been with the team for 11 years so would agree to even less to stay put).
I think we should give the owner the option of matching the highest bid if he can and wants to (many times the owner won't be able to meet the bid due to the cap). I think it is entirely realistic that a player would say to his team "Match team X's bid and I'll be happy to stay here".

-c) Arbitration buyout (option to sign players to 5 year deal instead of salary doubling after third season)
--if so what would be te salary for such deals?
I could support this only if neither one nor two get chosen. It is the most complicated of the three. If this is chosen (and I don't think it has many supporters) we should determine the structure of salaries later.

Note on item one: You should be looking to pick one from this group.
Agreed. I originally supported both half decade FPs and an increase in the HTD, but my support for the half decade player has diminished due to some good arguments presented here against it.

2) Should we decrease the playing time limit?
--If so, to 115 or 120?
--If 115, phased in (120 next year) or simply deferred 125 til 1975 and 115 after?
Yes, it should be decreased. I would suggest a phase in by decreasing it by 2% per year until we get to 115%. This would give owners an adjustment period, and also give them time to draft/sign guys who will fill their PT needs. With just a little foresight a decrease of 2% per year should not be a huge problem for anyone. Using this method, we would be at 115% by the 1975 season.

3) Should players with real life playing time above a certain threshold have to go through waivers before they could be sent to the minors?
--If so, what is a reasonable threshold (my suggestion 400 PA or 300 for catchers and 150 IP)?
No. If an owner has enough foresight to sign guys with more PT, I don't think he should be punished for that. Conversely, if an owner can't plan ahead at all, he should have to pay a price (like an OFer catching a few games) for his bad planning. It seems to me that with 24 real life teams filling 16 rosters this really shouldn't be needed.

[leecemark]

--Thanks for the in-depth analysis, Lew. I don't disagree with any of that. I hope all owners take the time to offer their opinions between now and the end of the playoffs. The final polls on what, if any, changes we make will go up shortly after (probably to remain open until the day before the non-tender deadline a week into the offseason thread). By the time the binding polls go up we shoud have fine tuned the various proposals and be at the point where simple yes/no votes resolve the issues.
--I am looking at putting one, multi-option poll up. You can vote for any of the proposed changes you like and any that get a majority vote will be adopte - with the caveat that only the MOST popular player retention plan would get the nod. New rules will require a majority of all owners to pass so I hope everyone will participate. If some miss the vote it will be hard for anything to pass (failure to vote is the same as a vote against).
--If we still have teams without active owners when the votes are tallied I would be inclined to cast the votes of the league controlled teams on the side of anythign that gets a majority of participating owners. For example, vote if all 13 currently active owner and 7 support a change then the 3 league votes would automatically be in favor (even if I were opposed). If a couple owners don't vote then ditto for a 6 vote approval (at least 6 actual yes votes would be needed in order for the 3 league votes to make a majority). One of the ownership spots is already filled. Philkid3 has agreed to join us, but hasn't decided whether he'll take the Appletonia (his original option) or switch to the Diablos. Hopefully we'll have all spots filled before the start of the offseason and there won't be any league votes to be cast.

[catcher24]

If some miss the vote it will be hard for anything to pass (failure to vote is the same as a vote against).

Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, since things work pretty well now.:)
That being said, our 20% HTD rule doesn't seem to be having the desired effect, and I'm pretty convinced at this point that 125% of real life playing time is a bit too high. I like it, because I got to keep McCovey, Smith, Morgan, Aaron all in my lineup every day, whereas at 115% all of them would have been forced to take at least a few games off, but is that fair to a team that has better subs but weaker starters than I do?

[Erik Bedard]

One thing to remember regarding the HTD raise: We haven't even had an offseason with the 20% rule yet. It may have a larger effect than the 10% we've been using.

[leecemark]

--This is a good point Dan. It is probably premature to say 20% is not good enough before we've given it even a single offseason to work.

[Hack_Miller]

--
1) To aid with player retention;
-a) Increase franchise tag from one per decade to one per half decade
--if so do we increase the price tag for 2nd or 3rd franchise players?

I'm really not in favor of this one. Unless you got picks 1-4 or so at least once during a five year period, you're basically shut out of this option. The idea of a franchise player is well just that a franchise player not our 2 or 3 franchise players. I'm not saying it wouldn't help retain players, it would but I think either the increased HTD or the arbitration buyout would come closer to a real life GM type move.


-b) Increase Home Town Discount
--if so, to what rate (25, 30, 35)?

I think 30 would be most effective without being unrealistic but 25 also works.

--if so do we give owners a second chance to use it if someone tops their original offer?
Absolutely not. Once the other owner trumps your bid it should be straight up bidding against one another.


-c) Arbitration buyout (option to sign players to 5 year deal instead of salary doubling after third season)
--if so what would be te salary for such deals?

This is my personal favorite of the bunch as it seems to replicate reality more closely. Real-life GMs do this all the time when they want to sew up good young talent. I don't have a specific number in my head but the salary bump should be large enough to make an owner really think about who he will offer this to.


2) Should we decrease the playing time limit?
--If so, to 115 or 120?
--If 115, phased in (120 next year) or simply deferred 125 til 1975 and 115 after?

I'm in favor of reducing PT just to get a few more guys into the lineup. Once again I believe this helps add a little more realism to the game play. I don't think it would be a great stretch to go to 115% right off the bat.


3) Should players with real life playing time above a certain threshold have to go through waivers before they could be sent to the minors?
--If so, what is a reasonable threshold (my suggestion 400 PA or 300 for catchers and 150 IP)?

I don't like this idea so much.