Rosters

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:50 am

I like Kelly's idea of a roster freeze penalty...this should mean no MP's imported, no trades, etc.

This also solves any issues with the TRC having to police these.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:16 pm

Unless I'm missing some draftees on his roster that made the database, Mr. Taylor (Angels) has 49 players on his roster and only 7 draft picks, thus making him two over the 40 man limit on his 40 man roster, yet he's out claiming guys right and left on the waiver wire.

A good fix in OOPSS would seem to be, if you are over the roster limit on the 40 man, that OOPSS would lock your roster from being able to sign and claim players until you were back under the limit. Just an idea.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:59 pm

Not a quick fix, but nonetheless one that is in the works.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:04 am

WHY THE FUCK IS THIS NOT BEING LOOKED AT???

These teams are breaking the rules, not only before Bren made the announcement but also for a week now since he did. I know Bren didn't want to call anyone out, but fuck that this is ridiculous. JP and I lost draft picks for breaking a rule from which we got no advantage, this is actually giving an advantage and nothing is happening to these teams.

Angels
Blue Jays
Cardinals
Rockies
Yankees

WTF is going on here?

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:11 am

So my roster is wrong just because I dont have 3 draft picks from the last 2 drafts on my team?

I have 47 players,

25 active
15 inactive
7 draft

problem?

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:40 am

Giants wrote:WHY THE FUCK IS THIS NOT BEING LOOKED AT???

These teams are breaking the rules, not only before Bren made the announcement but also for a week now since he did. I know Bren didn't want to call anyone out, but fuck that this is ridiculous. JP and I lost draft picks for breaking a rule from which we got no advantage, this is actually giving an advantage and nothing is happening to these teams.

Angels
Blue Jays
Cardinals
Rockies
Yankees

WTF is going on here?

Nils, in some of those cases the only problem is, for example, a 6- player being listed as Active on the Cards. This needs to be fixed, but he doesn't look like he is cheating or breaking rules. Having said that, I'll go through today and double-check everyone, and we'll get everyone in line.

WhiteSox · Post by **WhiteSox** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:55 am

Call me out all you want Nils, but I have 9 draft spots currently. I am waiting the outcome of the appeal, if it passes I have ten. If it doesnt the moment it does not I will get under the roster limit. I should at least be afforded that luxury. I had the appeal at the TRC as soon as I had word my deal was vetoed, I cant help it if the poll doesnt get posted asap.

It isnt my fault the TRC doesnt want to pass a deal involving Kyle Davies and Esmailyn Gonzalez, i know the impact on the league if that passes is going to be huge for both of our teams. This AA rule is out of hand and honestly this poll will show that. There is no way this deal should be vetoed. And if it is it should show the IBC that there is a flaw in the current AA ruling system.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:50 am

I hear you, but my point is the rule isn't "Try to keep 40 man max roster of non-draft players. If you find yourself over the limit, take your time and work it out." The rule is you have a 40 man max roster of non-draft players, period. I don't understand why everyone wasn't forced to abide by the rules right away, especially without some kind of penalty. Yes the AA rule is a pain, but I don't feel you should have enven been allowed to get to this point to fix your roster.

I know Little Napoleon Bren isn't around to pass out penalties anymore, but I wish this league could just get some consistency. Enforce the rules or don't.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:59 am

I've got to agree with Bren, er Nils, here. I'm where I should be now but I was over the limit and figured that nothing would happen - and it didn't. That can't be the mindset of this league. An MLB team can't "hope" that the MLB won't notice they're over the 40-man limit. It should be a HARD and FAST rule. You forfeit any games played over the 40 man limit. In the off-season, you can't make ANY moves that don't directly deal with the 40/10. These shouldn't be cool options - Shawn, is there anyway to not allow any more then 40 non-draftpick players on a roster?

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:00 am

Yea Z, I'm currently working on it. Like I said, not a quick fix, but I'm hoping to have it done late today.

WhiteSox · Post by **WhiteSox** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:10 am

The thing that people are overlooking in my case here is that I had Ian Kennedy with no games played in the sim (at the time of this) ready to go back on my 07 draft class roster for the time being until i could sort shit out, but that wasnt an option. The guy had no sim time logged, but yet couldnt be on my draft class, can someone tell me how this makes any sense?

And in the offseason it is totally different. Everyone knows who the 06/07 draft class is and can adjust it to have any ten guys they want. However, the problem happens when the 06/07 sim change over that happens right when the projections are released messing with everyone's draft class. There needs to be a grace period in place to let teams sort that out. It is only fair.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:21 am

I was told that as long as I only had 25 active men on the DB, and under 40 there, the OOPPS count doesn't mean shit.

I'm not going to activate and deactivate players on both my MP and OOPPS everytime I make a roster move...(2-3 times a week in some cases).

I'm not sure I see the advantage that I'm supposedly getting from this:
Roster Size: 50
Active: 36 (25 active in the database)
Inactive: 3
Draft: 11

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:35 am

Yankees wrote:It isnt my fault the TRC doesnt want to pass a deal involving Kyle Davies and Esmailyn Gonzalez, i know the impact on the league if that passes is going to be huge for both of our teams. This AA rule is out of hand and honestly this poll will show that. There is no way this deal should be vetoed. And if it is it should show the IBC that there is a flaw in the current AA ruling system.

I still don't understand why the TRC should be required to rule on a trade involving a player you shouldn't even have on your roster to begin with. But if the leaguewide vote chooses to allow it to go through because it has been turned into a quasi referendum on the AA rule then great. It was a nice way to redefine the initial problem.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:36 am

Nationals wrote:
Yankees wrote:It isnt my fault the TRC doesnt want to pass a deal involving Kyle Davies and Esmailyn Gonzalez, i know the impact on the league if that passes is going to be huge for both of our teams. This AA rule is out of hand and honestly this poll will show that. There is no way this deal should be vetoed. And if it is it should show the IBC that there is a flaw in the current AA ruling system.
I still don't understand why the TRC should be required to rule on a trade involving a player you shouldn't even have on your roster to begin with. But if the leaguewide vote chooses to allow it to go through because it has been turned into a quasi referendum on the AA rule then great. It was a nice way to redefine the initial problem.

The TRC's job is to be the judge of talent.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:42 am

Pirates wrote:
Nationals wrote:
Yankees wrote:It isnt my fault
The TRC's job is to be the judge of talent.
and the ExCo's job is to enforce the rules, how about they start doing it.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:45 am

Nationals wrote:
Pirates wrote:
Nationals wrote: and the ExCo's job is to enforce the rules, how about they start doing it.
If the TRC did it's and based the trade off of talent, there would be no problem here.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:51 am

Anyway we could go in circles for hours about this and it will get us nowhere so I am not going to bother arguing it anymore. Will just see what happens with the appeal and proceed from there.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:53 am

Pirates wrote:
Nationals wrote:
Pirates wrote: If the TRC did it's and based the trade off of talent, there would be no problem here.
The AA guideline/rule still exists and the violation predates the trade. Therefore if the roster rule was enforced there likely would have been no deal because a player would have been cut. I'm done with this POS issue. If your not going to enforce the rule just say so, that way when I need to manipulate the roster in the same way I can point to this occurence as a precedent.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:11 pm

Davies would have been cut?

He sucks, but worth a spot on the 40 man for most teams.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:32 pm

Pirates wrote:Anyway we could go in circles for hours about this and it will get us nowhere so I am not going to bother arguing it anymore. Will just see what happens with the appeal and proceed from there.

If the deal is allowed by appeal the rosters should be legal before it is allowed to be processed.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:47 pm

Dave, you're right, sorry. I had looked at the rosters last night before you released Braden.

See guys? Dave proves it's really not that hard to get your roster correct.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:59 pm

Giants wrote:WHY THE FUCK IS THIS NOT BEING LOOKED AT???

These teams are breaking the rules, not only before Bren made the announcement but also for a week now since he did. I know Bren didn't want to call anyone out, but fuck that this is ridiculous. JP and I lost draft picks for breaking a rule from which we got no advantage, this is actually giving an advantage and nothing is happening to these teams.

Angels
Blue Jays
Cardinals
Rockies
Yankees

WTF is going on here?

On my way to lunch, but Cardinals have a legal roster. 9 6's or 7's + Antonelli who is inactive on the database and never appeared in a game.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:05 pm

You know, if you're gonna go around accusing your fellow GMs of cheating at least have the courtesy to research and make sure you're right first.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:14 pm

OOPSS fixed. If total roster size minus draftees > 39, you can't sign anyone.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:45 pm

[quote="Cubs"]You know, if you're gonna go around accusing your fellow GMs of cheating at least have the courtesy to research and make sure you're right first.[/quote]

I did check. I assumed Antonelli was on the active roster, an incorrect assumption. I had to sepnd more time on it than I wanted to because a lot of people couldn't spend 2 minutes to make sure their players' roster status was correct. And I would call it more "calling people out" than accusing. Accusing usually means there is some kind of consequence, which we all know there isn't in this case...