Roster Requirements

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:24 pm

It's been brought to my attention by multiple GMs that they'd like to see the number of active players required increased to 23-25. This obviously better mimics MLB, which is what we intend to do (to an extent).

One of the GMs is a rebuilding team and also suggested that, as a result, we increase the overall roster size.

Thoughts?

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:52 pm

Whatever the decision, can we coin this "The Brett Perryman Rule?"

Kidding...but I don't have strong feelings on this. I like mimicking MLB as much as possible, but what's the reason for wanting to increase the number of active players? And why increase the overall roster?

I think if we're going to mess with rosters we take up the larger issue of our draft roster requirements and overall expansion of rosters above 50, which several GMs tend to consistently bark about. I know several who want the draft requirement dropped and an increase in roster size so people have more flexibility to stash. If we're considering roster changes, should probably take it up as an overall issue and not just this small portion, I would think. But I'm open to ideas.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:57 pm

Tigers wrote:Whatever the decision, can we coin this "The Brett Perryman Rule?"

Kidding...but I don't have strong feelings on this. I like mimicking MLB as much as possible, but what's the reason for wanting to increase the number of active players? And why increase the overall roster?

I think if we're going to mess with rosters we take up the larger issue of our draft roster requirements and overall expansion of rosters above 50, which several GMs tend to consistently bark about. I know several who want the draft requirement dropped and an increase in roster size so people have more flexibility to stash. If we're considering roster changes, should probably take it up as an overall issue and not just this small portion, I would think. But I'm open to ideas.

As far as No. 1 is concerned there, increasing the required number of minimum players makes it a bit more realistic and makes teams slightly more competitive. If you have a 4-man rotation and 6 man pen, that meets the roster requirements, along with 10 hitters. Is a 10 man staff realistic? Not really. It's going to almost certainly result in most pitchers being tired most days of the week, which leads to 40 and 50 win teams.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:58 pm

I agree with your last point, though. Anything we do here should affect everything. Half-assing doesn't get us too far.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:00 pm

I think having 25 active guys should be required. Unless you have Mike Matheny as your manager and have the 8th reliever just for extra innings and no other reason, everyone uses 25 guys.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:31 pm

At times, I've had trouble fielding 25 guys when I've had many guys on the DL. So it might be worth considering looking at the DL with regards to roster composition too. I'm not a huge fan of expanding roster sizes so that rebuilding teams can have full active rosters while still stashing tons of un-simmable players. I think the roster makeup rules that we have now were intended to balance the need to participate in the league (field a team that can actually play games) with the ability to build for the future too (25 active is only HALF of 50 total, it's not like we're saying you only get 5 guys who don't sim).

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:26 pm

Forgive me for feeling persecuted and please don't take my comments too seriously, but...

It's funny. Guys like Bren and Nate blatantly broke our roster rules when they were rebuilding and I believe that I have followed our rules, but if I'm not wrong every roster rule change of this nature has been to force me to field more active players. The 10/10/20 rule was in reaction to me not fielding enough pitchers to be competitive right after I joined, and I think that was a good rule. Even though a number of guys have not had catchers over the years and we grumbled but never did anything, we had to pass a rule ON THE SPOT after last season began and I cut my catcher, and now we gotta change the rule so I can't carry so many nonroster guys.

In all seriousness, and especially since I'm on exco, while I don't think my approach has threatened the integrity of the competition and while I'm pretty sure that at least some of this is sour grapes because these guys and I are interested in the same guys and none of us have enough room to roster the guys we'd like to, I recognize that I'm basically taking Larry's side of the argument at 6:20 in this video http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsohfk and it's pretty dickish of me to maintain that I'm right and several others are wrong. So, I'm going to try to stay out of the debate as much as I can make myself.

The two things that I would like to state about it are that it would really squeeze the fun out of this for at least some of us if inactive roster spots are reduced. Aside from the fact that this seems reactionary, I hope that any increase in minimum active slots automatically comes as an increase in the overall roster, not at the expense of inactive spots. And, I hope that this sort of change would still be related to no more than 22 minimum during the playoffs. It's clear that no one is trying to tank or whatever you think is being gained by having 25, and as screwy as the engine is, reducing you roster limits the silly things it can do while simming. Or I guess you could demand that everyone H2H their playoff games but then I'd be bitter that you're subjecting me to Pat's excruciating gameplay.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:52 pm

I'm not ignoring your whole post, but I'm just going to point out that "subjecting me to Pat's excruciating gameplay" was like 5 years ago, the first time I played H2H. LOL I'm sorry you carried 2 relievers and I wanted to burn your bullpen. If the sim operated as it should, I would have taken more pitches and gotten there organically. But...I thought you were busy with work that week...hahaha. Finally the truth comes out!

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:55 am

To be fair I asked multiple times that we kick Bren out when he tanked and checked the site twice a year and nobody else would get on board

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:45 pm

OK, so what action do we want to take here?

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:44 pm

I still would like to consider this in a larger context. Meaning, considering upping rosters from 50 to 55, which would include everyone having to have 25 or more active roster (ie: projected) players at all times. My question on that would be: if you have 5 guys on the DL at once and only have 20 active, do you need to make 5 cuts and pick up five projected guys? But I think if we're going to change roster requirements, we look at the bigger issue. I know several guys who want more roster spots. That said, if we up the number of roster spots, I think a waivers system might need to be in place so there's not a free for all for the people who pay attention closely and then a two month lag for the Brennan and Brandons of the league.

Another thought is making the smaller change this year: 25 active required and then announcing rosters from 50 to 55 next offseason. Maybe that would provide some benefit to the rebuilders who want to stash prospects. Do we still agree with the draft roster requirement? (while we're here)

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:56 am

I like Pat's idea. I'm also in favor of the draft roster requirement. It mirrors MLB.

Is there any way, if we add the 5 spots, to make it have a stipulation? Right now we have the 40 man roster, but maybe the 5 guys you have aren't on the 40 man roster and if you want to move them up, you have to cut someone off your 40 man? That way prospect hounds aren't in danger of losing guys but say JP has someone that he's hanging onto as a designated pinch runner for September or you're stashing away some versatile guy that can't hit, if injuries force you to need to use them, you can bring them up but have to either cut someone or transfer another person off the 40 man? That may be too much of a pain to keep track of but just a thought

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:50 am

I'm fine with an incremental change. I do agree that making the rosters to 55 right now would be somewhat chaotic, and we probably need to have some sort of waivers draft to correspond, otherwise it's mass chaos.

Do we want to move to 23 actives for this season, look at how it affects the league and reassess throughout the season and next offseason?

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:33 pm

I agree making 55 a 2019 change makes sense and then we can plan on how to execute. I think an offseason draft would be kinda fun...a waivers draft of sorts.

I think we announce a 2-part roster change:

1) Rosters are required to have 23 active players for 2018
2) Rosters will expand to 55 for 2019

As an aside, is "active player" defined as just someone having a projection/not being used in a draft slot or does it mean someone having a projection/not being used in a draft slot and not on the DL?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:34 pm

An active player is somebody who is active on your manager profile for a simulated game.