Final Vote on Rules Changes

[leecemark]

--This is a multiple option poll. Please vote for any of these proposals you support. Any which receive majority support will be adopted. The poll will remain open for two weeks.
--Details on the proposals
1) Reduce playing time limit from 125 to 115 percent, phased in at 2% per season until the new level is reached in 1974.
2) Allow teams to designate a franchise player every half decade instead of every decade. For example, 1970-74, 75-79, 80-84 instead of 1970-79, 80-89, etc.
3) Increase HTD from 20 to 30% If adopted this rule would take effect with players drafted in 1975 (making the actual free agent impact 1980).
4) Allow teams to sign draftees to a 5 year contract in their arbitration season (3 years after being drafted) in lue of salary doubling. The salary for this option would still need to be agreed upon, but it would be significantly more than the doubling and less than the franchise tag.
5) I support none of these changes.

[Windy City Fan]

How is this gonna work? I support any of the last three options. Should I vote for all 3? If multiple options recieve 50% or more support are we going to institute them all? The only one I positively against is the reduced playing time proposal.

[leecemark]

--Vote for all you support. I would be against more than one of the 3 player retention plans being adopted, but more than one manages to get 9 votes then both or all three would. I think it more likely none will get that level of support than more than one though.

[jaybird_1981]

I voted for the decrease in playing time and the increase in the HTD.

Jason

[buppers]

I'm with jaybird.
decrease PT usage and up HTD

Ed

[leecemark]

--I was okay with upping the HTD until Dan pointed put that we've never even used the current 20% HTD discount rule. It seems premature to decide it doesn't work before its ever had a chance to work. Its at 80% so far though, so that may be what we end up doing.

[-Kyle-]

Me and WCF are the only ones for half decade franchise players...I really like that idea. If the HTD is to be raised, I would say to be to 40%.

[catcher24]

I also went with a reduction in playing time and increase the HTD. I was originally in favor of half decade franchise players until some good arguments were made against that. I agree with Dan that it might be wise to wait until we see if 20% works before upping this, but since it won't be implemented for five years we could still choose to simply not adopt it when the time comes. However, I would still like to see a clause increasing the HTD an additional 5 or 10 percent the second time a player hits free agency, reflecting a player's willingness to take even less to stay with a team he's been with for 9 to 11 years at this point.

At this point it looks like the only change with a decent chance of passing is increasing the HTD.

[Windy City Fan]

Me and WCF are the only ones for half decade franchise players...I really like that idea. If the HTD is to be raised, I would say to be to 40%.

The half decade franchise tags was my least favorite of the 3 options I voted for. The five year arbitration deal being my favorite idea.

If we do decided to change the HTD, what kind of increase are we talking about? 30% seems reasonable. Anything more is a BIG jump considering we haven't even seen how 20% works.

[mac195]

--I was okay with upping the HTD until Dan pointed put that we've never even used the current 20% HTD discount rule. It seems premature to decide it doesn't work before its ever had a chance to work. Its at 80% so far though, so that may be what we end up doing.

Yes. It does seem premature to raise it to 30% when we haven't even tried 20% yet. I think a big HTD increace would have two main effects. First, it would add to the relative value of draft picks, a boon to teams who have collected extra, but a blow to those who have already traded a lot of picks away. It would also really make people think twice before trading anyone they have drafted, significantly reducing overall trade activity. Is this really what we want to do?

[mac195]

I agree with Dan that it might be wise to wait until we see if 20% works before upping this, but since it won't be implemented for five years we could still choose to simply not adopt it when the time comes.
Implemented in '75 means it effects players drafted in '70 right? So people will be drafting based on the assumption that those players will be easy to retain after 6 years with the 30% discount. Or am I misunderstanding this?

[BlueBlood]

I absolutely LOATHE the HTD increase. It's bad enough that some people have already traded away key picks. It's bad enough that it'll limit trading. It's bad enough that the game will pretty much be about not looking for the guys that give you the most in their Six Year Plans but those that you can rebuy at a bargain with the HTD. I absolutely and wholeheartedly detest this addition and I really, really hope it doesn't go through.

I did actually vote for one option whereas last time I voted for none. Reducing the playing time which helps me a great deal since I have a ton of innings eaters. For example, my starters in '71 (including Blyleven) pitched over half a season of complete games. :rofl:

[leecemark]

--It would apply to players drafted started in 1975. As Lew says we could vote again to NOT implement it at that point, but if in doubt we could just wait and vote on for it then instead of needing a majority to step forward against it. The only "advantage" I can see to adopting it early would be to discourage owners from trading away picks years down the road. That might be a desirable goal, but if so we could just make a rule directly affecting that - such as a restriction on trading picks more than 3 years in the future (that would be a suggestion for next year though).

[jaybird_1981]

I absolutely LOATHE the HTD increase. It's bad enough that some people have already traded away key picks. It's bad enough that it'll limit trading. It's bad enough that the game will pretty much be about not looking for the guys that give you the most in their Six Year Plans but those that you can rebuy at a bargain with the HTD. I absolutely and wholeheartedly detest this addition and I really, really hope it doesn't go through.

I did actually vote for one option whereas last time I voted for none. Reducing the playing time which helps me a great deal since I have a ton of innings eaters. For example, my starters in '71 (including Blyleven) pitched over half a season of complete games. :rofl:

I think the problem people are having with any of these rules is they are looking at it from a selfish point of view in my opinion. You should vote on what you think will make the league better and not your team better. I voted for decreased usage and if anyone shouldn't have voted for that it would be me since I have no full time position players on my roster right now.

[leecemark]

--Jaybird is absolutely correct. It is shortsighted to look at the potential rules changes based on what is best for your team at this moment. We'll all be at different points in the team building process at one point or another. Just because a change works well or not so well for your current circumstances should not be the determining factor. We need to be looking at whats best for the long haul.

[BlueBlood]

I honestly thought about the league overall before voting. There's far less than 15% more games than the average season, so I didn't see it as a problem and figured it would simply alter things so having had increased playing time becomes what people value slightly more. Like a 110 OPS+ ends up a little more than a catcher with a 120 OPS+ because the 110 guy can get you through the whole season, etc.

Again, first time around, I knew that it would help my team as well even if playing time was as low as 121% by 1971. I didn't vote for it then because I didn't agree with it but now I do because I don't see how it makes much of a difference from a game play perspective. All it does is change the sort of player we need to look at it upcoming drafts and slowly enough that everyone can adapt.

[leecemark]

--Three owners yet to vote here with 4 days left. Increasing the HTD needs only one more vote. Reducing playing time would require the votes of all 3. If the Orphans remain under league control and the other two non-voters support it I'd cast the league controlled vote for that. I wouldn't do the same for the increased HTD. I would like to see how the current rule works for at least one offseason before concluding it isn't sufficient.

[Brad Harris]

--Three owners yet to vote here with 4 days left. Increasing the HTD needs only one more vote. Reducing playing time would require the votes of all 3. If the Orphans remain under league control and the other two non-voters support it I'd cast the league controlled vote for that. I wouldn't do the same for the increased HTD. I would like to see how the current rule works for at least one offseason before concluding it isn't sufficient.
Please change my vote on the HTD from "nay" to "yea."

[leecemark]

--Classic's vote change ensures the passage of the HTD increase. The only other proposal that has a chance is decreasing the playing time limit. If the 2 owners who haven't voted come out in favor, I'll add the Orphans vote to put it over. Poll closes tonight.