Roster Breakdowns/10 Draft Picks

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:38 pm

I don't want to distract from the discussion on draft pick trading so I'm posting a new thread here instead. Basically, I'm pushing to have the 10 draftee rule changed so that we can have whoever we want on our rosters. In the other thread, the majority of the people who responded to the topic were in favor of getting rid of the rule. In fact, I only remember one GM being opposed to it.

There shouldn't be any rules that "force" us to be interested in prospects. I don't like them, neither does Nils, and we both have championships, so obviously there must be something to our way of conducting business. Yes, neither of us are contenders this year, but there were years win former champs like Nick and Bren weren't contenders either. Everyone goes through cycles.

In the other thread I think I read that Top GMs like Nate, JB, JP, and Brett are all opposed to the rule. I'm very, very sorry if I'm wrong about that guys, don't mean to misquote you. Oh yeah, and me too. Is that enough pull to at least get a vote? Aren't a couple of these guys on the ExCo?

I think there's enough of a push to vote on this thing and get rid of this rule. It's a rule for the sake of having rules and it really blows.

Can I get a response from the ExCo?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:12 pm

yes, you can get a response.
No.
The spots are designated for draft picks and draft picks only. We have 40 man rosters (like mlb) and the draft spots serve as our minor leagues.

WhiteSox · Post by **WhiteSox** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:18 pm

I don't see what the harm is with having straight 50 man rosters. What is the difference if the GM wants to have 50 sim players or 20 active players and 30 prospects? I know a lot of people think 50 players is a lot, but in reality it is not. If you are trying to compete in the league and have a good farm system at the same time it is extremely tough.

There are also many more players coming into the league each year, from Japan and via the draft than there are players that are lost due to retirement. Granted not all of a team's prospects pan out, but at this rate we can't even give them a chance to establish themselves before we have to cut ties.

Keeping track of all the players used to be a pain in the ass, but with Shawn's system it is as simple as ever. I know there are a lot of players taken in the league already (30 teams*50 man rosters is 1500 players), but there are so many more coming into the league each year (via draft and international signings) than leave the game that we almost need to expand rosters by 5 or so players every year to deal with the influx of talent. This allows people like bren to have the draft rosters for all the GMs, but it also allows GMs like Gabe and others to have a little more flexibility in their rosters. And the best part it isnt more work for anyone, just the OPPSS. Seems like a win-win for everyone, although I know it will never happen.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:45 pm

RedSox wrote:yes, you can get a response.
No.
The spots are designated for draft picks and draft picks only. We have 40 man rosters (like mlb) and the draft spots serve as our minor leagues.

Right...and why can't I have whoever I want in the minor leagues? The minors are mostly young prospects, but there are also the filler guys there, the older vets taking up roster spaces and waiting for injuries to strike.

You really couldn't be more wrong about this. You could try to be, but you would not be successful.

If you're argument is that the 10 man roster is our minor leagues, it's really, really flawed. But I would expect nothing less. At the very least it should be 10 guys who are not in the sim. Basically, by limiting every GM to carrying 10 guys from the last two drafts you're assuming there's 300 prospects from those drafts worthy of a roster space. That's dumb. So, so, unbelievably dumb.

So far the vast majority of responses have been in favor of ditching the rule and we can't even get a vote? Seems real fucked up to me, especially when you consider who some of these GMs are - guys who have been here from the beginning.

I'd like to hear from the rest of the Exec Co, since apparently the league belongs to you guys now. I mean so far draft picking has become allowed without a league wide vote or even discussion.
The Nils penalty was resolved, something that was a major league issue, without anything being said to the league until it was done.
And now this idea is being shot down despite apparent support from the leagues core of GMs because Bren is opposed to it for reasons that are beyond retarded.

We can continue to alienate our core GMs, but it's only going to lead to trouble. Some of us might not be on the ExCO but our opinions should still matter, and when a lot of us want something to be reviewed - it should be reviewed. That's really not asking a lot. Who cares if Bren is opposed to it. Hell, if Bren is opposed to it, that should be a pretty big sign that it's the right thing to do.

I'm curious to hear what the rest of the Co has to say. How many of you does it take for us to get a vote on this anyway?

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:52 pm

I'm in favor of changing the rule as well--especially if one's draft class from atwo years ago matriculates quickly into the SIM...tweak the rule so that one team cannot have more than 40 SIM players on the roster, keeping in mind that no man's land of the 0-designates.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:46 pm

RedSox wrote:yes, you can get a response.
No.
The spots are designated for draft picks and draft picks only. We have 40 man rosters (like mlb) and the draft spots serve as our minor leagues.

I need an official ExCo ruling for this to be valid.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:01 am

Angels wrote:
RedSox wrote:yes, you can get a response.
No.
The spots are designated for draft picks and draft picks only. We have 40 man rosters (like mlb) and the draft spots serve as our minor leagues.

I need an official ExCo ruling for this to be valid.

That is the official rule. That's how the rosters are set.

Oh, btw, i'll be back in the MA area in 2 weeks, I'll be sue to drop off that bitch slap for you while I'm there.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:07 am

Oh, one other thing.

This request would mean a lot more coming from someone who hadn't been warned by the ExCo for violating said rule (which has been around for about as long as the league has been around) by having a full 50 man roster but only THREE draft picks.

We shouldn't have rules to force us to show interest in prospects? Wow, you mean MLB GM's don't have to have an interest or knowledge of prospects? MLB GM's don't get extra 40 man roster spots just because they ignore the minor leagues or have shitty systems.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:18 am

I'm totally on board with dropping the draft restriction on the last ten slots. I think that the rule probably had a place when it was instituted (as the restriction on trading the picks might have) and not that much of the league was in tune with lower level or new players. That is not the case any more. Almost everyone who is added to the league has expertise in all levels of pro ball.

You also had the "Rich" element that wanted tiny rosters, so maybe some compromises were necessary back then. Not any more.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:21 am

Gabe, you can't get a vote yet. We're giving you your chance to discuss, so discuss. I don't know where you and Nate were when it was decided to form the ExCo, I was under the impression that we had no need to involve the whole league in discussions and votes, in fact wasn't that the point. Everybody isn't going to like every ruling, but we can't selectively pick and choose when to support an ExCo and when not to.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:48 am

RedSox wrote:Oh, one other thing.

We shouldn't have rules to force us to show interest in prospects? Wow, you mean MLB GM's don't have to have an interest or knowledge of prospects? MLB GM's don't get extra 40 man roster spots just because they ignore the minor leagues or have shitty systems.

Again, your argument is flawed, but why should I expect any different. This rule doesn't force GMs to pay attention to prospects, because they can't fill it with whatever prospects they want. They have to fill it with spects from two specific drafts, which is idiotic to say the least. I should keep 4 guys from 06 when there are 3 guys from 04 and a guy from 03 more worthy of the spot? Thats stupid. So once you see that 200 best guys from those drafts are already taken, you kind of stop paying attention, thus negating the rule's apparent intentions.

I get the AA concept. What doesn't make sense is why it shouldn't be 10 guys who are not in the sim. There aren't 300 guys from the previous two drafts worth owning, there just aren't. So why force GMs to carry players not worthy of a roster spot? It's stupid.

And who cares if the argument is coming from me? It's also coming from JB, Nate, Brett, Jim, Andrew, you got issues with all of them too? If you don't give a fuck about my opinion, what about there's?

Shawn, what I'm wondering is when it goes from discussion to vote. You've got several GMs - me, JP, JB, Andrew, Jim, Nate, Brett, Dave, John...how many more do we need? That's almost a third of the league. And all of us know that half of the GMs in this league aren't going to pay any attention to this thing at all.

You've got your core here, the heart of the league, and all of us are saying we'd like the rule to change, and the only response we get is from the moron midget on the step stool yelling about how a rule is rule. The topic we bring up and voice our opinions on gets shot down instantly, but the topics we don't discuss get debated and ruled upon without us ever knowing it was happening. Is it really hard to see why some of us are a little irked by the system right now?

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of the ExCo and we got mostly the right guys on it, but if you guys aren't serving our interests what's the point? If we voice how we feel about something and it's shot down the way it was, what are we supposed to do? I was under the impression that you guys worked with us to see what the league wanted as a whole, and then made the final decisions. I didn't know that with the formation of the ExCo, 24 opinions suddenly became moot.

WhiteSox · Post by **WhiteSox** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:15 am

I know this has been said before, but the easiest thing to do is eliminate all number designations. Have all non-DB players become a 0- and then make it manditory for a GM to have a minimum of 10 players not in the DB. Or keep the numbers if you want, but change the rule to 10 non-DB players minimum.

With so many young international players on rosters that can't get a 5- or 6- designation, but are basically younger than a recent draftee GMs are getting handcuffed. And the point here is to have a farm system of the prospects you think are the best talents available, someone please tell me why they have to be 05 and 06 draftees... It makes NO sense!

Or just expand rosters, and you will have at least one happy GM!

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:44 am

The easiest thing to do is:

40 man "carded" roster
Up to 10 "uncarded" or created players.

If a team wants 40 man carded, and 5 or 6 uncarded...so be it.

Everyone is happy. If a new GM takes over a team, and can't use guys from the 40 man to trade to fill their farm if they want, then something went terribly wrong.

A handful of my guys for next year, are in the SIM (Perez, Accardo (who I just activated), Blanco, Dinardo, Gutierrez, Schroder). That's my "minor leagues". Why would I be penalized because they got projections?

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:01 am

I am in favor of adjusting the roster rule to read (in effect) a roster size of 50 with a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 40 players who must be in the SIM database. The remaining 10 to 25 slots may be filled with non- SIM ("0") players or any combination of SIM and non-SIM players that does not put a team's roster over a maximum of 40 SIM players in total.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:37 am

RedSox wrote:
Angels wrote:
RedSox wrote:yes, you can get a response.
No.
The spots are designated for draft picks and draft picks only. We have 40 man rosters (like mlb) and the draft spots serve as our minor leagues.

I need an official ExCo ruling for this to be valid.
That is the official rule. That's how the rosters are set.

Oh, btw, i'll be back in the MA area in 2 weeks, I'll be sue to drop off that bitch slap for you while I'm there.

Come by my house Bren.

184 Main Street
Somerset, MA 02726

Its a gray house with two trees in the front.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:19 am

I'm on my way to work, but as I have already proposed to exCo a few weeks ago, I was in favor of having the 40 man max for sim players stand and having the 10 players to be for players not in the database; not just draftees. That's been my stance all along and will remain my stance.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:12 am

It's a rare occassion when JP and I agree 100%...that alone should be enough to change the rule.

Astros wrote:I'm on my way to work, but as I have already proposed to exCo a few weeks ago, I was in favor of having the 40 man max for sim players stand and having the 10 players to be for players not in the database; not just draftees. That's been my stance all along and will remain my stance.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:40 pm

I have 12 (-5- -6-) players and 4 (-0-) players does the rule say we need exactly 10 or atleast 10?

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:03 pm

Brewers wrote:I have 12 (-5- -6-) players and 4 (-0-) players does the rule say we need exactly 10 or atleast 10?

The rule currently states that the 10 "draft pick" slots on your roster can only be -5 or -6 players. You can have more if you like, you just have to stash them (the extras) on your 40 man roster, which can hinder your roster depth if you are hit with injuries, but here is no rule stating a maximum. Unless of course you want to combine it with the view that you have to have at least 20 SIM eligible players on your roster so you can play games. Then you'd be looking at a maximum of 30 players that are not in the database (ie: -5, -6 and -0 players) being on your roster.

Then again, nobody has to fill out their 10 man draft roster, so you can have zero -5 and -6 designated players, but then you can only have a maximum of 40 players on your roster if none are designated -5 and/or 06 drafted players.

In the end, we have this discussion every offseason and the motive always is, GM's just want more roster space so they can stash more players / prospects on their roster without having to give up players / prospects. We could expand rosters to 50 total, regardless of designation this offseason and next winter you'd find people wanting 60 player rosters.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:01 pm

I don't usually chime in on matters involving prospects or their statuses (or stati? hmm.) I agree with getting rid of the 10 prospects from the last two drafts, but I don't think the basis for the extra 10 should be in the sim/ not in the sim. That just penalizes someone with guys in the upper minors more than the lower minors. Also, it's not something you can plan around going into the season, i.e. with some guys you can't be sure if they would make the sim or not. Once the projection disk comes out, how could you know before hand if you'll have a valid roster or not? While I don't agree with the "10 players from the last 2 drafts", it was at least something you could plan your roster around.

Maybe I should suggest an alternative to the in the sim/not in the sim difference, but can't think of anything. Just giving my 2 cents.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:17 pm

And as far as, when the ExCo makes a decision on changing this so GM's can stash more players on their roster, it doesn't make any sense to institute a limit based on whether players are "in the SIM" or not, as Nils notes, the SIM often includes prospects that had a good year at a lower level of the minors, but someone who you wouldn't expect to realistically be in the bigs that season.

The SIM's habit of including those players could screw up someone's roster planning.

When you make the change you might as well just go with a flat 50 player open roster and leave it at that. Simpler for tracking, planning, enforcing, etc.....and then next year we can just increase it to 55 without as much technical discussion.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:57 pm

Giants wrote:I don't usually chime in on matters involving prospects or their statuses (or stati? hmm.) I agree with getting rid of the 10 prospects from the last two drafts, but I don't think the basis for the extra 10 should be in the sim/ not in the sim. That just penalizes someone with guys in the upper minors more than the lower minors. Also, it's not something you can plan around going into the season, i.e. with some guys you can't be sure if they would make the sim or not. Once the projection disk comes out, how could you know before hand if you'll have a valid roster or not? While I don't agree with the "10 players from the last 2 drafts", it was at least something you could plan your roster around.

Maybe I should suggest an alternative to the in the sim/not in the sim difference, but can't think of anything. Just giving my 2 cents.

The 05/06 rule keeps said players that make database on your 10 man draft roster until you use them in a game as far as I understand, so thats irrelevant.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:57 pm

Dodgers wrote:Gabe, you can't get a vote yet. We're giving you your chance to discuss, so discuss. I don't know where you and Nate were when it was decided to form the ExCo, I was under the impression that we had no need to involve the whole league in discussions and votes, in fact wasn't that the point. Everybody isn't going to like every ruling, but we can't selectively pick and choose when to support an ExCo and when not to.

I was under the impression that despite the formation of the ExCo, league input would still be welcomed and valued, instead of serving their own agenda and self interests...

I didn't know the point was to conduct league business and rewrite league policy/rules without ANY input or discuss from anyone outside the elite council -- a major change from how anything in this league has been done in the past.

I mean no offense Shawn, yer a good guy, good GM, been here forever, put a ton of your time and effort into getting the IBC to where it is today.. heck, a lot of us have.

But it just seems to me that I can remember a lot of us voicing displeasure when Bren would come to a decision on seemingly large policy changes and directives and institue the change without any discussion with the league. I'm simply kinda miffed that this seems to be happening again, under a "committee". I like the ExCO, I think its a great idea.. but I think everyone not in the exco roundtable should still be heard by the exco on offical league matters(such as pick trading, roster stuff, rule changes, etc..) before the ExCo goes and makes a policy change.

Otherwise, what the fuck is the point if the "monster" has 1 head, or several?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:25 pm

'Scuse me, but draft pick trading wasn't anywhere on my agenda, nor a self-interest issue.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:48 pm

I'm curious who the rule, as it stands now and has for 5+ years, is exactly hurting aside from the few GM's who are two goddamn lazy to follow the rules?