• Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.

WBL Rule Change Thread

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
I think a lot of the concerns with Fax are fixable and some are overblown a tad.
  • Development of players in the Minors
  • Mass IFA signing
  • Contract Line-stepping
  • Illusion of destruction of parity
Development of players in the Minors

It's no secret that winning and good chemistry feed into each other at all levels. I also used old leaders way back in the day in Istanbul, with mixed results. In addition, since taking over from Otto in Buffalo, I was able to redesign the minors to bring in good clubhouse guys at all levels and trim the toxic fat. Since then most of our teams have been competitive in the minors. The great news is every team can do this since more than enough captains spawn. Lots of the best teams in the league have done similar things, so this itself isn't line-stepping.

The grey area comes with older veterans coming into the league and stomping. I think this is more of when there's smoke there's fire assumption, it's certainly possible they contribute to all of Wooly's prospects hitting, but I attribute this more to just pure volume. I think this should be watched for any egregious violations in A and AA (like guys who clearly would play in the WBL or guys on major league deals, etc.), but ultimately I've had 23 year old 1-stars do amazing in single A so there isn't a great way to truly monitor this.

Mass IFA signing

Wooly consistently has one of the highest IFA volumes per two years. This in and of itself isn't the worst thing. As Orlando put it, a lot of it is just people being inactive. The problem comes in parity. For Halifax, spending 40M on IFA is a drop in the bucket, whereas for a team like Buffalo it's most of their spending money. This puts small market teams at a massive disadvantage where they can either sign regular FA to get them over the hump (which is doable!), or IFA to continue to build for the future. This becomes an issue when Halifax chokes up the premier talent every other offseason, and you can see it on his main roster. Frankly, it's a minor miracle we were able to rescue Buffalo from Otto, and it's only because we managed to sneak in an IFA signing of Arnaldo Dimm to help us acquire Morin and Ghisolfi. Other organizations are fighting for scraps in IFA whereas Wooly can go in and grab some lotto tickets.

I've produced a handful of proposals to change IFA but I don't know if any of them are any good, so the answer likely lies in some sort of fix of budgets to bring up the smaller markets. I can't remember if we enacted those changes this past offseason, but whatever. Someone with more adderall than me can figure out an answer there.

Contract line-stepping

This is being dealt with as I speak, I just thought I'd write it down. Alternating years exacerbate the IFA problem so thankfully they are being fixed. Don't be an ass rule should cover the rest of it.

Illusion of destruction of parity

This is ultimately the most prominent issue, and also the hardest one to fix. Fax with 5 starters hovering around sub 2 ERA and amazing bats have seemingly disrupted the league's parity. I do still think it's possible to rebuild and win even with the leviathan of Wooly in the SL, but not every team can do it. What we did in Buffalo took an amazing set up by Lloyd & Otto and some luck on my part (and ultimately, nothing may come of it), so for some other teams a fix might not even be possible. I'd like to think I personally could rebuild any team in the league, and the playoffs are kinda luck of the draw, so who knows. There isn't a solution to this beyond contracting Halifax so it's more something we just have to get used to until Halifax's means of acquiring talent are severely restricted, so get used to a couple of .500 teams in the paloffs each year and whatnot.



Thus the point there is there isn't much we can do as a league to get out of this situation, so we just have to make the most of it. The fix likely lies in bringing up the bottom and not restricting the top (since we can't control factors like luck, and things like restricting IFA scout finds hurt everyone but Wooly in the long run). If restricting minor league age helps keep everyone happy then it's probably worth enacting, but the damage is already done, so I'd think it would also help to find some way to make up for the gap that doesn't involving contracting Halifax or kicking Wooly (which there is clearly league-ending resistance to doing so)
 

NML

Well-Known Member
You have to keep it simple and overarching otherwise he'll exploit it

No decreasing contracts. Flat or increasing only. Can never go up by more than 20% per year. Option rule still in play.
 

NML

Well-Known Member
If we have to sacrifice options to get rid of this fluctuation faggotry, then I'm all for it.

Fluctuating and decreasing contracts are completely unrealistic. Can anyone find a modern day example of those? Granted I do not follow the entire MLB closely so I suppose it's possible, but I don't hear about it.

Meanwhile, options are something you see all the time. Double TOs are really popular too, especially on young players. I think the White Sox signed like five straight guys through their arbitration with an additional two TOs at the end.
 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
Decreasing contracts aren't unrealistic, it is just uncommon because most teams basically count on inflation and build that in to the contract. We don't have inflation in the WBL. It would honestly behoove both the players and the team if the first contract was increasing and the last contract was decreasing. Ideally it is best for both parties to have the contract match their production level, thus veterans would be smart to take front loaded contracts (if they choose to retire, they'll be giving up less $).
 

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
To a certain extent, yes. I change mine pretty much every sim so I'll get the max out of the fan base but there's only so much it can increase.
Well our top ticket prices are north of $50.

If we have to sacrifice options to get rid of this fluctuation faggotry, then I'm all for it.

Fluctuating and decreasing contracts are completely unrealistic. Can anyone find a modern day example of those? Granted I do not follow the entire MLB closely so I suppose it's possible, but I don't hear about it.

Meanwhile, options are something you see all the time. Double TOs are really popular too, especially on young players. I think the White Sox signed like five straight guys through their arbitration with an additional two TOs at the end.
I'll make this point again that just because something isn't realistic doesn't mean its bad. Pro sports leagues don't get everything right. I don't understand why front loaded deals dont happen often IRL. It really is bizarre. The only thing I found in a quick search was a Cardinal deal with Peralta.

I find options to be cheap in a game where players dont really make any choices except for the odd guy who wont even negotiate. Double options are just borderline dont be an ass rule stuff to me, but Ive conceded that in more recent versions of the game where players actually seem to take options into account when negotiating.
 

NML

Well-Known Member
I'm not ready to bring up parity again until we see how the revenue sharing changes things.

But fair enough on the contract stuff. The issue with decreasing or front loading being fine is that how do you make a rule that it can't be exploited (since you know Wooly will try)?

You could do within 20% of the preceding year - that will make the fluctuation small enough to not have a major impact on IFAs (i.e. $8m to $9.6m, or $20m to $24m)
 

NML

Well-Known Member
Or maybe a contract can only go one direction? Either front loaded or increasing.

Flat years don't count either way.

So you could do $10m, $8m, $6m or the other way - but not $8m, $6m, $10m
 

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Well our top ticket prices are north of $50.


I'll make this point again that just because something isn't realistic doesn't mean its bad. Pro sports leagues don't get everything right. I don't understand why front loaded deals dont happen often IRL. It really is bizarre. The only thing I found in a quick search was a Cardinal deal with Peralta.

I find options to be cheap in a game where players dont really make any choices except for the odd guy who wont even negotiate. Double options are just borderline dont be an ass rule stuff to me, but Ive conceded that in more recent versions of the game where players actually seem to take options into account when negotiating.

The MLBPA isn't big on the front loaded contracts for a number of reasons, at least that I've heard from players and teams. One of the reasons is it doesn't really help the team out since they could invest the future money and offset inflation with interest. Another I've heard is that they can sometime negotiate with the player on those later years. The Barves tried that with Dan Uggla and had to just release him instead.
 

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Or maybe a contract can only go one direction? Either front loaded or increasing.

Flat years don't count either way.

So you could do $10m, $8m, $6m or the other way - but not $8m, $6m, $10m

Increasing unless the AAV is $20M otherwise someone will fuck it up.
 

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
The MLBPA isn't big on the front loaded contracts for a number of reasons, at least that I've heard from players and teams. One of the reasons is it doesn't really help the team out since they could invest the future money and offset inflation with interest. Another I've heard is that they can sometime negotiate with the player on those later years. The Barves tried that with Dan Uggla and had to just release him instead.
:laughing: i forgot tony is an INSIDER

It is really just player ego.
 

NML

Well-Known Member
In addition, I'll mention again that we should do house rules on age limits in the minors.

My suggestions would be:
A - 22
AA - 24
AAA - 26, plus two overage players, and people on ur 40-man don't count

You get one free warning, then it's a $1m penalty for each player after.

Ages are based on the start of the season - so if a player is 21 at the start of the season but turns 22 in May, they are allowed in A-ball. This would help with birthday issues.

The AAA stipulation is because obviously you need to allow players who are demoted to be there. If you want to spend $100k per player to win the AAA ship, more power to you. I'm also guessing you'll have a couple players who either get waived or who you give a minor league contact with the 30-day ML option.
 

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
In addition, I'll mention again that we should do house rules on age limits in the minors.

My suggestions would be:
A - 24 (there are players who were drafted this year that will be 24)
AA - 26
AAA - don't really care. It is AAA. I sign vets to minor league deals for depth (never 100 though :laughing: ) and I don't see a reason to limit it with the stipulation that we try to keep rosters at 35.

No penalty, I'll just check the filter and move players up a level when they age out.
My counter.
 

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
The AAA age ain't going to work. I keep a ton of spare parts at AAA that are over 30, which isn't too dissimilar from MLB.
 

NML

Well-Known Member
I just don't understand why a 24 year old needs to play in A-ball. If he hasn't developed enough by 23, he isn't going to. And if you really think he will, bump him to AA and roll the dice.
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
The complicated way would be to just stipulate that any player over a certain age that's still in the minors has to be on the 40-man, but that's dumb and way too complicated. Orlando's solution is pretty solid.
 

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
I just don't understand why a 24 year old needs to play in A-ball. If he hasn't developed enough by 23, he isn't going to. And if you really think he will, bump him to AA and roll the dice.

Plenty of college drafted seniors start in A and even Rookie ball. For some it's a chance to work on things without the pressure of AA or AAA and for others it's to get stretched out to join rotations. Obviously those scenarios don't work with OOTP but giving them some time in A isn't a big deal. By some time I mean 50 PA and 20 IP.
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
50 PA and 20 IP aren't large enough sample sizes to determine if they should be promoted. I mean, I almost always send my college guys direct to AAA, so I don't really care if the age limit in A ball is 21, but some people have different philosophies
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
If they're fresh out of college though? I know what you mean but I'd rather err on the side of leniency cuz inevitably i'll draft some guy who had TJS and break the rules by playing him in A at 24 since he missed a year
 

NML

Well-Known Member
I'd be more open to 24 at A if we have a rookie/low A for HSers. Otherwise my 18 year old rookie pitcher is going against a team of 24 year olds on the Fightin Wooly's
 

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
I just don't understand why a 24 year old needs to play in A-ball. If he hasn't developed enough by 23, he isn't going to. And if you really think he will, bump him to AA and roll the dice.
Possibly, but who knows. I'm just saying there are 24 year olds drafted and not allowing GMs to start them in A isn't the best solution. There are 24 year olds in the draft pool every year. They might be 25 by the time season starts.
 

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
If they're fresh out of college though? I know what you mean but I'd rather err on the side of leniency cuz inevitably i'll draft some guy who had TJS and break the rules by playing him in A at 24 since he missed a year

Filters fixes this pretty easily:

A Violation: >1 year service time + 300 PA/160 IP + Age >= 25
 

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
FWIW my early drafted college guys tend to go right to AA
Thats cool. I have some that go right to WBL. My point is we shouldnt force everyone to play a certain way and some people dont want to go from draft to with all their players AA I imagine. I think its a fair compromise. It also cuts having to worry about birthdays or whatever. At any given time I check that filter and if a player is there they get moved. I'll check it opening day too.
 

NML

Well-Known Member
Possibly, but who knows. I'm just saying there are 24 year olds drafted and not allowing GMs to start them in A isn't the best solution. There are 24 year olds in the draft pool every year. They might be 25 by the time season starts.

Who? I went through the first couple rounds and didn't see anyone who was older than 21.

Which means they are 22 by the start of next season - one year in A ball should be enough, but if you set it at 23 that gives them two years there before they have to be promoted.

And if a player is older, it's not like you have to cut them and lose the player. You just move them to AA
 

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
I sign tons of non-drafted guys to MiLC after the draft is done that are 22-25. Some I throw in AA/AAA but some stay in for a while.
 

NML

Well-Known Member
Thats cool. I have some that go right to WBL. My point is we shouldnt force everyone to play a certain way and some people dont want to go from draft to with all their players AA I imagine. I think its a fair compromise. It also cuts having to worry about birthdays or whatever. At any given time I check that filter and if a player is there they get moved. I'll check it opening day too.

I was just saying that our top college players can go to AA without issue. Not that everyone should do that

I don't think any decent college player is going to need more than two years in A ball doe. I guess if they are 24 after being drafted than what can you do?
 

NML

Well-Known Member
If Orlando's way makes it easier for him, then I'm for it.

I just look at every possible rule change from the angle of "what's the most possible fuckshit way to exploit this?" so that I'm ready for whatever Wooly throws at me.

He'll inevitably have a team full of 24 year old's that will still coast
 

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
Who? I went through the first couple rounds and didn't see anyone who was older than 21.

Which means they are 22 by the start of next season - one year in A ball should be enough, but if you set it at 23 that gives them two years there before they have to be promoted.

And if a player is older, it's not like you have to cut them and lose the player. You just move them to AA
I dunno names man. I've seen 10+ 24 year olds in years past. I dont know if they were frst round talent. If they arent, why does it matter? I just think 24 is a fair number and will keep the average around 22 I assume.
 
Top