October 3, 2001

Pass or Reject?  One Man's Ballot

It's that time of the year again.  No, I'm not referring to the time when Red Sox fans hang themselves from the nearest tree branch.  No, I don't mean that it's time for the Major League post-season, when the Yankees dominate all other teams only because they are paid more.  No, I'm not talking about that time of the year when Phil Geisel over-uses every key player on his roster in order to make them ineligible for the playoffs.  And no, I'm not talking about the time of the year when the Cleveland Rocks lose their 161st game of the season to fall out of the playoffs.

Granted, those are all long-standing baseball traditions.  But what I'd like to talk about now is the BDBL's tradition of voting on proposed changes to our rulebook.  What follows is just one man's opinion.  Take it for what it's worth.

Proposal #1: "Top Ten Lotto." The ten teams with the worst record in the previous season will be placed into a lottery.  The draft order for the first ten teams in the following year's free agent draft will then be selected at random from this pool.  The remaining fourteen teams will select in the reverse order of winning percentage, as has been the BDBL tradition.  If passed, this rule would not take effect until the 2003 draft.

The purpose of this rule is to eliminate the incentive for teams who are not in a pennant race to purposely dump talent and throw games in order to get a better draft position the following season.  It's a good proposal, but I have a couple of reservations about it.  First, I wonder if this proposal wouldn't cause MORE teams to intentionally lose games than there are now.

For example, let's say a team is six games behind in the wild card race entering the final chapter, but they're only two games ahead of the tenth-worst team.  Knowing that their chances of nabbing a #1 draft pick is better than catching the wild card leader, it's not too difficult to imagine this team tanking it the rest of the season.

Aside from that, I have some philosophical issues with the whole concept of drafting in reverse order.  But I'll cover that in the next proposal.

My vote: Reject.

Proposal #2: "The Mega Lotto."   ALL teams will be placed into a lottery to determine the following season's draft order for the free agent draft.  (Note: the farm draft order would be ranked as usual, in reverse order of winning percentage.)  A random lottery will be held for every salary tier of the draft.  And the drafting method will be changed to a "snake-style" method where the order is reversed every round.  If passed, this rule would not take effect until the 2003 draft.

This proposal looks similar to the first one, but the philosophy behind it is radically different.  Here, the essential purpose behind the proposal is to completely eliminate any incentive for doing poorly.  Obviously, that would be a great thing for the league.  However, it comes at the cost of possibly prolonging long-term dynasties and/or long-term droughts, which most of us agree are hurtful to the league.

So what to do?  When in doubt, I always ask the question: which is the most realistic option available to us?

In reality, the Major League draft is held in the reverse order of winning percentage.  However, their draft is an amateur draft that does not normally impact the current season.  In effect, the BDBL "draft" is really just the process of signing free agents that occurs every winter in the Major Leagues.  In reality, free agents go to the highest bidder.  So if we wanted to truly mimic reality, we would hold an auction for every available free agent each winter.  The only problem is that this would take far too much time.

Given that, which is the more realistic draft format for free agents: ranking by reverse order of winning percentage or a random ranking?  To me, a random ranking mimics reality more than any ranking based on winning percentage.  (Note: I'm sure that some would argue that ranking in order of winning percentage (1-24) is even more realistic, but I'll save that debate for another day.)

Passing this proposal may mean that the Zoots may some day enjoy the #1 draft pick in addition to winning the BDBL championship, but if it means the elimination of the BDBL equivalent of welfare, I think it's worth considering.  Owners shouldn't benefit from making poor decisions, nor should they be punished for making good decisions.

My vote: Pass.

Proposal #3: "Operation: Reality."   Contracts will be awarded immediately following the draft for all players not in their option years.  "Cutdown Day" will still be held prior to the draft, but its only purpose will be for each club to announce which players they are releasing.

NOTE: In order for this rule to work, a "rider" must be attached, whereby players who are acquired as non-farm free agents during the season must be released on or before Cutdown Day each season. 

The purpose of this proposal is two-fold: 1) to cut down on the number of players who can be dumped by teams looking to build for the future, and 2) to make our contracts system more realistic.  The rider is necessary because it would be too difficult to manage new free agent contracts during the season, and too messy to do it afterwards.

I'm all for any rule that makes this league more realistic and challenging, and this proposal definitely fits both categories.  When the Rockies signed Denny Neagle last winter, they weren't given the benefit of "testing him out" for a season to see how he performed at high altitude.  They had to make a decision immediately on how many years they were willing to risk with him.  Why should BDBL GM's have the advantage of two years worth of hindsight?

My vote: Pass.

Proposal #4: "The Traditional Glander Rule."  Trading of draft picks will be illegal.

I call this the "Traditional Glander Rule" because I bring this rule up for vote every year.  In short, I HATE the trading of draft picks.  For starters, I think it's too easy to trade an unknown commodity for a known asset.  It just gives people one more weapon in the "War on Dumping."  

Secondly, I think that some people (especially newcomers) don't understand the value (or lack thereof) in certain draft picks.  Why, for instance, would anyone ever trade for a draft pick owned by the team with the highest winning percentage in the league?  There is no reason for it, yet we see it happen every year.  I've seen teams trade for a #3 draft pick from a team that finished above them in the standings the prior year.  In order to use that pick, that team would have to add three $5m players to their roster - something most teams aren't able to do.  Unfortunately, most newcomers don't realize what they've traded for until it's too late.  A #3 draft pick is a valuable commodity in most arenas.  

And lastly, it makes my job incredibly difficult by having to keep track of all these picks.  Before the draft, I have to track who owns what pick (which changes nearly every hour.)  During the draft, I then have to double-back and correct the inevitable mistakes mid-stream.  (And believe me, I have enough to keep track of on Draft Day.)  And after the draft, I have to jump around a spreadsheet looking for players to add to each roster one at a time.  I estimate that the trading of draft picks costs me between 20-30 hours of free time every year.

If nothing else, I'd love to ban trades that involve only draft picks.  It's far too easy to say to a team, "I won't be able to use my #6 pick, and you won't be able to use your #11 pick, so let's just swap."  This is a meaningless transaction where neither team takes any risk whatsoever.  It's basically an abuse of the system.  Unfortunately, if I banned this type of activity, some wise guy would approach some owner with a line like, "Since we can't swap picks for picks, I'll just throw in this bum backup outfielder.  Then you can just release him after the trade."  Believe me, if there's a loophole, certain people in this league will exploit it.

My vote (surprise, surprise): PASS!!!!!!!  PLEASE!!!!!

Proposal #5: "The Hampton Rule."   Managers may not use a pitcher as a pinch hitter unless: a) there are no position players remaining on the bench, or b) the play to be called is a bunt.

The purpose of this rule is added realism.  Is it conceivable that a Major League manager would opt for a pitcher to pinch hit in a non-bunting situation over a position player?  Yes, but it doesn't happen all that often.  In the end, it's more realistic to ban this altogether than to allow that middle reliever who went 4-for-8 during the MLB season to get 30 pinch-hit at-bats in crucial late-game situations.  I am allowing the "b" part of this proposal because it's not unrealistic at all for a big league manager to use a pitcher as a pinch hitter in a bunting situation.

My vote: Pass.

Proposal #6: "The $68m Cap Rule."   There will be an in-season cap of $68 million on all team salaries.  This number will be derived from the full-season salaries of all players on each team's 35-man roster.  Salaries will NOT be pro-rated for players who are acquired mid-season.

We've discussed this one ad-nauseam this season, so I don't think a ton of commentary is necessary.  My main concern in passing this rule is that the market becomes too restricted for teams who wish to dump in order to build for the future.  For example, if you wish to trade a $10m free agent and only one contending team can afford to acquire such a player, the return you get for that player is going to be severely depressed.  What happens then is that teams decide to dump earlier than ever before, and more of the season is wasted.  In the long run, it's far better to allow an open market for star players under any circumstances.  That way, owners who are rebuilding at least have the opportunity to get top dollar for their stars.

My vote: Reject.

Proposal #7: "The $72m Cap Rule."   There will be an in-season cap of $72 million on all team salaries.  This number will be derived from the full-season salaries of all players on each team's 35-man roster.  Salaries will NOT be pro-rated for players who are acquired mid-season.

Again, no matter what the cap is, I think we're better off allowing a free market for all players.  If our main concern in creating this proposal is that certain teams can improve themselves immensely without giving up much in future value, then passing this rule would contradict that purpose.

My vote: Reject.

Proposal #8: "The Paulson Rule."   Pitchers must be given at least three days of rest between starts. Any pitcher scheduled to start a game may not pitch in relief for at least three days before or after his scheduled start. This requirement only applies within each chapter and does not carry over from chapter to chapter. (In other words, a pitcher is allowed to start the last game of one chapter and the first game of the next.) This rule is self-governed by the opposing manager. If a human manager violates this rule, the opposing manager may force him to remove the pitcher immediately. If the violation occurs while the pitcher is being managed by an MP, no action shall be taken and no penalties shall be assesed. Any pitcher scheduled to start within three games of a scheduled game, who is managed by an MP, should be designated as "inactive" prior to the game by the visiting manager.

My biggest fear when the whole discussion surrounding this issue began on the forum was that the resulting rule would be so huge and complex, it would be virtually impossible to police.  As you can see, I think my worst fears have come true.  Generally, I don't like any rule that takes more than two sentences to explain.  The bottom line with this rule is that we must rely upon the opposing owner to police this rule and possibly make some roster moves before each series in order to ensure that it is followed.  I personally think this is too much work, and it won't be done unilaterally.

In the end, whether this proposal passes or not, Randy Johnson will still finish the BDBL season with 110-percent of the innings he pitched in the Major Leagues.  Whether or not some of those innings are pitched as a starter or in relief is irrelevant to me.

My vote: Reject.

Proposal #9: "The Pemberton/Riedling Rule."    Hitters with fewer than 100 at-bats, and pitchers with fewer than 25 innings pitched, will be ineligible for the 25-man (active) roster.

Like the "Traditional Glander Rule", this is another one of those proposals that I think deserves to be voted on until it passes.  I simply can't think of one good reason not to pass this rule if our goal is to be the most realistic DMB league around.  While it's true that Rudy Pemberton did bat .512 in 41 at-bats in 1996, and John Riedling did post a 2.35 ERA in 15 innings in 2000, not all of those 41 at-bats and 15 innings came in crucial game-breaking situations.  The most unrealistic aspect of our league is the fact that we all enjoy 20/20 hindsight.  When Pemberton's manager used him in 1996, he had no idea what the result would be.  If a BDBL manager were to use that same player, he already knows that he'll have a 50/50 chance of getting a hit.

Now, you can argue that this is true for every player we use, since all stats we use are a year old.  However, there's a big difference between pinch-hitting a .300 hitter and pinch-hitting a .500 hitter.  You're not likely to find a .500 hitter with 100 or more at-bats.  But the chances of finding a useful pinch-hitter with a handful of at-bats every year is pretty good.  And watching John Riedling strike out Jeff Bagwell eight out of eight times tends to snap me right out of my suspended disbelief.

My vote: PASS!!

Proposal #10: "The Back to the Future Rule." Allow unlimited free agent acquisitions after Chapters One, Three and Five.

The history of this rule is long and tortuous.  In the beginning, the BDBL allowed unlimited free agent pick-ups every chapter.  But some people (most of whom are no longer with us) decided that was too much work.  So after a ton of debate, we voted to limit unlimited pick-ups to only twice per year.  Then, last season, we voted to allow one free agent pick-up in the odd-numbered chapters.  Now, this year, our Transactions Secretary has generously offered to handle the ominous task of our original charter.

I don't know if this vote will pass or not.  I'm not even sure whether it will matter if proposal #3 passes.  But the offer was made, so I'm just following through.

My vote: Pass.

Submit your vote now!