IBC

Again, I think that this zips bidding thing (only being able to fill spots 51-55 with guys won in zips bidding) should only be for this winter. I just want to make sure that we're in agreement on that.

On the restriction, I think that once a roster is posted if a player on it wasn't bidded on, people should be able to add them to zips roster spots. I don't the the point in being more restrictive than that.

Rangers wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:39 pm Again, I think that this zips bidding thing (only being able to fill spots 51-55 with guys won in zips bidding) should only be for this winter. I just want to make sure that we're in agreement on that.

On the restriction, I think that once a roster is posted if a player on it wasn't bidded on, people should be able to add them to zips roster spots. I don't the the point in being more restrictive than that.

What do you think we do next year, though? The zips roster goes away? Or you have to fill it each year w/ zips guys but no restrictions in-season?

I don't like being overly restrictive, either. But the point of this roster is to force teams to roster guys who have projections to ensure active roster compliance and to hopefully field more competitive teams. I just don't want teams to sign zips guys and there be nothing in place to prevent them from instantly dropping for 16-year-olds. I think we need some teeth to it to make sure it is executed as intended.

Tigers wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:49 pmWhat do you think we do next year, though? The zips roster goes away? Or you have to fill it each year w/ zips guys but no restrictions in-season?

I don't like being overly restrictive, either. But the point of this roster is to force teams to roster guys who have projections to ensure active roster compliance and to hopefully field more competitive teams. I just don't want teams to sign zips guys and there be nothing in place to prevent them from instantly dropping for 16-year-olds. I think we need some teeth to it to make sure it is executed as intended.

The teeth are there already. 25 active up from 20, which during the season will require 30+ at times. All the zips thing does in subsequent years is force people to drop back down to 50 right after the season. That's not teeth, it's unnecessarily overcomplicated.

25 up from 20 isn't teeth. I don't think many teams really struggle with having 20 active players. But if we're going to drop rosters to 50 right after the world series, that will be helpful. Will also make trading a little tougher as teams are already looking at cuts for the draft. Will be interesting to see how that plays out.

JP: can you do kind of a recap of what we're proposing since we've been kicking around multiple ideas?

This, I think, is the crux of what we are proposing for the 2019 season:

• Rosters will expand to 55 for the 2019 season. At present time, we are keeping the draft roster intact.
  
  Instead of a mad dash to get to 55, we are going to keep rosters at 50 legally speaking, and we will use the ZiPS bidding system as an auction draft to add players over the offseason. This encourages managers to participate in ZiPS bidding and makes the offseason more interesting.
  
  When ZiPS bidding has concluded, players will be able to be added and dropped off the 55-man roster as managers deem fit.
  
  All teams must have 25 active players all season long.
  
  In the offseason, rosters may be constructed however a manager deems fit, provided they adhere to the draft roster rules.

Step 2 will require Shawn to create a separate ZiPS bidding section for this offseason so we don't lose track.

I think that is correct?

I think this is correct and I vote in favor.

I am in favor as well.

I vote yes

Yep

Voted via text to JP but I'll confirm my Yes vote

I guess we need to finalize the penalty system before the season starts?

Yes, we 100% need to.

Initial poposal:l for discussion:

First offense of not meeting the roster standard: written violation on the board with requirement to fix within one day
If not fixed within a day, manual roster fix by JP to address the deficiency
If the issue persists, JP addresses the issue directly with the owner.
If there continues to be a problem unaddressed, I suggest the escalator is dropping the last uncarded player acquired via free agency to be replaced with a carded (non dl) player to address the issue. That's a little extreme, but if we give five spots and teams are deliberately in non compliance, I'm not that sympathetic.

works for me

I think we should escalate faster. If your roster isn’t in compliance when it’s time to sim, transactions are reversed until you are.

Dodgers wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:40 pm I think we should escalate faster. If your roster isn’t in compliance when it’s time to sim, transactions are reversed until you are.

I'm ok with that. I tend to be heavier handed than some care to be. JP and I were chatting briefly about the mechanics of who gets picked up. I think we can go by who has the best era/avg (depending on the position of shortage) to be picked up on behalf of the last uncarded player added. Seems to make sense. I'll let JP chime in with that.

Almost always, the user who would be shorthanded is not trying to win. Let's use John as an example.

John picks up three prospects, cuts a couple sim guys/vets. He's at 23 in mid-May because of injury. We would then reverse the most recent signings and then pick up the best eligible (healthy) sim player for that team. Really easy to identify on my end.

I think one warning and a time frame of "fix in the immediate future" and then right to the cuts is fine with me.

That's a little extreme, but if we give five spots and teams are deliberately in non compliance, I'm not that sympathetic.

I would just like to remind that we didn't make things easier by adding the five roster spots. We actually made it harder because by adding five roster spots and requiring five more carded players the only thing that changes is that you have more guys who may go on the DL at one time. So it's not like there should be a connection between the rule change and expecting more of people.

That said, no issues with the types of things you're talking about.