|
Post by phillies17 on Mar 10, 2021 14:12:47 GMT -5
im good with a salary floor too. Having a cap without a floor completely defies the cap concept. I don't know any league in RL with a cap and not a floor.
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Mar 10, 2021 14:28:15 GMT -5
It is always difficult to legislate all negative situations. On the positive side, it might limit the severity of tanking by providing better competition across all divisions and reduce the amount of stockpiled rollover money which will force owners to manage closer to their actual cap space rather than go full tank / win every other year with gamed cap space.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Mar 11, 2021 11:30:02 GMT -5
I think both adding a floor and eliminating rollover money will actually exponentially increase the amount of bad contracts given out in the league, and GMs buying picks from teams who really need them.
No to both. Thanks,
JIm
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 11, 2021 13:13:39 GMT -5
I think both adding a floor and eliminating rollover money will actually exponentially increase the amount of bad contracts given out in the league, and GMs buying picks from teams who really need them. No to both. Thanks, JIm What makes you think that? Eliminating roll-over money is actually realistic for most teams. Profit is profit, not savings. It's one of the worst mechanisms our league economy has to overcome. This idea that leftover money is a real thing. I'm in favor of "rollover" money being spent on buyouts, but it should serve no other function. Also, rollover money is one of the reasons we have crazy contracts. A spending floor just means that tanking teams will need to sign larger short term contracts for role players. When a spending floor is paired with a flat cap, what actually happens is that people become more thrifty. Why? Because you can't carry both Chris Sale and Mike Trout in a world where you have a flat cap. 2 players eating up more than 50% of your available funds would be disastrous in that situation. We are trying to fit 26 or more players under a reasonable spending cap that would probably be no more than $185MM this year. I think your fears are unjustified. No one suggested a floor without a cap as that would be actual insanity and complete nonsense. I think the reality is that some of us would like a league that rewards trying to win. Currently, with the way money is distributed we have an imbalance. Here is a list of realistic fixes I believe we can implement (and that I can argue with the rest of the committee about). 1. Change the off-season money formula. Eliminate playoff wins from the equation altogether. Go from 5 years historically to 3 or 4 years and make sure the most recent seasons are weighted even more heavily. 2. Expand the draft. More draft picks instantly changes our relationship to both picks and prospects, even if those changes aren't felt right away. 3. Create a luxury tax with penalties that matter. I don't know what those penalties are yet because I don't want to eliminate trading draft picks from our league economy. I will say that losing draft picks probably matters the most. 4. Create a protected list system. Something to serves the function of 40 man roster rules. We need to create a "player development clock" similar to how the options system in MLB uses 5 years of minor league service time. I don't really care about options between the protected list and the active roster, but I do care about putting a clock on prospects. 5. In conjunction with #4, I think after Tier 1 free agency there should be a "Rule V" style draft. Any player that has a projection but is not protected is eligible to be taken. That player would have to remain on the drafting team's active roster all year or compensation would have to be applied. I think all of these changes are plausible. Not all at once, but over 2-3 years. I can't help anyone who doesn't want more draft picks. I'm sorry drafting isn't fun for you. You can set yourself to auto-draft by emailing the committee and telling them to take the next available player from that year's MLB draft. People keep clamoring for a 40 man roster system and I agree in part. I don't think we need to use MLB's rules, but we should definitely take the spirit of those rules into account when we are talking about making changes. I think this covers most of the concerns voiced in this thread so far. They will all be discussed over the course of this season, some of them are already being actively discussed. But just because they are being discussed doesn't mean we shouldn't continue trying to flesh out the best ideas.
|
|
Whitesox
AAA
I'm just here for the free kool-aid
Posts: 773
|
Post by Whitesox on Mar 11, 2021 16:39:00 GMT -5
I think both adding a floor and eliminating rollover money will actually exponentially increase the amount of bad contracts given out in the league, and GMs buying picks from teams who really need them. No to both. Thanks, JIm What makes you think that? Eliminating roll-over money is actually realistic for most teams. Profit is profit, not savings. It's one of the worst mechanisms our league economy has to overcome. This idea that leftover money is a real thing. I'm in favor of "rollover" money being spent on buyouts, but it should serve no other function. Also, rollover money is one of the reasons we have crazy contracts. A spending floor just means that tanking teams will need to sign larger short term contracts for role players. When a spending floor is paired with a flat cap, what actually happens is that people become more thrifty. Why? Because you can't carry both Chris Sale and Mike Trout in a world where you have a flat cap. 2 players eating up more than 50% of your available funds would be disastrous in that situation. We are trying to fit 26 or more players under a reasonable spending cap that would probably be no more than $185MM this year. I think your fears are unjustified. No one suggested a floor without a cap as that would be actual insanity and complete nonsense. I think the reality is that some of us would like a league that rewards trying to win. Currently, with the way money is distributed we have an imbalance. Here is a list of realistic fixes I believe we can implement (and that I can argue with the rest of the committee about). 1. Change the off-season money formula. Eliminate playoff wins from the equation altogether. Go from 5 years historically to 3 or 4 years and make sure the most recent seasons are weighted even more heavily. 2. Expand the draft. More draft picks instantly changes our relationship to both picks and prospects, even if those changes aren't felt right away. 3. Create a luxury tax with penalties that matter. I don't know what those penalties are yet because I don't want to eliminate trading draft picks from our league economy. I will say that losing draft picks probably matters the most. 4. Create a protected list system. Something to serves the function of 40 man roster rules. We need to create a "player development clock" similar to how the options system in MLB uses 5 years of minor league service time. I don't really care about options between the protected list and the active roster, but I do care about putting a clock on prospects. 5. In conjunction with #4, I think after Tier 1 free agency there should be a "Rule V" style draft. Any player that has a projection but is not protected is eligible to be taken. That player would have to remain on the drafting team's active roster all year or compensation would have to be applied. I think all of these changes are plausible. Not all at once, but over 2-3 years. I can't help anyone who doesn't want more draft picks. I'm sorry drafting isn't fun for you. You can set yourself to auto-draft by emailing the committee and telling them to take the next available player from that year's MLB draft. People keep clamoring for a 40 man roster system and I agree in part. I don't think we need to use MLB's rules, but we should definitely take the spirit of those rules into account when we are talking about making changes. I think this covers most of the concerns voiced in this thread so far. They will all be discussed over the course of this season, some of them are already being actively discussed. But just because they are being discussed doesn't mean we shouldn't continue trying to flesh out the best ideas. 1) I might just not be smart enough to understand why we need a significant overhaul of the financial system...Teams that win playoffs in RL get money for those wins, so why shouldn't we? I understand the 'random' element and how it affects us and the DMBuniverse more than the real world. But that doesn't mean real-life MLB doesn't have the 'random' effect. My cap was once pretty low, and I put together a consistently winning team, and my cap has risen with that success. I want to say it's as simple as that, I get there are other factors at play. But I am not sure a huge overhaul is going to help out the low-cap teams. I gradually worked into a winning team with my cap in mind. I went from a 64 win season to an 80 win season, knowing I wasn't a contender but also knowing that tanking wasn't going to help my cap situation. Going from a low-cap team to a contender isn't a one-season swing... there is probably at least a year of being middle pack which helps bump up the cap, which helps to acquire talent. 2) I am all for expanding the draft. Trading or selling draft picks should not be restricted. Teams shouldn't be able to trade away all picks, but we shouldn't enforce anything too extreme in this regard. I am fully against the strategy of 'selling draft picks'. I think it is detrimental to any team, regardless of what position the team is in. But if a GM wants to sell a draft pick, they should be able to. 3) I don't have much of an opinion on a salary cap/floor. Honestly, I am slightly leaning towards having neither. Especially a salary floor, I oddly agree with JIm that that could create more of an incentive for bad contracts. 4) In a perfect world this could work. But with how ZIPS projects prospects, why should a GM be punished and be forced to use a prospect before the GM is comfortable with the prospect being at the level the GM wants. I have been, and still am, adamantly against GMs stashing top pre-arb tier talent, such as Kris Bryant, Ronald Acuna, Gleyber Torres, Alex Bregman (all have been stashed in the past, despite top ZIP projections). But with talent that is not a top percentile of talent in the league, GMs should be able to do what is best for their franchise and not be forced to use anybody prematurely. 5) Maybe I am confused with exactly how we would implement a 40-man/Rule V draft...But would there realistically be anybody worth taking in this sort of draft? If there is a young budding prospect, close to the majors, they would likely be protected regardless if their ZIPS were useable or not, if there is a AAAA guy on a pre-arb deal with okayish ZIPS, they also will likely be protected. Very few organizations in the NSBL have significant depth to protect 40 guys and still have some interesting talent left over. Maybe after several years of expanded drafts and rosters, this could be discussed. But as things stand now, this just doesn't make sense M'kay. That's my 1 cent for now.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 11, 2021 17:43:54 GMT -5
1) I might just not be smart enough to understand why we need a significant overhaul of the financial system...Teams that win playoffs in RL get money for those wins, so why shouldn't we? I understand the 'random' element and how it affects us and the DMBuniverse more than the real world. But that doesn't mean real-life MLB doesn't have the 'random' effect. My cap was once pretty low, and I put together a consistently winning team, and my cap has risen with that success. I want to say it's as simple as that, I get there are other factors at play. But I am not sure a huge overhaul is going to help out the low-cap teams. I gradually worked into a winning team with my cap in mind. I went from a 64 win season to an 80 win season, knowing I wasn't a contender but also knowing that tanking wasn't going to help my cap situation. Going from a low-cap team to a contender isn't a one-season swing... there is probably at least a year of being middle pack which helps bump up the cap, which helps to acquire talent. 4) In a perfect world this could work. But with how ZIPS projects prospects, why should a GM be punished and be forced to use a prospect before the GM is comfortable with the prospect being at the level the GM wants. I have been, and still am, adamantly against GMs stashing top pre-arb tier talent, such as Kris Bryant, Ronald Acuna, Gleyber Torres, Alex Bregman (all have been stashed in the past, despite top ZIP projections). But with talent that is not a top percentile of talent in the league, GMs should be able to do what is best for their franchise and not be forced to use anybody prematurely. 5) Maybe I am confused with exactly how we would implement a 40-man/Rule V draft...But would there realistically be anybody worth taking in this sort of draft? If there is a young budding prospect, close to the majors, they would likely be protected regardless if their ZIPS were useable or not, if there is a AAAA guy on a pre-arb deal with okayish ZIPS, they also will likely be protected. Very few organizations in the NSBL have significant depth to protect 40 guys and still have some interesting talent left over. Maybe after several years of expanded drafts and rosters, this could be discussed. But as things stand now, this just doesn't make sense M'kay. That's my 1 cent for now. 1. The problem is that we can't recreate "market size" and therefore can only reward performance. The issue is that how relevant is past performance? How far back should a franchises track record be considered when we are essentially awarding each team a "fan base." The correct answer is that due to how teams with fewer restrictions than "real life" teams endure we should consider fewer years. For example, Baltimore was barely punished for tanking a season in the middle of the competitive window because of how weighting works when dealing a full 5 years. Should they be rewarded for exploiting the system that is in place? NO, but they get to be. The issue is that this happened and the only rules change that was made was regarding how we handle "roll over" money. It feels like we are holding on to this system because it's familiar. Playoff success is just talking-heads fodder and doesn't really impact the financials in real life, so it's shouldn't be so impactful in NSBL. 4 & 5. Teams are punished in real life. We are the ones that have no penalties for stashing. If a team mismanages it's prospects, it can potentially lose a productive player to Rule V. We allow stuff like "The Gregory Polanco Conspiracy" to happen because we have ZERO ways to get players that are worth playing into the game. GMs are free to just stash ALL players. This hurts all of our economy over the long haul. The reason these are issues now is because we have been on auto-pilot for almost 2 decades in regards to service time management. Good players should play. It alleviates the pressure of free agency. It changes the value of prospects and picks in a positive way. Whatever your opinion on "I don't want you to tell me what to do with my prospects" might be, you can not deny that it is unbalancing to let a player worth 2 WAR over 500+ ABs just sit on reserve. Now, if that player was occupying a more valuable roster spot, say a protected list akin to the 40 man roster, then there is opportunity cost. The penalty is that you are exposing other players. I'm fine with that. We just don't have that currently. Yes, I want you to have all the prospects you want within reason (that's why we have a roster limit). I also was you to play your best players instead of stockpiling simply because it's an option. I want to remove hardcore stockpiling from our list of strategic options. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Mar 11, 2021 18:07:18 GMT -5
Sorry Sean, but I 100% disagree with your takes here. We're already complaining that the LTC is what it is because guys are driving up the prices of FA, but then we turn around and advocate for a system that would drive up the prices of completely fungible replacement players.
Frankly, that's going to hurt smaller payroll teams even more, because they will lose the ability to strategically target more moderate range FA while all the large-cap teams go after the big fish.
I think in terms of things ailing this league, I would put this down around 77th.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 11, 2021 18:15:39 GMT -5
Sorry Sean, but I 100% disagree with your takes here. We're already complaining that the LTC is what it is because guys are driving up the prices of FA, but then we turn around and advocate for a system that would drive up the prices of completely fungible replacement players. Frankly, that's going to hurt smaller payroll teams even more, because they will lose the ability to strategically target more moderate range FA while all the large-cap teams go after the big fish. I think in terms of things ailing this league, I would put this down around 77th. JIm We can't change to a flat cap/floor system. That would have had to happen a long time ago. As far as things that plague this league, CE values are down around 78th. You are the loudest voice about CEs and discounts. Until we stop rewarding rich teams for simply having money, then giving them a better way to save money is completely irrelevant. Telling me that I can save more money on a guy so that I have more to spend means literally nothing when you are also telling Connor the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Mar 11, 2021 18:48:26 GMT -5
1. We aren't rewarding them for "having money." When the financial system was reset a few years ago, the cap spaces became reflective of which teams had won the most during a multi-year period.
2. You are wrong about CEs. That's a pretty big issue. I at least gave an idea (which Joe has advocated for in the past) that allowed the entire thing to go away, make less work for the Committee, give everyone the "open market" they so desire, and add an element of strategy with bidding. Don't come at me with your CE talk, Broseph.
3. The rollover money is a 1-year increase. If it affected the cap, sure- that would be an issue. But the league was careful about making sure that it didn't. If you remove even the tiny incentive for teams to carry money over for a 1-year boost, then you're going to see it spent far more recklessly, and unfortunately see more "small market" teams who need picks selling them off to the big boys.
4. A cap floor makes zero sense. We continue to lament teams not "building the right way", but then want to penalize them for having low salaries while they rebuild, by forcing them to up-bid fungible players that they don't need? Nah.
The only GM I've ever seen abuse a low cap situation was Ty...which should not surprise anyone at this point. Everyone else has never had an issue with it over the 18 years I've been in this league.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 11, 2021 19:03:43 GMT -5
1. We aren't rewarding them for "having money." When the financial system was reset a few years ago, the cap spaces became reflective of which teams had won the most during a multi-year period. 2. You are wrong about CEs. That's a pretty big issue. I at least gave an idea (which Joe has advocated for in the past) that allowed the entire thing to go away, make less work for the Committee, give everyone the "open market" they so desire, and add an element of strategy with bidding. Don't come at me with your CE talk, Broseph. 3. The rollover money is a 1-year increase. If it affected the cap, sure- that would be an issue. But the league was careful about making sure that it didn't. If you remove even the tiny incentive for teams to carry money over for a 1-year boost, then you're going to see it spent far more recklessly, and unfortunately see more "small market" teams who need picks selling them off to the big boys. 4. A cap floor makes zero sense. We continue to lament teams not "building the right way", but then want to penalize them for having low salaries while they rebuild, by forcing them to up-bid fungible players that they don't need? Nah. The only GM I've ever seen abuse a low cap situation was Ty...which should not surprise anyone at this point. Everyone else has never had an issue with it over the 18 years I've been in this league. JIm My preference has always been to remove the CEs instead of trying to make them more team-friendly. Don't come at me with your CE smack, Hoseph!
|
|
|
Post by yankees on Mar 12, 2021 12:07:10 GMT -5
1) I think teams should be rewarded for Making the playoffs and winning each series. It could be 2 mil for making it and 2-3 mil for advancing each round. Something like that. 5-15 mil extra at most.
2). CE - if we keep it it should be base on the player. We need a ranking system. (War, fan graphs ranking system , Our simulation Last 2-3 years ) And then u can base it off of performance and position And then salary around that ranking I should be able to extend a player like stripling. With out paying huge for him. If this is how we do it great. If not I would like to keep them and move to some thing like this. I don’t really use this most of my players are trash.
3) role over money. Should be gone. If u want to buy out contracts go ahead needs to be by the last reg season week
4) draft picks. 1 extra winter draft. (At least this) 1 more round in the summer
5) rule 5 i don’t see the need now.(not against) But if we add more draft picks I could see this in the future. We would have to increase overall roster size. 26 man 40 man and minors Unlimited Lots of work to just get it set up but when it’s done would be easy to keep track of. Everyone would have a counter on them and it adds a year each year played. Unlimited MLI If we did add a rule v Rule v in Jan and then winter draft in feb rnd 1 and March rnd 2
If we all would just release our shitty players we probably wouldn’t need this. I still have some turds I need to cut.
6) Karen’s corner. We need to set up something on our web page to promote the Karen of the month. We have way too many in this league I’m sure they all want to be recognized
7) making some one play a player. Okay Karen, little Karen May need to play. But it’s not ur choice. This is where rule v could help but not really. How many of us have 10 plus elite prospect that have zips ready to dominate.
8) I won the trade!! With Washington Bc I got what I wanted. And he won the trade Bc he got what he was willing to take.
9) if ur still reading these u have way to much free time. Go smack ur monkey. And read #10.
10) that was quick!!!!
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 12, 2021 16:04:06 GMT -5
7) making some one play a player. Okay Karen, little Karen May need to play. But it’s not ur choice. This is where rule v could help but not really. How many of us have 10 plus elite prospect that have zips ready to dominate. FALSE! It's not supposed to be a choice between play or not play. It's a choice between keep or not keep. The 40 man roster rules in conjunction with Rule V forces teams to either protect/play their best players OR they become available to other teams via Rule V draft or minor league free agency. We don't have a prospect clock and we need one because we have expanded rosters without expanding the draft. We have been sitting still and only getting stuff done when the wheels get squeaky AND the few active GMs rally. Well, some of this stuff might be difficult to rally around, but don't make shit up. We need to force good players onto the field OR onto a more exclusive roster spot. We have to create an opportunity cost for stashing players and not allow ALL players to be stashed all of the time. This isn't about Karen wanting to have an impact for the sake of having an impact. This is about a bunch of overly comfortable GMs not wanting to fix problems because it makes them think or work or whatever. You wouldn't be happy at work if the systems you relied on didn't work correctly. You aren't happy at home when things get a little out of sync. Why is it being a Karen to call things out in fun time sink baseball league? Mostly what we get is "I'm fine with that" or "why you want changes!" Neither of those reactions does shit.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Mar 12, 2021 16:07:08 GMT -5
really Joe?? "likes" shit, getting a like from Joe is a freaking participation medal. and in this case, I guess maybe I should like that post. good participation. He got a chuckle out of me. That deserved a thumbs up in my book.
|
|
|
Post by yankees on Mar 12, 2021 18:35:15 GMT -5
7) making some one play a player. Okay Karen, little Karen May need to play. But it’s not ur choice. This is where rule v could help but not really. How many of us have 10 plus elite prospect that have zips ready to dominate. FALSE! It's not supposed to be a choice between play or not play. It's a choice between keep or not keep. The 40 man roster rules in conjunction with Rule V forces teams to either protect/play their best players OR they become available to other teams via Rule V draft or minor league free agency. We don't have a prospect clock and we need one because we have expanded rosters without expanding the draft. We have been sitting still and only getting stuff done when the wheels get squeaky AND the few active GMs rally. Well, some of this stuff might be difficult to rally around, but don't make shit up. We need to force good players onto the field OR onto a more exclusive roster spot. We have to create an opportunity cost for stashing players and not allow ALL players to be stashed all of the time. This isn't about Karen wanting to have an impact for the sake of having an impact. This is about a bunch of overly comfortable GMs not wanting to fix problems because it makes them think or work or whatever. You wouldn't be happy at work if the systems you relied on didn't work correctly. You aren't happy at home when things get a little out of sync. Why is it being a Karen to call things out in fun time sink baseball league? Mostly what we get is "I'm fine with that" or "why you want changes!" Neither of those reactions does shit. So instead of a 40 man roster and rule v .. and all the in and outs that we would have to keep track of.. just put a 4 year window on when the players time would start .. once the player is called up or his fifth year his clock starts and doesn't stop.. instead of a getting a XXX and 6th year its just 1-4 this would give us all 8 years or less ,,,if said player does not make the 26 man roster his contract will stay what is was 1st .750 2nd .750 3rd .750... once a player is moved up . then his salary will adjust like we do now after his last year with no CE or options he becomes a FA we can keep CE to extend 1-5 years, the more years you extend the less money would be required to keep this would allow the GM that wants to hold on to them an option to pay for the player and has to be done by the end of year 3 but not after season is on his final year no limits on CE either and they can be traded when ever we all would have a roster size of 26 and reserves ..any one outside the rookie window would count towards salary cap... this would give GM ability to use or not use player if they choose but the clock will start in 4 years this would allow GM's to hold on to the player and not have to play him so his salary would not increase and allow them to extend if they choose .. but at a reg contract based on simulation and RL and this would give the karens that complain about some one not playing some one a small victory
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 14, 2021 12:25:05 GMT -5
see now, why do you have to ruin a perfectly sensible post, with more click bait / internet trolling Karen bullshit?? I know its the NSBL and the likes get handed out for dick and fart jokes, but... so much reason, then... there is a way to stop the constant promotion / demotion of a 40 man process you describe. but also, in season free agent signings are no more / less work than a 40 man promotion. I do like the concept of the 40 man is what's loaded into DMB, and then indoor MP you handle your own promotion / demotions from 40 man. playing time can easily be tracked at season's end. if you don't send an MP and DMB AI manages your machine for you... well, should sent an MP. also in favor of, once the player exceeds rookie limits, the clock rolls. I still respectfully disagree with more mechanisms for players to be held on longer than a 6 YOS process. Free Agent prices on higher end talent will only go down, if there is more higher end free agent talent on the market. WAIT! Are you saying scarcity is a factor as far as determining economic conditions? Well, that's never happened before even once! I've never seen anything like happen before except maybe in collectables. Once it happened to gasoline, but only JUST ONCE! And I guess money and reserves held to back said money, but that's it! Well, maybe everything because scarcity is one of the primary drivers of price and value for everything in the world. But, Jason, it never happens that way!
|
|
|
Post by KC Royals Nate on Mar 14, 2021 13:16:50 GMT -5
This whole thread is going to look like a huge waste of time when the MLB CBA is blown up next winter
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 14, 2021 13:26:19 GMT -5
This whole thread is going to look like a huge waste of time when the MLB CBA is blown up next winter Possibly true. It is one of the reasons I'm trying to sell changes that aren't solely dependent on "being more like real life." Also, it is still an argument that needs be argued. All of the rules being discussed are important. It's also important to know what people want or don't want change because it can inform of other issues in the league. Plus, I really enjoy all of the name-calling I do during this process. It's how I survive as a fun-vampire.
|
|
|
Post by KC Royals Nate on Mar 14, 2021 14:04:46 GMT -5
This whole thread is going to look like a huge waste of time when the MLB CBA is blown up next winter sooo changes shouldn't be made cause we try and be as realistic as possible, and the changes in real life will cause us to have to change again... man, this feels like a cycle of never seeing any change. I am just hesitant to make a drastic change on something (like service time, or Rule V, options, etc) only to see the framework we modeled it after to be blown up. I’m all for change, but as a group we probably need to decide what we are willing to differ on from MLB’s structure.
|
|
|
Post by KC Royals Nate on Mar 18, 2021 21:31:48 GMT -5
Hey Thought of a rule change that should be easy to make.
The NSBL shall follow MLB's Playoff Roster Rules, which currently read:
Postseason roster rules Teams submit a 26-man roster (it was 25, prior to 2020) prior to each round of the postseason comprised of postseason-eligible players. A club may request permission from the Commissioner's Office to replace a player who is injured during the course of a series, but that player is then ineligible for the rest of that round and the subsequent round, if there is one. A pitcher may be replaced only by another pitcher, and a position player only by another position player.
|
|
|
Post by Arizona on Mar 19, 2021 12:17:33 GMT -5
Hey Thought of a rule change that should be easy to make. The NSBL shall follow MLB's Playoff Roster Rules, which currently read: Postseason roster rules Teams submit a 26-man roster (it was 25, prior to 2020) prior to each round of the postseason comprised of postseason-eligible players. A club may request permission from the Commissioner's Office to replace a player who is injured during the course of a series, but that player is then ineligible for the rest of that round and the subsequent round, if there is one. A pitcher may be replaced only by another pitcher, and a position player only by another position player. Thank you, Nate I know you got screwed over pretty bad in last year's playoffs. We'll get a conversation going with the committee ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Nov 23, 2021 17:05:01 GMT -5
Hey Thought of a rule change that should be easy to make. The NSBL shall follow MLB's Playoff Roster Rules, which currently read: Postseason roster rules Teams submit a 26-man roster (it was 25, prior to 2020) prior to each round of the postseason comprised of postseason-eligible players. A club may request permission from the Commissioner's Office to replace a player who is injured during the course of a series, but that player is then ineligible for the rest of that round and the subsequent round, if there is one. A pitcher may be replaced only by another pitcher, and a position player only by another position player. Can we PLEASE revisit this Rule change this offseason?
|
|