exco

Gabe Hammad's blog. Gabe was a member between 2002-2015 and again in 2017. During his tenure, Gabe won the NL East in 2005-06 and the 2006 IBC Championship.

Moderator: DBacks

User avatar
Tigers
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Name: Ben L. Montgomery

Post by Tigers »

And last time I checked, ANYONE can sign a minor league deal.

That's actually not true. Only free agents can "sign a minor league deal".

If you trade for a player that is on another teams 40 man roster, you can't just "send him to the minors" or make him "sign a minor league deal".

You have to pass that player through waivers if you want to assign him to your minor league system and get him off your 40 man roster.
User avatar
Tigers
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Name: Ben L. Montgomery

Post by Tigers »

In thinking about this a little more, some of the difference of opinion is probably due to how we each view the draft roster and our overall pool of "free agent" players (ie. the player list).

Rather than each IBC team having its own expanded upper minor league system for AAAA players or guys who might get a fluke projection so a GM decides to sign them for a season, I think the IBC free agent list of players essentially acts as this larger expanded version of an upper minor league system for all the IBC teams.

In the MLB if you have a player in your minor league system that you want to play in the majors, you have to add them to your 40 man roster, which means you have to make a decision on whether or not to cut an existing guy on your 40 man roster. If you cut a player on your 40 man roster in the majors, he has to go through waivers (assuming he doesn't have options available still). In the IBC, if you add a player from the free agent pool to your 40 man roster to fill a spot, then you have to cut someone from your 40 man roster and they have to go through waivers.

Our "secondary" or more accurately described as our draft roster, has always been intended to only hold draft players, and represent more so, the lower levels of the professional minor leagues. It was never intended to included veteran major leaguers or AAAA type players on it.

I guess I just view our free agent pool in the IBC, as being a "combined" upper level of the minor leagues for AAAA type players and veterans who might have value at some point. If you want to control that player, then you as a GM has to make a decision to put that player on your individual 40 man roster. Yes, it may not be perfect, but IMO it promotes more player movement on the free agent market and can allow some of the teams that aren't stacked to pick up a few jems here or there.
User avatar
DBacks
Posts: 2085
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Rogers, MN
Name: Dave Mueller

Post by DBacks »

I just want to point out a few things.

First, I do completely understand what our "draft" roster is. When I refer to it as the "Secondary" its assuming for the sake of the argument that we were going to expand it to include more players. The two schools of thought here are that we could A) change the draft roster to a roster of 10 (or whatever #) non-sim players. The other is B) change the draft roster to be any ten players.

The problem with option A is that you could be like me this year, and have an 06 or 07 draftee, I had both, get a bad projection (when they had no business getting projections anyway) and you are then forced to waste 40 man roster spaces or cut them. That's what I'm talking about when I say it's a "punishment."

Also, I'm well aware of how the waiver system works in the MLB. It doesn't have an effect on what I'm talking about. I'm saying, (again all of this is assuming that we're making a change, and is for arguing option A against option B) that instead of making the "secondary" roster be non-sim players, we should make it ten players who are not eligible to be used during the season, regardless of whether or not they got projections.

You guys can disagree with me, and that's fine, but this argument does have merit... It allows you to keep those draftees that you have no intention of using, who might have somehow gotten projections. With the first option, you have to waste a 40 man roster space or cut them loose.

Also, your 40 man roster does not become a 50 man roster. There's no sending players up and down from your 40 to secondary roster. Its exactly the same system as we have with our inactive draft roster, except it includes anyone, no matter what the level they play at. It also helps with guys who are out for the entire season.

I understand that you can't "make a guy sign a minor league deal." But, as you said, any FA can sign a minor league deal. So if I pick someone up off the free agent list, why couldn't that be a "minor league deal"? Why does he have to go on my 40 man roster? What if he's a AA player who got a ridiculously useless projection? He still has to take a 40 man roster space when there's no way he sniffs the majors in the MLB or the IBC?

And, yes, I understand that the "Draft" or "secondary" roster was not meant for MLB players. But by changing it to simply "non-sim" status, you are eliminating eligibility for many of the young guys that the secondary roster was intended for. So, my argument to that, is that it should include anyone, they are just simply ineligible to be used during the season. It's pretty much the same system we have now with our draft roster spots, it just includes everybody in my idea, and a restriction on guys in the other plan.
User avatar
Tigers
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Name: Ben L. Montgomery

Post by Tigers »

I'm saying, (again all of this is assuming that we're making a change, and is for arguing option A against option B)

I understand where you are coming from a little more now. I'm arguing from the position that I don't see the need for a change, while you are arguing that option A is a better option than B, IF a change is made.

I see where you are coming from now. Your statements make more sense.


That said, I still think the current roster setup is best. No need to change it. 8)
User avatar
DBacks
Posts: 2085
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Rogers, MN
Name: Dave Mueller

Post by DBacks »

Yeah. The longer the argument went on the more appreciative I became of the setup we already have.
User avatar
Tigers
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Name: Ben L. Montgomery

Post by Tigers »

I understand that you can't "make a guy sign a minor league deal." But, as you said, any FA can sign a minor league deal. So if I pick someone up off the free agent list, why couldn't that be a "minor league deal"? Why does he have to go on my 40 man roster?

My response would be, because our free agent list, essentially operates as a "combined" upper minor league system for all the IBC GM's. If you want to sign a "free agent" our of that pool you need to assign him to your 40 man roster. If you don't want to, then he stays in that combined upper minor league pool of talent.

If you really wanted each IBC team to have the ability to "sign guys to minor league deals", then you'd need to create another 20-40 roster spots to represent each teams AA-AAA controlled affiliate, which would be a pool of players NOT on your MLB 40 man roster. That would essentially halt all waiving and signing of any minor league player in the IBC who had any level of talent what so ever.

I actually think the pool of free agent players in the IBC representing a combined IBC AA-AAA level of free agents, is a good way of doing it. Promotes the movement of lingering lower level prospects and AAAA type players throughout the league and then from time to time someone catches a break and a GM gets a nice find.

What if he's a AA player who got a ridiculously useless projection? He still has to take a 40 man roster space when there's no way he sniffs the majors in the MLB or the IBC?

There are lots of players on MLB team's 40 man rosters that never sniff the majors during the course of a season.
User avatar
Reds
Posts: 3404
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:00 am

Post by Reds »

[/quote]That said, I still think the current roster setup is best. No need to change it. 8)[/quote]

Agreed, my point was simply that one should not be changed without adjusting the other.
User avatar
Giants
Posts: 3461
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:00 am
Name: Jake Hamlin
Contact:

Post by Giants »

The only bummer about the current roster system to me is the Dominican bonus babies, when you draft one your probably committed to at least two years on top of his draft status where you have to stash him on your 40 man. Now that everyone is so into Dominicans I suppose an argument could be made that you can use draft spots on players under 20 in addition to your last two years of picks. That might make some sense (though granted I say that because I have two such players about to lose draft eligibility).
User avatar
Tigers
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Name: Ben L. Montgomery

Post by Tigers »

Athletics wrote:The only bummer about the current roster system to me is the Dominican bonus babies, when you draft one your probably committed to at least two years on top of his draft status where you have to stash him on your 40 man. Now that everyone is so into Dominicans I suppose an argument could be made that you can use draft spots on players under 20 in addition to your last two years of picks. That might make some sense (though granted I say that because I have two such players about to lose draft eligibility).


I'll be in that same boat next year, but I guess its a risk we take when drafting them. Makes a GM really commit to it long term if they want to go that route, which is probably good.
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

This was funny to read if only because it seems like half the time people weren't sure what the other person was talking about.
Locked

Return to “The Cub Hub”