A Couple of Ideas Regarding Rosters

[Giants]

First the hardcore business one: The idea of what constitutes a competitive roster is not clearly defined enough by the rules, as we saw with Brett P. last week, and I think we should do a little bit to clarify what is required to have on your roster to avoid the appearance of tanking. Right now the rules say 10 hitters and 10 pitchers, which I think we should more specifically amend to include having 2 players with catchers projections on the roster because of the severe hit in performance a catcher takes if he plays 162. I also think we should consider requiring teams to have at least one reliever who doesn't suck ass, the logic being that a team could conceivably tank by having only young pitchers with minimal lousy projections in its bullpen, which would be good for an extra X number of losses. I know mandating roster stuff is always controversial, but I think we should definitely consider it.

Second the fun one: I'd like to sound the league out on the idea for next year of making future Hall of Famers who get projections but are not playing eligible. We've already got sim nobodies playing important roles in this league (see DiFelice, Mark), and I think it would make the league more fun. I can also make a realism argument: Seattle, desperate for a hitter, just signed the legendary Tagg Bozied to play 1B/DH vs. lefties. In real life, if Seattle was looking for a DH would they be more likely to sign Tagg Bozied or Mike Piazza/Sammy Sosa?

Just to make clear, I'd only be in favor of this for guys who are likely to be in the Hall of Fame/multi time All-Stars or MVP/Cy Youngs. Also guys who retired due to injury would not be eligible. So like this year the eligible guys would be Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza, Sammy Sosa, Craig Biggio, while guys who were very good but not elite like Reggie Sanders, Steve Finley, or Sandy Alomar would not be. The ExCo would make the determination when projections come out at the beginning of the season which guys would qualify, and if a questionable player (e.g. potentially Jim Edmonds this year) were to lose his job and not be able to hook on with another team a leaguewide vote excluding the GMs in the division that player plays in to avoid bias. The other positive side effect of this rule is that it is likely to increase the value these veterans a bit more, and maybe we won't be getting the Curt Schillings of the world given away. Obviously it can't go into effect this year because the two big beneficiaries are Pat with Bonds and JB with Clemens, and the last thing we need to do is make either of those teams stronger. But one year wonders are here to stay, and I think it makes for a better league if those one year wonders are Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds rather than Jon Van Every and Mark DiFelice.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Dodgers]

I'm not much of a fan of either of these proposals.

First, the second proposal, I don't like it because it extends retirement for some players. Having just dealt Maddux, it's a perfect example. If he projects next year, but isn't playing, why should he be able to play? Just for the fun of it isn't enough of a reason and frankly I can't think of an idea that would rationalize it.

Second, the first proposal. There's no way to ever surely know that someone is tanking. Mandating any number of specific rules regarding it is just going to prove to be a quagmire to enforce. I have no problem with the addition of a 2 catchers rule, but unless we have some way to penalize against it, there's no use thinking up new rules that we can't enforce.

[Padres]

I appreciate the thoughtfulness Jake put into these suggestions but I believe I feel similar to Shawn on these proposals. Specifically the second proposal is one that might be fun to try in some league somewhere - but it is not consistent with the intent and practice of the IBC. And, I do agree, that it places a different on older players then the is the current practice. It is an interesting idea, but not one I would support in this league.

Tanking is something I feel very strongly about --- if I feel someone is tanking I will approach that GM whether I am on the ExCo or not to explain why it appears that that particular GM is tanking. Trust me --- if I am not satisfied with the response and subsequent action I will take it with the ExCo. I do favor implementing an amendment to the rules requiring a team to have two active catchers. In the end though tanking is subjective and something that will likely need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

[Giants]

I wasn't expecting much support for number 2, just thought I'd throw it out there and see if it stuck. Two catchers is the big one for me, if we get support for that and nothing else I'm happy. As far as enforcement of that rule, the penalty is the same as having an illegal roster. Set it right or the ExCo will do it for you.

[Rangers]

It's probably not appropriate for me to comment on my specific situation, other than to say two things: one, I let the fact that Holliday and Kotsay went on the DL slip and I shouldn't have, and two, Jake, anyone who has watched what I've done for the last few years in this league and isn't smart enough to recognize that it has nothing to do with tanking is a complete numskull.

As far as the situation in general, I think that the way that we have the rules set up currently are fair, though I didn't recall that we'd actually added the fact that a team has to have an active catcher, as I was forced to. I guess I support this (not sure that I see the drastic effect in sims that JP and Jake seem to); I just didn't know that it had been officially added to the rules.

The rest of this, we're talking about stuff that comes from the perspective of someone who doesn't have any interest in building his roster with young players, because anyone who can relate to that understands how these suggestions are punitive measures to hamstring those guys under the guise of fearing "tanking," which is nonexistent in our league.

Like Jim said, cheating with the intention of "tanking" is not cool and shouldn't be tolerated, as we all agreed last summer. But it's obvious when it's happening, and I just don't get your witchhunt on this, Jake.

[Giants]

Brett, it's not about witch-hunting you from me, it's that other GMs have complained about it (you not having a catcher) and it's an easy fix. Also Holliday and Kotsay going on the DL is completely irrelevant to the fact that your team didn't have a catcher on the roster.

[Giants]

So it's 3-1 on two catchers it sounds like. JP where are you?

[Rangers]

So it's 3-1 on two catchers it sounds like. JP where are you?

The only logical way we can expect everyone to have two ACTIVE catchers at every moment is if rosters are expanded. Every time someone who could care less about his farm system suggests something that should "mirror" real life, they conveniently forget that in real life they get to carry 200+ players and a 15 man taxi squad in addition to all of their other prospects. If you guys are going to go to these sorts of requirements, we HAVE to expand rosters so that guys can meet your stringent requirements and still build a team.

I'm in two other sim leagues and have been in several others, and I've never been in a league that required two catchers, even ones that allowed larger rosters ot required 25 active (while allowing extra players to fill those DL spots of course).

[Giants]

You've got to be kidding me. It's such a massive imposition that you can only have six 17/18 year olds on your roster instead of five? How can we claim any modicum of realism if we're saying that a team would play 162 games with the same catcher. If we are requiring teams to have quasi-realistic rosters out there (which the rules do require), then the most basic way to enforce that is having 2 catchers. What difference is it going to make if we expand rosters to 51 exactly?

[Rangers]

It's such a massive imposition that you can only have six 17/18 year olds on your roster instead of five?

Well, at least your disdain for my and others' approach of building with prospects is illustrated clearly.

If we are requiring teams to have quasi-realistic rosters out there (which the rules do require), then the most basic way to enforce that is having 2 catchers.

Okay, I want every roster have at least two left handed relievers on their roster. How the hell are we supposed to believe that anyone is even attempting realism if they can't even match up in a simple lefty-righty situation like real clubs do by carrying enough LOOGYs?

Furthermore, every roster must have a bench player eligible at every position. What major league team doesn't even have a bench player who can cover every spot? How can we claim any modicum of realism if we can't even effectively cover left field with at least one bench player?

Not only that, but if both of your lefty relievers gets hurt, screw you, you have to waste two more of your roster spots and sign two additional lefties, because that's the only way we can feel like we're being realistic.

So when, like I have, you have five, six, seven of your guys on the DL, screw your attempt to develop a roster. We need pristine realism!

[Cardinals]

I don't think we should be making any roster rule changes during the middle of the seasons, I think that would be worse than a DL change. That's my input until I read the rest of the thread carefully.

[Giants]

It's such a massive imposition that you can only have six 17/18 year olds on your roster instead of five?

Well, at least your disdain for my and others' approach of building with prospects is illustrated clearly.

If we are requiring teams to have quasi-realistic rosters out there (which the rules do require), then the most basic way to enforce that is having 2 catchers.

Okay, I want every roster have at least two left handed relievers on their roster. How the hell are we supposed to believe that anyone is even attempting realism if they can't even match up in a simple lefty-righty situation like real clubs do by carrying enough LOOGYs?

Furthermore, every roster must have a bench player eligible at every position. What major league team doesn't even have a bench player who can cover every spot? How can we claim any modicum of realism if we can't even effectively cover left field with at least one bench player?

Not only that, but if both of your lefty relievers gets hurt, screw you, you have to waste two more of your roster spots and sign two additional lefties, because that's the only way we can feel like we're being realistic.

So when, like I have, you have five, six, seven of your guys on the DL, screw your attempt to develop a roster. We need pristine realism!

Building with prospects is fine. I've got two 17 year olds on the roster myself, everyone knows that you build with prospects. But you have to put a team on the field, the goal of this league isn't who's going to have the best team in 2015. Read my power rankings and everything I've written, I absolutely respect GMs who build through youth. But there's gotta actually be a team, otherwise what's the point of simming. No team in real life has less than 2 catchers. There are several teams with fewer than 2 lefty relievers, in fact the Yankees have none. Also, you don't get to make the "what if they get injured argument" when you didn't have a single catcher on your roster. It's one thing to put out a crappy team, it's quite another to put out an unrealistic one (like say one that has Mark Kotsay catching and Scott Feldman playing left field), because that affects everyone else's experience. Having no catcher or a tired catcher markedly affects results in a way that having no lefty relievers does not. Even if major league teams were forced to operate under our roster restrictions every single team would have two catchers. I really don't get why you're taking this so personally. Build your farm system however the fuck you want, but the GMs in this league are in the league for sim results, not to collect prospects, and teams not having 2 catchers severely affects these results in ways no other position does. If you want to have every 17 year old in baseball go join a 200 roster spot league.