2019 Rule Change Proposals

[Commish]

14.10 refers only to the playoffs. We would have to change more than that one rule to allow non-rated starters to start. That would require a re-vote.

[Mustangs]

It seems like there is a lot of confusion/regret surrounding a bunch of these proposals. I wonder if stepping back, thinking them through more, and revoting is a good idea. I'm not sure if others feel like Greg about the wildcards, but I would consider that rule bad for the league if it's causing someone to throw games. I'm not bashing Greg for this, I'm simply saying that if others feel this strongly about it, it may be in the best interest of the league to reconsider.

[Mike S./Rocks]

Hey, if threatening to tank can get rules you don't like changed, maybe we should all take up that strategy.

[skizm]

Hey, if threatening to tank can get rules you don't like changed, maybe we should all take up that strategy.

The rule that was passed will be a temptation to do just that thing, and is bad for the league. Far worse overall than teams changing divisions where we give the teams being moved a veto.

Greg happened to mention it, don't think others weren't thinking it.

[Commish]

I understand “intentionally tanking” out of protest, but is there some other reason?

Again, we’re talking about the wild card. They should be happy just to have a chance at the playoffs.

[Badger]

Fascinating reading. We have no idea what we’ve done passing those rules, and some of us are going to take our balls and go home.

[Mike S./Rocks]

Tanking is one thing. Teams have regularly decided to torpedo their season when they've had a chance to win a division or the wild card because they thought getting into the playoffs wasn't worth it for whatever reason. So really that's nothing new.

To say you're going to forfeit games or try to lose on purpose because you will be in the wild card is different. I suppose I should say we should all take up this strategy if it will get rules we don't like to be changed.

As far as this causing tanking -- teams have been doing it for years. If this is a reason to make a team tank, so be it. Might get the reverse reaction from another team.

I voted against the rule. If there is a re-vote, maybe I'll vote for it!

[Black Sox]

Any team that wants to tank to protest the one game play off I say do it. Tank away.

[skizm]

Taking your ball and going home would be quitting because of it. It's a stupid fucking rule, and I accept that it passed.

[skizm]

Any team that wants to tank to protest the one game play off I say do it. Tank away.

That'd be a good league with integrity wouldn't it?

[Black Sox]

You are asking the wrong person. I never said I would try to lose because I don't like the rule.

[Peaks]

They should be happy just to have a chance at the playoffs.

I'd rather have the draft pick and miss out on the joke.

Hey, if threatening to tank can get rules you don't like changed, maybe we should all take up that strategy.

I'm not asking the rule to be changed. It's passed by a majority. I have no desire to re-vote over it and have never said it should be. But I have the right to decide how to deal with it for the best of my franchise. I'll take a better draft pick over the even shittier chance Wild Card teams every day of the week. As have been stated already in this thread, teams already bail for whatever reason they want. This will be mine.

[Jamboree]

Just now reading this thread, and trying to understand --

Greg, do you not like that the Wild Card game is just 1 game? You would want it to be 3 or 7? If that's the case, i think that is a fair request to offer more games. I know MLB has always done the 1 game, win or go home, but I have never liked that. I have always thought 3 made sense, because you battle for 160/162 games for just 1 game. And if its a 3-game series - or 7 -- you won't see rosters getting overly funky (like 12 relievers)....

I know its just one more series to schedule in a tight November month, but the difference between 1 game and 3 games is nothing from a scheduling standpoint. If you play 1, then you are gonna play 3 in the same sitting, so I don't think the argument holds water, as we have already agreed to add this extra match-up to the mix

[Law Dogs]

Just now reading this thread, and trying to understand --

Greg, do you not like that the Wild Card game is just 1 game? You would want it to be 3 or 7? If that's the case, i think that is a fair request to offer more games. I know MLB has always done the 1 game, win or go home, but I have never liked that. I have always thought 3 made sense, because you battle for 160/162 games for just 1 game. And if its a 3-game series - or 7 -- you won't see rosters getting overly funky (like 12 relievers)....

I know its just one more series to schedule in a tight November month, but the difference between 1 game and 3 games is nothing from a scheduling standpoint. If you play 1, then you are gonna play 3 in the same sitting, so I don't think the argument holds water, as we have already agreed to add this extra match-up to the mix

+1

[skizm]

Just now reading this thread, and trying to understand --

Greg, do you not like that the Wild Card game is just 1 game? You would want it to be 3 or 7? If that's the case, i think that is a fair request to offer more games. I know MLB has always done the 1 game, win or go home, but I have never liked that. I have always thought 3 made sense, because you battle for 160/162 games for just 1 game. And if its a 3-game series - or 7 -- you won't see rosters getting overly funky (like 12 relievers)....

I know its just one more series to schedule in a tight November month, but the difference between 1 game and 3 games is nothing from a scheduling standpoint. If you play 1, then you are gonna play 3 in the same sitting, so I don't think the argument holds water, as we have already agreed to add this extra match-up to the mix

+1