[KingCorran]

For this vote, please either A.) declare your vote in the replies to this thread, or B.) PM your vote to me if you wish to keep your vote anonymous. (In that case, I will record your vote, but will not reveal its effect until the voting is done. You may change your vote at any time up until the vote is declared final, using either of these methods. If anonymous votes are questioned, TheZenador will confirm them privately).

Rule Change Proposal:

Official proposal: that the league setting "New players become available" be changed from 'As soon as Yahoo! adds them' to 'Wait until called up to Majors'.

Reasoning:
- This change makes the waiver settings almost identical to the way Y! used to run things before changing the settings in 2009. The only difference: a couple (like 2-5) high-profile prospects would be available in the draft under the old system. The example of Stephen Strasberg being available suggests this may continue to be the case.
- Without this rule change, waivers have become much less important and much more boring.
- Without this rule change, most interesting prospects are either drafted, or picked up months before they go to the big leagues.
- With this rule change, the possibility of mass-hoarding several high-upside prospects all year (limiting the rest of the league's ability to access them) to see which pan out will be eliminated.
- With this rule change, managers will not need to sacrifice multiple spots all year to get a shot at a high-upside prospect.
- I believe this is the fairest way to regulate access to mid-season call-ups, as it is linked to the draft system.
- I believe this rule doesn't unbalance the league, because last-year low finishers retain the much greater advantage of high first-round draft picks. High waiver picks on average are much less valuable.
- Again, this is almost identical to the way Y! used to run things before changing the settings in 2009. It was a good system then, and while I understand their reason for refining it, I believe we simply chose the wrong replacement 'default setting' last year.

Effects:
- there is no overhead for the commissioner - this is a simple setting change.
- some players not expected to start 2010 in the majors will be removed from the draft pool.
- these players will be automatically placed on waivers when called up, and waiver priority will be used to determine whose claim is successful.

Thanks!

---

VOTE TALLY:
3 votes for, 2 votes against (14 votes required for passage by 2/3 majority)
0 anonymous votes, 15 not yet voted (non-votes count as 'no' votes at final tally)

KingCorran - voted FOR
DocMilo
55panhead - voted AGAINST
Idahomariner - voted FOR
TheZenador - voted FOR
CoastieM
Gomez
cbo24663
Hotwheelz
kirkdog77
baseballbond
MarinerPride
MajorMajor
phredmojo
IcebreakerX
jaybo24663
Stampi
hdboc
jj-malaysia - voted AGAINST
CrustyJuggler

[55panhead]

KingCorran, on Feb 20 2010, 11:03 AM, said:

A new poll has been added to the league thread. MCKL managers ONLY: please vote there on the below rule change. Use this thread for discussion if any, and as a secondary way to record your vote. Thanks!

Rule Change Proposal:

I propose that, since Y! changed their available-player system to include vastly more 40-man-but-not-25-man players last year... that we switch to the option that only adds players to the waiver wire when they are actually called up to the majors. If your guy drops down to MiLB, the system would let you keep him as long as you continue to roster him... but if you dropped him, he'd disappear from the waiver wire until he was called up again. (See Kendrick last year).

I think this would make waiver claims much more meaningful this year, as they were in the past. Last year, the waiver wire was BO-O-O-R-I-N-G... because everyone worth putting a claim on was already in the system months before they were called up (see Tillman). As long as this league has been around, exciting players being called up (Jered Weaver, etc) always resulted in a flurry of waiver claims... but Y!'s new system all but eliminated that practice. I strongly feel this change would improve the league, and keep it closer to the original methodology which made waiver claims significant. Please vote for this proposal, or share why you might disagree with this idea.

Thanks!

---

KingCorran votes in favor of the rule change (obviously).

At some point each year every team has to make a decision. Are they contenders or rebuilders? If I were a potential rebuilder I'd like the option of grabbing a top prospect before they came up and adding them to my roster. In that sense I'm using roster space to enhance my team for next year instead of trying to compete this year. I'm against the above proposal. If a top team chooses to use valuable roster space to carry a prospect, it is going to weaken their team. That is a choice they MAY choose to make. If the weaker teams are allowed to roster elite prospects ie Heyward, Strasburg, Stanton, Alvarez, etc, then this improves their chances of gaining ground on the stronger teams in the future.

Matt aka 55Pan

This post has been edited by 55panhead: 20 February 2010 - 06:09 PM

[KingCorran]

I see what you're saying, Matt, but the question then becomes one of equal access. If you can't compete in 2010, should you be ABLE to dump all your Civics and reload on a million Buster Poseys and Kyle Drabeks? Should winning teams be penalized in their opportunity to roster interest young talent, just because a couple guys with nothing to lose already grabbed everyone with a chance of breaking out?

I maintain that running new minor leaguers through the waiver system gives equal access opportunity to those top prospect, just as with the draft. It keeps those hard luck owners engaged, as they can TRADE their civics to a contender for prospects they didn't get. You have to PLAY that way, rather than just fish at random.

Dunno. Just my two cents. I do see your POV too.

[55panhead]

KingCorran, on Feb 21 2010, 09:01 AM, said:

I see what you're saying, Matt, but the question then becomes one of equal access. If you can't compete in 2010, should you be ABLE to dump all your Civics and reload on a million Buster Poseys and Kyle Drabeks? Should winning teams be penalized in their opportunity to roster interest young talent, just because a couple guys with nothing to lose already grabbed everyone with a chance of breaking out?

I maintain that running new minor leaguers through the waiver system gives equal access opportunity to those top prospect, just as with the draft. It keeps those hard luck owners engaged, as they can TRADE their civics to a contender for prospects they didn't get. You have to PLAY that way, rather than just fish at random.

Dunno. Just my two cents. I do see your POV too.

I guess another question would be whether Ethan's commissioneer powers would be able to limit pickups to major league rosters only. If we accepted your proposal would the players just called up pass through the waiver system or would they be first come first serve. IF FCFS how do you monitor the exact time they are added to the major league roster? If they have to pass through waivers then there is an unfair advantage to the better teams. Under the current rules the best team drafts last, but receives the #1 WW spot.

My motivaton in not wanting this proposal is in a sense of fairness as I cough, cough, consider myself one of the better teams.

[KingCorran]

55panhead, on Feb 21 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

I guess another question would be whether Ethan's commissioneer powers would be able to limit pickups to major league rosters only. If we accepted your proposal would the players just called up pass through the waiver system or would they be first come first serve. IF FCFS how do you monitor the exact time they are added to the major league roster? If they have to pass through waivers then there is an unfair advantage to the better teams. Under the current rules the best team drafts last, but receives the #1 WW spot.

My motivaton in not wanting this proposal is in a sense of fairness as I cough, cough, consider myself one of the better teams.

It's a Y! league setting - no administration necessary after you flip the switch. Under the change, players go straight to waivers when they make the bigs. It's the ultimate fair system.

I actually disagree that this system unfairly benefits 'better' teams. The average high waiver pick has a MUCH lower ROI than the average high first round draft pick.

[KingCorran]

I talked with someone about my whole proposal, and questions came up about a couple of the details I raised. Let me clarify a couple points about my previous statements:

* I'm definitely not trying to highlight an existing situation. The concept I suggested about someone dumping all their Civic-level players for young talent hasn't happened - talent acquisition last year was relatively reasonable, and no-one has actually done what I'm trying to prevent being possible.

* Part of my concern is that the waiver-wire game has become superfluous. In previous years, 3-5 IMPACT players were picked up by waiver over the course of the season... guys like Jered Weaver, Mat Gamel, Alexei Casilla, Clayton Kershaw, Max Scherzer, Johnny Cueto and Justin Upton. Some were more successful that others, but it was always interesting. Last year's impact players were mostly drafted (Wieters) and never hit waivers, or picked up months before they were brought to the bigs (Posey). I can't recall a single interesting waiver claim, although I'm sure there were one or two SOMEwhere.

* The question therefore isn't truly one of equal access. All of us can take 5 spots on our roster and devote them to Posey-like players if we want... even the competitive teams, although they have to give up *more* talent (in theory) to roster multiple 'potential' upside players, and perhaps risk more of their playoff runs by having less depth in their rotation and bench.

My true argument is that the game was MORE FUN under the old system, because waiver picks were interesting enough that people would even trade for them. People were excited to have a top waiver claim, and they valued the guy they got with it. I think that high first-round draft picks more than offset a lower starting waiver position for the teams that have them... I'd trade the #1 waiver for a top-5 draft pick ANY day. Having waivers mean something just plain makes the game more interesting, and all I really want is to restore that to the league.

[TheZenador]

Alright, I've been gone for the weekend but here's my opinion on the rule change. For the record, I voted yes.

The rule change better reflects how this league was created as it reverts Yahoo!'s system to what it was a few years ago. Nowadays they add players to the player pool just because there is minor league buzz that they might be called up. This not only creates extra players that don't immediately help any team but it makes it much harder to tell when these players are being added. The only way to really tell is to check the waiver players every few days. This rule change would wait until the players had a few at bats or innings pitched until they are added to the system, as it was a few years ago.

One thing I think you have confused KC is I don't think the players would disappear from the waiver wire if they were demoted to the minor leagues. I think this is an issue of when the players are initially added, but once they are added they will stay in the system for the remainder of the year. Also, unless I'm mistaken, this rule change would only affect mid-season additions. Players with no major league experience who are already in the system will remain there (see Strasburg).

55panhead, on Feb 20 2010, 04:09 PM, said:

At some point each year every team has to make a decision. Are they contenders or rebuilders? If I were a potential rebuilder I'd like the option of grabbing a top prospect before they came up and adding them to my roster. In that sense I'm using roster space to enhance my team for next year instead of trying to compete this year. I'm against the above proposal. If a top team chooses to use valuable roster space to carry a prospect, it is going to weaken their team. That is a choice they MAY choose to make. If the weaker teams are allowed to roster elite prospects ie Heyward, Strasburg, Stanton, Alvarez, etc, then this improves their chances of gaining ground on the stronger teams in the future.

I do like your point Matt, and this is why I have no intention of changing the rule in the dynasty league. However, I think the system where we redraft all the players past the first 6 rounds does a sufficient job of balancing the league. The last place team from last year has a chance at, say, Strasburg or any other up and coming players. With this system in place, I'd be okay with the best teams being able to get more prospects if they save their waivers for long enough. This league doesn't have the same issue of balancing as the dynasty league does so I like that there can be another way top teams can improve their teams mid-season. Also keep in mind that the waiver positions are determined by the previous years standings as well, so the teams that are presumably weaker, at least from the year before, have the first pick of players that get added.

DocMilo, on Feb 22 2010, 01:34 PM, said:

And connecting picking up a talent that is available to not competing is just wrong.

Matt's argument is that competitive teams would be less likely to roster minor league players because it forces them to give up a player that could otherwise be putting up numbers. The fact that you were able to roster minor leaguers while still remaining competitive does not mean that there is not a connection. It just means you were able to weather the loss of a roster spot. Clearly your competitiveness had other factors than just picking up Tillman.

[DocMilo]

TheZenador, on Feb 22 2010, 03:10 PM, said:

I do like your point Matt, and this is why I have no intention of changing the rule in the dynasty league. However, I think the system where we redraft all the players past the first 6 rounds does a sufficient job of balancing the league. The last place team from last year has a chance at, say, Strasburg or any other up and coming players. With this system in place, I'd be okay with the best teams being able to get more prospects if they save their waivers for long enough. This league doesn't have the same issue of balancing as the dynasty league does so I like that there can be another way top teams can improve their teams mid-season. Also keep in mind that the waiver positions are determined by the previous years standings as well, so the teams that are presumably weaker, at least from the year before, have the first pick of players that get added.



Matt's argument is that competitive teams would be less likely to roster minor league players because it forces them to give up a player that could otherwise be putting up numbers. The fact that you were able to roster minor leaguers while still remaining competitive does not mean that there is not a connection. It just means you were able to weather the loss of a roster spot. Clearly your competitiveness had other factors than just picking up Tillman.

I picked up Tillman, not Matt. I know competitive teams can handle roster spots being held by prospects because I watched many of them not pitch all of their pitchers last year regularly. They would pick their battles. If they didn't think they could win on W's or K's, they would only pitch top end pitchers and closers to keep their era's down. Everyone can afford a spot or two. When I picked up Tillman I did not have the #1 waiver spot, so most anyone could have taken him before me. I still don't understand why Tillman is such an issue.

[KingCorran]

I *think* Tillman was just picked as a random example of an interesting player, not because he's an issue in and of himself. If anything, DocMilo's 2009 team shows a weakness in the reasoning behind my proposal, or at least a counter-example to it (perhaps an outlier?)... because he was able to roster a couple high-upside prospects and STILL be a top team in this league.

[TheZenador]

Doc, Tillman is not an issue at all. I just find it strange that you would argue both against the proposal and against the argument that competitive teams can't roster prospects while remaining competitive, as you did both.

Matt is arguing that we shouldn't change the rule because the current setup favors weaker teams, which is perfectly valid. If you are against that argument, then what is your argument against the rule change?

[55panhead]

Ethan,

I may have misinterpretted Jordan's proposal or perhaps you did. As I read your interpretation teams are able to draft any player in the database at the time of the draft regardless of whether they are on a major league roster or not. Under that interpretation owners are free to draft Strasburg, Heyward, Alvarez, etc at draft time. It is only players added to the data base after the draft that would not be eligible. If that is Jordan's intention I have absolutely no objection.

If Jordan's intention was to prevent owners from selecting players until they were promoted to the majors, then I'd object.

[KingCorran]

Point of clarification:

Anyone left in the Y! system at the point of the rule change would be draftable. Anyone not in that system would be undraftable until they were called up.

Heyward, I BELIEVE, would be draftable because he's projected to play on the ML roster. If he were removed from the system, I would be against the rule change, because he is CLEARLY a 2010 player from Day One.

Strasberg, I BELIEVE, would not be draftable because he's not projected to play on the ML roster on Opening Day. If the Nats decided to use him right away, Y! would add him to the system as soon as that was known (preseason). Otherwise, if I understand this right, he'd disappear from the player system until he was called up... as was done with other hot talents in all past years except 2009.

Ethan - would you be willing to change that setting (temporarily) NOW in the league so we can verify these claims? (It might take Y! overnight to adjust the player pool to the change). I'd expect Heyward to stay in the player pool, but Strasberg - for now - to disappear. That would at least make the exact terms of the proposal clear.

Matt - how would you feel about that 'middle ground'? The players that were draftable would be those expected to be available on Opening Day. if Alvarez doesn't make it to the bigs out of the Pirates' camp, I don't think we should be drafting him. This *is* still a little different from the way it used to be, but the number of players that used to be in the player pool before ever being called up was very, very small.

Good point by the way on players dropped down to the minors midseason. I think you're right - Y! actually doesn't say it'll remove them from the player pool.

[KingCorran]

I think I'll remove the poll at some point, if no one objects. It makes more sense to me to have transparent votes... so we know who's weighed in, who hasn't, and people can be free to change their minds.

Unless there's a reason votes should be anonymous? I'm not about to get in anyone's face for disagreeing with me on a policy change, so I hope anonymity isn't necessary? If people feel it is, by all means lets keep it... intimidation is NOT what this league is about.

[55panhead]

KingCorran, on Feb 22 2010, 03:09 PM, said:

Matt - how would you feel about that 'middle ground'? The players that were draftable would be those expected to be available on Opening Day. If Alvarez doesn't make it to the bigs out of the Pirates' camp, I don't think we should be drafting him. This *is* still a little different from the way it used to be, but the number of players that used to be in the player pool before ever being called up was very, very small.

I'm not sure how you'd reach a consensus on who would make an opening day roster and who would not. The draft is before real world rosters are finalized. What happens to the drafted player who doesn't make the opening day roster?

[KingCorran]

This is what I'm not sure about. It's 100% Y!'s determiniation; it's literally a setting in the Commissioner's league settings, and they run it (like the Can't Cut List). I think it's the same thing now... with the current setting, not EVERY 40-man player is in the system... but most are. I'm not sure where they draw the line.

In this case, I would expect them to use current best-guess judgments based on who's expected to go to the bigs. Heyward is in the pool because he's known to have a spot... but if at the last minute his team sends him back to AAA, well... risk taken by those who draft him, and they have to wait for him to come back up. Strasberg - same thing, but in reverse. If on March 20th it becomes known that Strasberg is Washington's Opening Day starter, I'd expect him to hit waivers for already drafted leagues, and to enter the draftable pool for leagues yet to draft. We draft a day or two before Opening Day, so surprises should be very few at that point.

---

This is also why I asked Ethan to test the setting, so we could see how Y! sets it up now. If the current player pool doesn't change at all... maybe that makes this even simpler for everyone.

[TheZenador]

I did some fiddling around, and when I change the setting, Strasburg is still there while Heyward disappears.

My suggestion for the rule:
Yahoo! historically adds high profile prospects at the beginning of the season (Jay Bruce and Francisco Liriano come to mind) and we've historically been able to draft them. My suggestion if the rule is passed would be that we kept the setting as it is but then changed it after the draft. I like the rule change because it will make the waiver wire more interesting, but I don't think it should have an effect on who we can or can't draft.

[KingCorran]

TheZenador, on Feb 22 2010, 05:20 PM, said:

I did some fiddling around, and when I change the setting, Strasburg is still there while Heyward disappears.

My suggestion for the rule:
Yahoo! historically adds high profile prospects at the beginning of the season (Jay Bruce and Francisco Liriano come to mind) and we've historically been able to draft them. My suggestion if the rule is passed would be that we kept the setting as it is but then changed it after the draft. I like the rule change because it will make the waiver wire more interesting, but I don't think it should have an effect on who we can or can't draft.

An interesting result. My comments:
- It seems that Y! keeping Strasberg in the system indicates that they ARE keeping SOME of the highest-profile guys in the draft, even though they're known to NOT be available on Opening Day. I theorize that this setting may in fact be exactly the way it was originally set up... making this the best of all possible worlds.
- Heyward not being available surprises me, as I expected him to be a shoo-in for a job on Opening Day. Quick online research indicates, however, that I am mistaken... he's expected to make the bigs very quickly, but not at this point on Day One. Therefore, it's appropriate that he be initially unavailable. I don't think that ALL of a year's top names should be in the draft... see my previous post on big names that came through our waiver system in the last 4 years. There're still several weeks until Opening Day, and our draft is late. If he makes the team, I expect it to be known - and his name added to the system - in time for him to be drafted by us.
- I don't think your suggestion (change the rule AFTER the draft) is possible. I wouldn't really support that idea even if it were possible, as it drastically alters the playing pool post-draft... not ENTIRELY unlike adding an extra 3B or something to the lineup. But I think it's a moot point, as I believe this is one of those settings that can only be changed pre-draft. Can you confirm that, Ethan? (I'm not commissioning a league this year, so I can't check under which category the setting is displayed...)

Once again... yes, we've been able to draft guys like Jay Bruce, Francisco Liriano, and Hanley Ramirez (my best pick EVAR!!!) in previous years. I acknowledge that list is incomplete... those are just two examples. But the number of impact players who, being added midseason came through waivers rather than the draft, is MUCH larger than even that complete list would be. Think about Ryan Braun, Jered Weaver, Mat Gamel, Alexei Casilla, Clayton Kershaw, Max Scherzer, Johnny Cueto and Justin Upton. That's a lot of midseason fun... and you have to decide what you're going to do with your waiver pick. Will you wait another two months and HOPE Stephen Strasberg is called up? Or, will you snag the closer someone foolishly dropped, who will turn your playoff hopes around right now?

Vote FOR the change. Please!!!

[KingCorran]

The vote is now being tallied in a different way - please revote, publicly or privately via PM to me if you prefer, as per the comments in this thread's first post.

Previously explicitly stated votes will be automatically included, but these too may be changed. Right now, the only vote I see stated publicly is TheZenador's, so I'm not assuming anything about anyone else.

My apologies to the rest of you who voted, and now have to re-vote. The poll method was just too hard to track... we didn't know who to chase down to see if they wanted to vote, there was no method to allow for a vote change, and we didn't know if non-managers were voting either.

[jj-malaysia]

my vote goes with any system where we do not need to keep track of things seperately outside of the official system.

If a player appears in the yahoo poool... hes fair game.

There is long text on the way things work above on this thread, and i havent had time to digest it all... but if the new proposal forces us to keep track of things seperately from what is already hardwired into the system, then my vote is against

[KingCorran]

jj-malaysia, on Feb 23 2010, 02:41 PM, said:

my vote goes with any system where we do not need to keep track of things seperately outside of the official system.

If a player appears in the yahoo poool... hes fair game.

There is long text on the way things work above on this thread, and i havent had time to digest it all... but if the new proposal forces us to keep track of things seperately from what is already hardwired into the system, then my vote is against

Technically, you don't have to keep track of anything this way. Impact player callups are pretty widely publicized.

Another way to put it: with the way we did it in 2009, you had to keep track of POSSIBLE impact minor leaguers, and either draft them or pick them up months ahead of time (if you wanted one at all in that year). There were very few impact players available without far-reaching advance planning. With the way I'm proposing it in 2010, you would have to keep an eye out for potential impact callups (in order to put in a waiver claim). However, impact callups are usually broadcast well ahead of time by even Yahoo!'s fantasy writers... and when callups are a surprise, there's two days for the news to get around before waiver claims come due.

For the moment, I'll not count your vote, as I'm not sure where it lies - I'll let you digest the information and make a clear decision. My stance is that the proposed change makes the PROCESS of gaining prospects not only more equitable (distributed), but simpler. Hadn't thought of that point before.