Ten draft slots?

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:34 pm

Tigers wrote:As an aside to all of this, would someone tell me why - besides the fact that it's the way that Bren has always done it - we force people to have ten draft slots? This has always seemed to me like a case of having a rule for the sake of having a rule. I've never been in a league, other than IBC spin-offs, where we had this sort of restriction, and every league I've ever been in has drafts. Our GMs take the draft seriously enough as is. Especially if we're tightening down the active roster, why do we need to confine GMs so much? We have the best set of GMs that I've ever been involved with in a league. Why can't we just let them do their thing?

Cardinals wrote:BP I think what you've brought up should be a whole nother topic because thats a lot more important than forcing a team to carry catchers

Okay ...

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:51 pm

I would say I was previously indifferent, but for some reason, what BP said hit home and I'd say I don't see a problem with removing the restriction...if I remember, at some point we discussed this in the past, but I can't remember the rationale for having the 10 man draft roster.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:54 pm

Okay, I know people always throw a fit when it comes to expanded rosters, saying we need to keep it at 50, like we have now, with 40 being active and the rest being draft spots. Now as BP has stated, having to field 25 active guys can hurt a team thats in the early process of rebuilding and having to cut prospects in order to sign guys in the sim. What if we add 5 rosters spots for inactive players? Can be filled by draftees, 0 players or guys in the sim you want for insurance? To activate them you'd have to deactivate a guy from your 40 man, but how about we make the stipulation that in order to do that, you have to put the guy you're deactivating on waivers and if he clears you can keep him? That way it would be like designating a guy for assignment, and other teams could have a shot at him

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:55 pm

Also as an added bonus if we do decide to expand rosters, it would royally piss off Bren, which is always a plus

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:07 pm

Cardinals wrote:Okay, I know people always throw a fit when it comes to expanded rosters, saying we need to keep it at 50, like we have now, with 40 being active and the rest being draft spots. Now as BP has stated, having to field 25 active guys can hurt a team thats in the early process of rebuilding and having to cut prospects in order to sign guys in the sim. What if we add 5 rosters spots for inactive players? Can be filled by draftees, 0 players or guys in the sim you want for insurance? To activate them you'd have to deactivate a guy from your 40 man, but how about we make the stipulation that in order to do that, you have to put the guy you're deactivating on waivers and if he clears you can keep him? That way it would be like designating a guy for assignment, and other teams could have a shot at him

Eh, that's another separate argument altogether (roster expansion). Additionally, anything involving activation/deactivation, waivers, etc. just creates a lot of messy rules and situations, in my opinion. That being said, I don't really support roster expansion very much. Tough decisions are what good roster management is all about.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:20 pm

I am dead set against roster expansion. Life is about choices. The IBC should be the same. As for draft number restrictions? I say to hell with them. 25-active player requirement; the remaining 25 slots can go to anyone.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:31 pm

Twins wrote:I am dead set against roster expansion. Life is about choices. The IBC should be the same. As for draft number restrictions? I say to hell with them. 25-active player requirement; the remaining 25 slots can go to anyone.

If we're sticking with 50 total players, this is what I would support. I'd make the distinction of "database" players rather than "active" players so that it's clear, and obviously this part only applies to the regular season. Offseason is a 50 man free-for-all.

As far as our actions if someone does not comply, I think it's pretty simple. Once the season starts or at any point that it becomes an issue, the exco will add players from the DB to get the team up to an appropriate number and cut players to keep the team under the roster maximum. With our GMs, a quick warning should be plenty to get anyone who needs to to take action, I think.

But I think that provides enough uniformity that all teams look like real teams and will provide enough motivation to not completely sell out for prospects and completely ignore their major league roster, but still allows some freedom to collect the best assts that you can within your plan.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:45 pm

Now with this, are we saying that if you have a guy that you drafted that makes the sim, but you have no intention of playing him, he takes up a database roster spot instead of a draftee spot? Cause if I draft a guy that only played in A ball and he gets a .240/.320/.360 in 60 abs line, there's no chance I'm going to play the guy, and I wouldn't want him taking up a spot on my active roster, but I wouldn't want to cut him either

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:52 pm

Cardinals wrote:Now with this, are we saying that if you have a guy that you drafted that makes the sim, but you have no intention of playing him, he takes up a database roster spot instead of a draftee spot? Cause if I draft a guy that only played in A ball and he gets a .240/.320/.360 in 60 abs line, there's no chance I'm going to play the guy, and I wouldn't want him taking up a spot on my active roster, but I wouldn't want to cut him either

When you say "this" does that pronoun refer back to the 25-active out of 50 or the 10 draft slot discussion? With the 25/50 thing, I believe that the way to go would be to eliminate draft designations and have it come down to in the sim or not. In that case, if your hypothetical is in the sim, he could/would count as of the "active" players.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:56 pm

Twins wrote:
Cardinals wrote:Now with this, are we saying that if you have a guy that you drafted that makes the sim, but you have no intention of playing him, he takes up a database roster spot instead of a draftee spot? Cause if I draft a guy that only played in A ball and he gets a .240/.320/.360 in 60 abs line, there's no chance I'm going to play the guy, and I wouldn't want him taking up a spot on my active roster, but I wouldn't want to cut him either
When you say "this" does that pronoun refer back to the 25-active out of 50 or the 10 draft slot discussion? With the 25/50 thing, I believe that the way to go would be to eliminate draft designations and have it come down to in the sim or not. In that case, if your hypothetical is in the sim, he could/would count as of the "active" players.

Yep, there would be no downside to a draftee making the DB or being listed as active on your roster in the DMB DB, whether you care to play him or not.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:48 pm

Twins wrote:I am dead set against roster expansion. Life is about choices. The IBC should be the same. As for draft number restrictions? I say to hell with them. 25-active player requirement; the remaining 25 slots can go to anyone.

I can certainly support this with BP's comment ... During the regular season an IBC team is required to have a minum of 25 players in the DMB database and signed to a contract with a MLB organization and a maximum of 25 other players signed to a contract with a MLB organization.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:55 pm

I'm kind of lost as to what you all are talking about now. 50 man roster with minimum 25 "in-database" players and those are the only restrictions right?

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Dodgers wrote:I'm kind of lost as to what you all are talking about now. 50 man roster with minimum 25 "in-database" players and those are the only restrictions right?

Yes - right now you can have 40 of any type and 10 draftees ... this change would allow a GM to up to 50 players - of which NONE must be draftees. A team would still be able to have up to 25 draftees but would no longer be required to carry 10 draftees to have a roster of 50.

All none "in-database" players could simply be 0-players ... no need for 7- or 8-, etc.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:09 pm

Mets wrote:
Dodgers wrote:I'm kind of lost as to what you all are talking about now. 50 man roster with minimum 25 "in-database" players and those are the only restrictions right?
Yes - right now you can have 40 of any type and 10 draftees ... this change would allow a GM to up to 50 players - of which NONE must be draftees. A team would still be able to have up to 25 draftees but would no longer be required to carry 10 draftees to have a roster of 50.

Okay.

Mets wrote: All none "in-database" players could simply be 0-players ... no need for 7- or 8-, etc.

Right, though I think it would be best to keep them for some time just in case we decide to go back to the current rule?

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:32 am

Mets wrote:
Dodgers wrote:Yes - right now you can have 40 of any type and 10 draftees ... this change would allow a GM to up to 50 players - of which NONE must be draftees. A team would still be able to have up to 25 draftees but would no longer be required to carry 10 draftees to have a roster of 50.

All none "in-database" players could simply be 0-players ... no need for 7- or 8-, etc.
This seems to be the best way to make the whole roster rules thing blessedly simple.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:35 am

Assuming that we vote these roster rules in, when is the best time to institute them?

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:23 am

Right before or after the database is released? At the very least, not until the draft is done.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:02 pm

I'd recommend a week after the database goes out as a date when everybody needs to be at the 25/50 threshold. They can revert back to the ??/50 after the World Series.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:24 pm

Twins wrote:They can revert back to the ??/50 after the World Series.

I think I would prefer the 50/25 rule all year round to avoid the same problem we had earlier this year with how much time a team has to get under the limit if they happen to get in the situation where they are in violation. At the end of the 7 days after the database release, we'd have no recourse if they were in violation besides the options we didn't really want to have to do (force a release, etc).

I think really it's just a question of how to do it the first time and after that you must conform at all times.

Additionally, if we're simplifying the rules this much, I think it'd probably make sense to enforce it on trades as well, kind of like how our waivers are like and how most fantasy leagues do it--if you are at the limit and want to do a get 2 give up 1 trade, you have to say who you want to release/whatever BEFORE the trade can be passed.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:41 pm

Dodgers wrote:I think I would prefer the 50/25 rule all year round to avoid the same problem we had earlier this year with how much time a team has to get under the limit if they happen to get in the situation where they are in violation. At the end of the 7 days after the database release, we'd have no recourse if they were in violation besides the options we didn't really want to have to do (force a release, etc).

I think really it's just a question of how to do it the first time and after that you must conform at all times.

Additionally, if we're simplifying the rules this much, I think it'd probably make sense to enforce it on trades as well, kind of like how our waivers are like and how most fantasy leagues do it--if you are at the limit and want to do a get 2 give up 1 trade, you have to say who you want to release/whatever BEFORE the trade can be passed.

That sounds good to me.

And I'm definitely a fan of the trade limits--if we can make this a hard 50 cap, it'll make things a helluva lot easier.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:20 pm

Dodgers wrote:
Twins wrote:They can revert back to the ??/50 after the World Series.
I think I would prefer the 50/25 rule all year round to avoid the same problem we had earlier this year with how much time a team has to get under the limit if they happen to get in the situation where they are in violation. At the end of the 7 days after the database release, we'd have no recourse if they were in violation besides the options we didn't really want to have to do (force a release, etc).

I think really it's just a question of how to do it the first time and after that you must conform at all times.

Additionally, if we're simplifying the rules this much, I think it'd probably make sense to enforce it on trades as well, kind of like how our waivers are like and how most fantasy leagues do it--if you are at the limit and want to do a get 2 give up 1 trade, you have to say who you want to release/whatever BEFORE the trade can be passed.

I have an issue with making it 50/25 all year. Look at my team. I have no problem being over 25, because I have a bunch of guys who played MLB and AAA who weren't in the DB. Why is it fair to me (just for example) to make me carry a bunch of guys from last season's DB? Why is it necessary? I think we should just make the date where you have to have 25 be soon after the DB release so that there is no way that anyone is going to be under by the start of the season.

The recourse of dropping players would be vasty, vastly superior for someone like me. And again, I think that we need to give ou GMs some respect. We have like a month to get under once the DB is out. They'll get under, and if they don't, dropping players is very fair and not the end of the world if they are unable.

I just don't like having a rule for convenience when it can be very harmful to one's roster, which this would be for someone like me. It's worse than making me have ten draftees, frankly. I've planned all year so that I will have guys who will be in and/or good in the DB next year. I don't see the sense in making me worry about the previous database FIVE months after the season is over.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:25 pm

Fair enough.

The other question would be what the early deadline should be I guess. We stop inputting transactions August 31, so technically it could be then. Nobody would be harmed since even the playoff teams could make moves as it wouldn't affect their in-sim roster.

Thoughts on making that forced release a hard deadline and basing forced releases on the last player to be signed by the team?

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:16 pm

Dodgers wrote:Fair enough.

The other question would be what the early deadline should be I guess. We stop inputting transactions August 31, so technically it could be then. Nobody would be harmed since even the playoff teams could make moves as it wouldn't affect their in-sim roster.

Thoughts on making that forced release a hard deadline and basing forced releases on the last player to be signed by the team?

August 31st? I am not sure about this being a date where we allow expansion beyond the 25/50 as it could give an unfair advantage over a team that is in borderline contention and is trying to maintain a playoff roster if things break right ...

I am thinking more like 10/1 ... but I do need to think more about this ...

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:29 pm

I like 10/1 or the day after the regular season ends. The idea is that we want everyone to field a realistic, relatively competitive team, so we probably wouldn't want a team playing against one team in a playoff race to have cleared out his roster already.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:47 pm

No no, that's what I was saying. We don't put OOPSS transactions after August 31st into the DMB database, so effectively there wouldn't be any way to clear out your sim roster and it wouldn't stop playoff teams from making moves.