Rosters

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:11 pm

I'm not sure this is the thread to continue bringing this up in, however since it has already been brought up, what the hell. I continue to believe the TRC continues to mis-interpret the AA rule the way it is written and the intention when it was adopted.

13. As trading commodities, players with little or no experience at AA or higher will be viewed with lower value when traded for players at AA or higher owing to the high attrition rate as prospects move from the low minors to the high minors. (per leaguewide vote, 12/05, in exchange for looser trade standards involving established players).

The rule does not state that prospects, especially highly rated ones, below AA will have "ZERO" value, which is the impression I am getting from what I've seen from the TRC and discussions over the past couple months.

The rule was put in place to manage the value of the below AA guys who had gotten way out of whack and were being valued higher than some very good everyday MLB players.

The way the rule is written and the way it was intended, if I am not mistaken was to "LOWER" the value of lower level prospects back down to a reasonable level, but was never intended to make prospects below AA level have "NO" value, which is where I think it is being interpreted now.

I think everyone just needs to keep some perspective here and go back and re-evaluate the way they are interpreting the AA rule.

That is all.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:12 pm

Mariners wrote:I'm not sure this is the thread to continue bringing this up in, however since it has already been brought up, what the hell. I continue to believe the TRC continues to mis-interpret the AA rule the way it is written and the intention when it was adopted.

13. As trading commodities, players with little or no experience at AA or higher will be viewed with lower value when traded for players at AA or higher owing to the high attrition rate as prospects move from the low minors to the high minors. (per leaguewide vote, 12/05, in exchange for looser trade standards involving established players).

The rule does not state that prospects, especially highly rated ones, below AA will have "ZERO" value, which is the impression I am getting from what I've seen from the TRC and discussions over the past couple months.

The rule was put in place to manage the value of the below AA guys who had gotten way out of whack and were being valued higher than some very good everyday MLB players.

The way the rule is written and the way it was intended, if I am not mistaken was to "LOWER" the value of lower level prospects back down to a reasonable level, but was never intended to make prospects below AA level have "NO" value, which is where I think it is being interpreted now.

I think everyone just needs to keep some perspective here and go back and re-evaluate the way they are interpreting the AA rule.

That is all.

Yep.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:42 pm

yep, I knew that rule was designed to have wiggle room...just not some of the others. Looks like the problem will be corrected going forward (thanks Shawn).

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:15 pm

Just to follow up, since Nils showed a great deal of concern over everyone's rosters, all rosters but the Yankees are legal. There are some teams:

St Louis
Colorado
Arizona
San Diego
Toronto
Texas
Minnesota

that have not fixed errors in their Change Roster Status page, so these GMs need to fix their rosters so that they have no more than 40 non-draft players on their summary and/or so that the correct players are in draft slots. However, all of these teams are legal according to our roster rules.

We are awaiting one more vote on the trade appeal involving the Yankees.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:08 am

I will fix my roster now, but I will not double fix it over the course of the season, every time I submit a DB. I have a habit of calling guys up from the minors for a spot start, then sending them down, and this will be quite burdensome for the roster status page.

Guys with "draft" designation will never change for me though.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:19 am

The inactive/active status really doesn't matter. It's just the draft/inactive-active split that matters.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:20 am

I realize this is probably going to make me sound like a dick - but any chance we can get Bren's information off the memberlist page? He's not in the league anymore and we need to wipe the slate clean and keep pushing forward...we also need to find another GM to take over his team ASAP...

There should be no wait right now - where are we on looking for candidates? We haven't seen an email from the Ex-Co, so I'm assuming you guys are doing the heavy-lifting on finding one?

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:41 am

I'd be happy to make a recommendation.

I know a couple of championship caliber veteran GM's. 2 of which are ironically Red Sox fans, but they'd join understanding that they'd probably wind up in Arizona, or another division after the season.

Cubs · Post by **Cubs** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:37 pm

Tigers wrote:Just to follow up, since Nils showed a great deal of concern over everyone's rosters, all rosters but the Yankees are legal. There are some teams:

St Louis
Colorado
Arizona
San Diego
Toronto
Texas
Minnesota

that have not fixed errors in their Change Roster Status page, so these GMs need to fix their rosters so that they have no more than 40 non-draft players on their summary and/or so that the correct players are in draft slots. However, all of these teams are legal according to our roster rules.

We are awaiting one more vote on the trade appeal involving the Yankees.

I fixed this, didn't realize we were keeping track on OOPSS this way.

I'd like the ExecCo to review the inability to have a draft slot taken by a guy who gets a usable projection in the SIM. This is acting as a penalty for GMs who draft well. I don't understand the need for that rule especially with the roster status thing in OOPSS (nice work Shawn).

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:39 pm

I think that's a good point. We'll bring it up.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:43 pm

BlueJays wrote:
Tigers wrote:Just to follow up, since Nils showed a great deal of concern over everyone's rosters, all rosters but the Yankees are legal. There are some teams:

St Louis
Colorado
Arizona
San Diego
Toronto
Texas
Minnesota

that have not fixed errors in their Change Roster Status page, so these GMs need to fix their rosters so that they have no more than 40 non-draft players on their summary and/or so that the correct players are in draft slots. However, all of these teams are legal according to our roster rules.

We are awaiting one more vote on the trade appeal involving the Yankees.
I fixed this, didn't realize we were keeping track on OOPSS this way.

I'd like the ExecCo to review the inability to have a draft slot taken by a guy who gets a usable projection in the SIM. This is acting as a penalty for GMs who draft well. I don't understand the need for that rule especially with the roster status thing in OOPSS (nice work Shawn).

I thought the rule was that a draft player could stay on the draft roster, even if he has a projection in the SIM, however you just can't keep him on the draft roster if you use him on your active roster in the SIM, which makes sense.

If you use the guy in the SIM, then he's really not a "draft" player anymore. If you don't use him in the SIM, then he can stay on your draft roster for as long you want to keep him there, under the two year rule.

Just having a usable SIM projection doesn't preclude you from being able to keep a player on your draft roster though.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:53 pm

An easy way to solve this...which has been discussed before, but never implemented:

40 Projectable guys, max.
10 'uncarded' slots max (additional uncarded will count toward your 40 man slots)....not exceptions, no attention to what year they were drafted...

A team should be able to have more than 10 'uncarded' players as long as they never clip 50 man rosters...

What's the difference of a HS pitcher drafted in 2006, vs. a College pitcher drafted in 2007?....If neither makes the SIM, they should be treated equally....whereas, anyone who does make the SIM, good projection or not, could have to be protected on the 40-man.

MLB teams have to protect prospects on their 40-man all the time, or lose them to waivers.

I guess this is just a suggestion to lose the -6, -7 or -0 designation.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:17 pm

A nightmare once the new projection disks comes out. Especially with how terrible DMB has been lately, it makes it even harder to predict who will make the disk and who doesn't.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:22 pm

Well, not lose the 0-...just make all created players 0-

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:32 pm

I'm saying what happens if most of your guys get projections? By current rules, draftees that get projections can still be saved on your draft roster. You'd be changing it so that that would not be possible.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:35 pm

Rockies wrote:Well, not lose the 0-...just make all created players 0-

The issue that Shawn is referring to is the roster scramble that would take place very season when the SIM projection comes out and you find out you Low A prospect that you just drafted the prior season is all of a sudden in the SIM and thus you have to figure out who you are going to cut from your 40 man roster to make room for that 1st round draft pick from the prior you.

It would become a big mess the day the SIM projection came out and would/could hurt GM's planning of their roster just by a stupid decision by DMB.

The 40 carded, 10 non-carded roster system would cause more headache than it would be worth, IMO.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Mariners wrote:I thought the rule was that a draft player could stay on the draft roster, even if he has a projection in the SIM, however you just can't keep him on the draft roster if you use him on your active roster in the SIM, which makes sense.

If you use the guy in the SIM, then he's really not a "draft" player anymore. If you don't use him in the SIM, then he can stay on your draft roster for as long you want to keep him there, under the two year rule.

Just having a usable SIM projection doesn't preclude you from being able to keep a player on your draft roster though.

Correct!

Cubs · Post by **Cubs** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:35 am

Mariners wrote:
If you use the guy in the SIM, then he's really not a "draft" player anymore. If you don't use him in the SIM, then he can stay on your draft roster for as long you want to keep him there, under the two year rule.

Just having a usable SIM projection doesn't preclude you from being able to keep a player on your draft roster though.

I disagree with this. If a guy was drafted/signed in one of the draft years he should be treated just like the HS pitcher who's ten years away from the show. A GM shouldn't be required to have extra draft picks on his roster if he has draft picks who are SIM ready.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:28 pm

It's not about having players on the roster, its about using guys. In the MLB if you want to use a guy, it doesn't matter when he was drafted he takes a 25 man roster spot. If you don't want to use the guy he stays in the minors.