Rosters

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:40 pm

A few things

- we probably should police the 40 man non draftee maximum post draft and make sure everybody has at least 10 draftees if they have 50 players. it'll be easier to do once the draft ends and all 5's are officially 0's in OOPSS.

- we also need to make sure that nobody is over the roster limit soon.

Additionally, a few people have brought it up to me so I said that I'd bring it up in here just because they ask me about it so much, but is there any chance now or in the future of expanding rosters by even 5 players to 55? Would we even want to look into that? Should we? Thoughts and concerns on this?

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:48 pm

I'm always in favor of expanding rosters. I'd be surprised if the league were in favor of it as a majority though. I don't have anything to urge in terms of raising or not raising the issue right now.

As far as the roster limits, I totally agree that we need to be paying close attention to that right now. I'm willing to do whatever, and I can run through the rosters and start e-mailing people tonight if it would help. I did look at some rosters a day or so ago and all of those that I looked at were okay. I assume that since this issue has been mentioned there are some infractions out there though. This isn't all that exhaustive of a thing to monitor, I don't think.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:40 pm

I was monitoring the overall number/cap (50) closely earlier this year ... I have not checked in the last week or so. When I found violations I quietly notified the appropriate GM and the situations were resolved in a timely manner.

I plan to do so again beginning this weekend and I will check on the draft status vs. non-06/07 issue as well. I expect some teams may have issues but I also think they should be allowed a reasonable amount of time during the off season to get the issue resolved.

If we pop the question to expand the roster I do not believe any expansion, if approved, should be effective until the end of the season. BTW - I would personally approve an expansion of the draft class by 5 ...

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:56 pm

I am completely opposed to expanding rosters further. Gm's that want to expand the roster only want to do so because they're unable to make the hard decisions about who to cut or who not to cut. Once we expand to 55, eventually they'll ask for 60. Then 65. Then 70. I know this because we used to be at 45. then people asked to expand by 5, just five more, that's all we want! I'm sure it's the same Gm's asking for 5 more again.
50 is plenty large for an active roster, reserves and a significant prospect system.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:03 pm

Agree with Bren (much as I hate to say it) about no on the roster expansion. We should probably issue a blanket reminder that people need to police their rosters (myself included, as I had a 3 for 1 trade that appears to have fallen through and now need to just cut guys), and let people know that at the conclusion of the 5th round 5 players will become 0 players and don't count for draft purposes and the ExCo will be checking.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:24 pm

RedSox wrote:I am completely opposed to expanding rosters further. Gm's that want to expand the roster only want to do so because they're unable to make the hard decisions about who to cut or who not to cut. Once we expand to 55, eventually they'll ask for 60. Then 65. Then 70. I know this because we used to be at 45. then people asked to expand by 5, just five more, that's all we want! I'm sure it's the same Gm's asking for 5 more again.
50 is plenty large for an active roster, reserves and a significant prospect system.

I am not adamant one way or the other about expanding the rosters. If we did it I'd like it and if we don't I don't really care.

I do find it offensive that because it is not in your line of thinking you have to put others down (see bold print above). Not all GMs that might favor expansion are unable or unwilling to make hard decisions - perhaps they simply feel they would like to be "rewarded" for the additional research they do to unearth players that typically get picked up by other teams when they are released. Make an arguement for your side without applying negative shit to fellow GMs and I would likely be better persuaded.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:32 pm

Jim, I make that argument from experience from the last time GM's lobbied for a roster expansion. I remember several GM's using that EXACT logic, that they had to cut guys they didn't want to cut, as why they wanted to expand. That's not negativity nor shit. It's FACT.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:32 pm

I think it's well-established that good strong logic is not Bren's strong suit. Asking Bren for logic in an argument is like asking O.J. if he'd please stop being a narcissistic sociopath.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:40 pm

FYI, I believe this would be the third time the IBC expanded by 5 players. Pretty sure we started out with a 35 man roster plus 5 draftees but I can't find my original roster to substantiate that.

*EDIT* just found it. 35 players plus 5 draft slots (which had yet to be filled). We expanded the draft roster after GM's claimed they didn't know they would have to either promote or drop players after each season and they didn't want to have to make those calls. The other expansion (I'm not sure which came first) was again because GM's found it too difficult to decide who to cut and because having a 40 man roster (with a farm system) like MLB has a 40 man roster seemed to make more sense. I found the latter to be a more reasonable argument than "it's too hard to decide who to cut".

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:00 am

I as well am opposed to expanding the rosters. As it is with 50 players now, we're basically just covering the top 10s of each teams in addition to a few younger prospects. I worry when we have the top 15 or 20s of every team signed that the "minor league" free agent market will nearly completely dry up. I have some other arguments but am real tired, if I need to elaborate I will, but I'd say with me and Bren against this isn't going anywhere.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:16 am

Dodgers wrote:... I'd say with me and Bren against this isn't going anywhere.

Agreed - Jake, Shawn and Bren make a solid 3 opposed so roster expansion is a moot issue.

I will monitor rosters for compliance again this weekend.

To my point, Bren, with your earlier post. You paint with too broad a brush. I will concede that some GMs may not want to make difficult decisions ... re-read your post and you will see you clearly indicated all GMs supporting roster expansion can't, won't or don't want to make difficult decisions. That, my friend, is BS.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:16 pm

No, I'd still break it down as to an unwillingness to have to make difficult decisions for those who really want it. Whether it's the difficult decision of who to cut or how long do I (or can I) watch this sleeper free agent in the low minors... expanding rosters is the easy answer to difficult questions.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:13 pm

At what point do 5 players officially become 0 players?

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:40 pm

I think when the draft officially ends (all teams done drafting) is enough.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:57 pm

Ken noticed six teams over the limit, with two unfortunately from the exco. I'll e-mail the other four but you guys please get under quicky so this doesn't look hypocritical.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:12 pm

Also, as of right now, the following teams would have more than 40 non-draft slot players once the draft ends and 5-'s change to 0-'s:

Angels, Cards, Indians, Rangers, Reds, Rockies