Discussion - Roster rule changes

[Dodgers]

Question... Are there a lot of teams under the proposed 25 man minimum? I'm not sure I understand the point, why penalize a rebuilding club that may be at 23 or 22.

I think you should just have to field a full 1-9 and staff. Don't see a need to enforce 25 database players.

A club at 22 or 23 is a weaker team in terms of competitiveness, positioning etc. In a league where draft picks are such coveted and valuable commodities, carrying fewer than 25 could easily be seen as an attempt to game the system. Also, 25 really isn't that many if you think about it. Starting 9, rotation, closer, 2 setup men make 17, then should probably have at least a backup infielder, outfielder and catcher and a long reliever and mopup guy. Now we're at 22. And that's not considering most of those bench bats probably won't play all 3 outfield positions or all 4 infield positions How much of a big deal is another reliever or two and a bat or two? Especially in the NL, where that's kind of a big part of the game.

[Giants]

As for the other point you raised, teams that are in rebuilding mode would snap up everyone under 18 who had an interesting DSL season and see what they turned into. Meanwhile the contending teams would stash everyone of value from the free agent pool, I understand and have come around to that point as well. I'm not saying it's a terrible idea or that the league wouldn't function if the rule was changed, I'm just saying that there's no compelling reason to make the change, and that this new system would have different faults that were equally obnoxious as the current draft system so the advantage of making a switch is mitigated.

Isn't this kind of the point? Bad teams get a chance to get some good players?

Consider it this way regarding the DSLs: under the current system, you get 10 shots at carrying these guys for 2 years for FREE. Under the new system, you don't get any freebies, as their spot could be utilized by ANY other player.

Maybe I'm just not seeing it in your arguments, but I don't see the faults of the new system.

You're the one who wants to make a big ass change, therefore shouldn't the onus be on you to prove why making the change is worth the effort?

[Dodgers]

Sure, but if you're going to say there are obnoxious faults, and use such a provocative adjective, the onus is on you to show me what the hell you're talking about.

[Giants]

What I said was that the faults of this system were equally obnoxious as the faults of the current system. Since I'm equating them (and for the record they are: allowing a few teams to stash all the Dominicans and sit on them and allowing a few teams to sign all the moderately useful players in the free agent pool vs. the cost of draft slots), you can use whatever adjective you want, I don't really care. The point is that it hasn't been demonstrated to me (and almost everyone else who's replying in this thread) that this new system is a marked improvement on our current one, and if it isn't then there really is no point in making such a fundamental change.

[DBacks]

The point is anybody can sign whatever they want. You want to sign Dominicans? Sign them. You want to sign 30 year old utility IFs? Sign them. And, it eliminates having a two year roster window on draft picks. The window forces a GM to use a valuable 40 man roster space after two years on a guy who might not even make the SIM yet. If we're going to have this extra area of the roster for ten players, they should be whichever ten players fit best into that GMs plans.

[Tigers]

The point is anybody can sign whatever they want. You want to sign Dominicans? Sign them. You want to sign 30 year old utility IFs? Sign them. And, it eliminates having a two year roster window on draft picks. The window forces a GM to use a valuable 40 man roster space after two years on a guy who might not even make the SIM yet. If we're going to have this extra area of the roster for ten players, they should be whichever ten players fit best into that GMs plans.

Actually, the purpose of the change, from what I can tell, is just to add ten more roster slots to the major league roster, because 40 apparently isn't enough and GM's don't want to be forced to make a decision on a young player that is taking longer to move through the lower minors. This change will reduce free agent player movement and will allow GM's to stash young players on their rosters for 3-4 years without any penalty.

Eliminating the draft slots, essentially, just opens up everyone's roster to 50 spots.....sign whoever you want.

Next thing you know we are going to be expanding rosters to 60 and 70 spots.

[Dodgers]

ExCo has discussed expanding rosters several times in the past year and every time it has lacked the necessary support.

[Tigers]

ExCo has discussed expanding rosters several times in the past year and every time it has lacked the necessary support.

And the proposed roster change would be the alternative for the time being. Expands the rosters from 40 to 50, so GM's would now be able to carry 50 SIM eligible players if they wanted to.

[Rangers]

The point is anybody can sign whatever they want. You want to sign Dominicans? Sign them. You want to sign 30 year old utility IFs? Sign them. And, it eliminates having a two year roster window on draft picks. The window forces a GM to use a valuable 40 man roster space after two years on a guy who might not even make the SIM yet. If we're going to have this extra area of the roster for ten players, they should be whichever ten players fit best into that GMs plans.

Actually, the purpose of the change, from what I can tell, is just to add ten more roster slots to the major league roster, because 40 apparently isn't enough and GM's don't want to be forced to make a decision on a young player that is taking longer to move through the lower minors. This change will reduce free agent player movement and will allow GM's to stash young players on their rosters for 3-4 years without any penalty.

Eliminating the draft slots, essentially, just opens up everyone's roster to 50 spots.....sign whoever you want.

Next thing you know we are going to be expanding rosters to 60 and 70 spots.

Why do you use the term major league in connection with those last ten spots? Our roster rules do not mirror MLB 40-man rules. We get two years before guys must be moved, not four. Since you are making this correlation, I assume that you would at least be in favor of making those roster spots available to players for four years after their signing date, since that is the spirit of the rule?

[Tigers]

The point is anybody can sign whatever they want. You want to sign Dominicans? Sign them. You want to sign 30 year old utility IFs? Sign them. And, it eliminates having a two year roster window on draft picks. The window forces a GM to use a valuable 40 man roster space after two years on a guy who might not even make the SIM yet. If we're going to have this extra area of the roster for ten players, they should be whichever ten players fit best into that GMs plans.

Actually, the purpose of the change, from what I can tell, is just to add ten more roster slots to the major league roster, because 40 apparently isn't enough and GM's don't want to be forced to make a decision on a young player that is taking longer to move through the lower minors. This change will reduce free agent player movement and will allow GM's to stash young players on their rosters for 3-4 years without any penalty.

Eliminating the draft slots, essentially, just opens up everyone's roster to 50 spots.....sign whoever you want.

Next thing you know we are going to be expanding rosters to 60 and 70 spots.

Why do you use the term major league in connection with those last ten spots? Our roster rules do not mirror MLB 40-man rules. We get two years before guys must be moved, not four. Since you are making this correlation, I assume that you would at least be in favor of making those roster spots available to players for four years after their signing date, since that is the spirit of the rule?

Actually, our rules allow for essentially, three years, since our draft isn't until most of these players have at least half a season in the minors before our draft happens. So really, the majority of them are three full seasons into their professional careers before GM' have to make a decision.

Lets quit with all the sugar coating here. The only thing that is really being proposed here is an expansion of the existing 40 man rosters, so GM's can carry more SIM eligible players and GM's can stash non-SIM players on their deep roster for longer periods. Plain and simple that is what the proposal boils down too.

Thus if you think it is better for the league to allow less player movement through free agency/waiver wire, and it is better for the league to allow GM's to have more roster spots to stash players for years on end, then you are in favor of the proposed rule.

If you think that isn't a good thing for the league, as a whole, then you'd be agains the proposal. That is pretty much what I think this whole discussion boils down to.

[Padres]

ExCo has discussed expanding rosters several times in the past year and every time it has lacked the necessary support.

I was/am in support of submitting the current proposal to the league for disccussion, although I doubt, very much, that it will materially effect the way I personally use roster spaces if it is adopted.

I do not support expanding the total roster beyond 50 ... as far as I am concerned this is simply a discussion of a proposed amendment of the roster structure within a total cap of 50 player slots.

[Tigers]

Why do you use the term major league in connection with those last ten spots?

I guess I didn't include a response to this part of your question.

I use the term "major league roster" in connection with those last ten roster spots, because the current prosposal makes those last ten roster spots eligible to hold major league players.

Tell me if my interpretation of the proposal is wrong. My understanding of the proposal, is that the last ten roster spots would now be available to be used on any player a GM wanted. Lets take Gabe for instance, no offense intended Gabe but we know how much you like draft picks and draft designated players, Gabe would now be able to trade all of his draft designated players and have 50 players that were SIM eligible on his roster.

Thus, in the IBC, GM's could now have a 50 player major league roster if they so chose.

Is this not a correct interpretation of the rule change?

[Rangers]

Why do you use the term major league in connection with those last ten spots?

I guess I didn't include a response to this part of your question.

I use the term "major league roster" in connection with those last ten roster spots, because the current prosposal makes those last ten roster spots eligible to hold major league players.

Tell me if my interpretation of the proposal is wrong. My understanding of the proposal, is that the last ten roster spots would now be available to be used on any player a GM wanted. Lets take Gabe for instance, no offense intended Gabe but we know how much you like draft picks and draft designated players, Gabe would now be able to trade all of his draft designated players and have 50 players that were SIM eligible on his roster.

Thus, in the IBC, GM's could now have a 50 player major league roster if they so chose.

Is this not a correct interpretation of the rule change?

It's not an incorrect interpretation. It's a mischaracterization. Why not call all 25 of the roster spots that don't have to go to active players "draft" slots? After all, you can put draftees in them. (EDIT:) Just to illustrate this, how many guys have 40 database players on their rosters? Those are the only ones for which it's fair to chracterize it that way.

At any rate, we're just rehashing the same issues. I think those of us who are commenting understand the rule change and are comfortable with our positions.

[Tigers]

Why do you use the term major league in connection with those last ten spots?

I guess I didn't include a response to this part of your question.

I use the term "major league roster" in connection with those last ten roster spots, because the current prosposal makes those last ten roster spots eligible to hold major league players.

Tell me if my interpretation of the proposal is wrong. My understanding of the proposal, is that the last ten roster spots would now be available to be used on any player a GM wanted. Lets take Gabe for instance, no offense intended Gabe but we know how much you like draft picks and draft designated players, Gabe would now be able to trade all of his draft designated players and have 50 players that were SIM eligible on his roster.

Thus, in the IBC, GM's could now have a 50 player major league roster if they so chose.

Is this not a correct interpretation of the rule change?

It's not an incorrect interpretation. It's a mischaracterization. Why not call all 25 of the roster spots that don't have to go to active players "draft" slots? After all, you can put draftees in them.

At any rate, we're just rehashing the same issues. I think those of us who are commenting understand the rule change and are comfortable with our positions.

Yes, but you aren't changing THAT PART of our roster rules are you now? You can carry 25 draft players right now on your roster, so the proposed change doesn't affect that at all. So that isn't even worth mentioning in this discussion. The discussion should be focused on exactly what you are proposing to change.

The part you are proposing to change is the part that limits the number of SIM eligible roster spots to 40. You are expanding that to 50.

The other section of our roster rule that will be changed by your proposal is that GM's would now be able to keep drafted players in, what is currently our 10 player draft roster, for an unlimited number of years. This will eliminate a portion of the player moment that takes place every season when GM's have to decide if the player they drafted two years ago is worth moving to their 40 man roster and taking up a spot for another year or two. If not, they have to waive that player which makes more players available in the free agent market in the upcoming season if any of those players happen to end up having break out seasons.

Those are the two areas of our current roster management that will be impacted by the proposed change.

Whether you believe it is a change for the better depends on how you personally want to manage your roster. The proposed change will obviously benefit some GM's more than others, as most rule changes typically do.

[Astros]

I don't think this is going to drastically alter the free agent pool. Sure, Gabe will cut all his draftees and sign a bunch of utility guys and relievers with good splits, but none of those guys will see action until September. Do you think every GM is going to do that? Some GMs will probably cut a couple of draftees they're on the fence about for guys that would be useful to their teams this year, but losing the Jason LaRues and Jason Pridie's of the world isn't going to destroy the free agent pool

[Rangers]

It allows those who would like to keep more than 40 database players to do so. How many teams will typically do that, two? The thought behind the change (and I can say this because I'm the one who broached it, and I have no intention of keeping more than 40 database players) is to allow guys to build their rosters however they see fit. Fot those who don't like prospects, they don't really have to deal with them. For those that do, they don't have to confine themselves on what types of prospects to keep. As I said above, when you have good GMs you don't need as many rules to keep the field level. I think that is the case in this league now.

There isn't some kind of sinister intent involved in allowing more freedom. I have 14 draft players right now, so I would see maybe as little direct benefit as anyone in the league. I just view it as an unnecessary rule. I respect the fact that some would think that it isn't a positive change, and it very well may prove to be something that the league doesn't want, but it's not targeted at helping any one sort of GM style.

[Tigers]

I don't think this is going to drastically alter the free agent pool. Sure, Gabe will cut all his draftees and sign a bunch of utility guys and relievers with good splits, but none of those guys will see action until September. Do you think every GM is going to do that? Some GMs will probably cut a couple of draftees they're on the fence about for guys that would be useful to their teams this year, but losing the Jason LaRues and Jason Pridie's of the world isn't going to destroy the free agent pool

I'm not sure it is so much those guys, but more so the international teenage signings.

One example from my roster: I'll have to make a decision on Pedro Baez after next season. He struggled a bit with full season ball, but went back to SS and put up a solid year. He has light tower power and strong defensive skills at 3b but still has trouble chasing pitches out of the strike zone. So he goes back to Low A next season and has a decent year. He'll still, more than likely, be two seasons from providing any help in the SIM, thus I'll have to make a decision on whether he is worth moving to my 40 man roster at that point or waiving him. If I chose to waive him and someone else, who may be in more of a rebuilding mode, has 40 man roster space available, can pick him up and may end up picking up a nice little gem.

In addition, where I think it will play, is with drafted pitchers who undergo TJ surgery early in their professional career. It take a committment to keep them around on your 40 man roster, when in most circumstances a GM will probably waive that player rather than move them onto their 40 man roster. The proposed change would allow GM's to keep that player in those extra 10 roster spots now for as long as they chose, thus eliminating the need to make a decision on the player.


Will this "drastically" change the free agent landscape? No, I don't think anyone is suggesting that. What is being discussed is, whether or not the minor benefits that some GM's will receive from the proposed change are worth restricting player movement even more?

Like I've said, I don't think the proposal is horrible, I just haven't heard a convincing (at least sufficient to convince me) arguement on why the proposed change is more beneficial to the league as a whole. My take thus far is the proposed change will benefit a select few GM's more so than it will benefit the league as a whole.

[Royals]

For those who don't like prospects, they don't really have to deal with them.

See, the thing is, dealing with prospects is kind of important whether a GM likes it or not. Rules don't just add restrictions and keep the field level, they add complexity and depth to the game. The 10-man roster rule is far more about depth and complexity than it is about fairness or leveling the playing field.

For those that do, they don't have to confine themselves on what types of prospects to keep.

No one is confined. Designating every slot for a specific type or level of player would be confining. There's a ton of flexibility within the rosters as they're currently established. Are you occasionally going to have to make a tough choice? Sure, but tough choices are part of the challenge of playing a game. Do I keep player A or player B? Trade Park Place for 3 Railroads? Do I go for the Triple word score now because it's available and my opponent might use it, or play my letters someplace where I'll get more points?

I just view it as an unnecessary rule.

Very few rules are 'necessary'. others enrich the game.

[DBacks]

Can we stop with this "dealing with prospects is important" stuff?

I get it. I'm the only one who doesn't like to deal with them. And quite frankly, no, I shouldn't have to. I don't want to hear this "in the MLB" argument. Running an MLB team and running a sim team are two different things. And, if we were like the MLB, then I'd be able to sign any player I wanted who agreed to a deal.

Also, the prospect angle is not fair. It's just not. It gives those of you with the money, resources, and subscriptions HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, advantages of those of us who do not. You keep claiming that changing this rule would work to my advantage, while ignoring that the current system largely plays to the favor of those of you with those subscriptions and access to information. But I get it, you have the egde, why give it up?

And, please, if those of you out there are going to continue to talk about the way I run my team in such a negative manner, the least you could do is acknowledge that it works. Last time I checked I had a banner at the top of the page, too, so let's not pretend the only way to win around here is by dealing with prospects.

Here's what it boils down to...

The current system - Allows prospect hounds to run their teams the way they want to, but does not allow those of us who don't have the time, money, or resources to deal with them to run our teams the way we want to.

The new proposition - Everyone can run their team however they want.

I vote that we all get to run our teams the way we want. The league is not going to fall apart if myself and the few others like me are finally able to run our teams our way. And since it seems that most of you think its such a stupid philosophy to begin with, what are you worried about?

I understand the points some of you have made. Like Ropers says he's just not convinced it's neccessary, and I get that. I, however, do feel very strongly that our GM quality is high enough that we can remove these restrictions that have been widely acknowledged as unneccessary.

[Dodgers]

The other section of our roster rule that will be changed by your proposal is that GM's would now be able to keep drafted players in, what is currently our 10 player draft roster, for an unlimited number of years. This will eliminate a portion of the player moment that takes place every season when GM's have to decide if the player they drafted two years ago is worth moving to their 40 man roster and taking up a spot for another year or two. If not, they have to waive that player which makes more players available in the free agent market in the upcoming season if any of those players happen to end up having break out seasons.

This player movement will still have to happen. You will still have to clear spots if you want to draft someone the next year. A decision will still need to be made on these players every offseason.

[Giants]

Not in the same way by any stretch. The decision essentially would become is so and so more likely to be useful than a 5th round draft pick, rather then is so and so more likely to be useful than my third lefty reliever. The current system means you have to choose between two players with immediate value, meaning that whoever gets cut adds to the depth of the free agent pool. Under the new system you're keeping your guy or your drafting someone who's years away, which doesn't add significantly to the free agent pool.

[Dodgers]

Wait, so you guys are bitching about the DSL players being able to be stocked away and now you're bitching that useful players won't be put into the free agent pool? Seems to me like you're either going to get DSL players or useful players but not both.

[Giants]

I was responding to your argument that people would have to make cut decisions around the draft anyway. And the truth is that we aren't going to end up either with DSL players or useful sim guys in the pool, we'll end up with neither. The Gabe's of the world will sign all the useful sim guys, and the Jag's of the world will sign all the DSL'ers. This system seems to discourage a balanced approach to building your team because the advantage would be to exploit one talent pool or the other, while the current system at least has some semblance of forcing you to do both by paying attention to the draft and then making decisions on prospects vs. bench players.

[Tigers]

Wait, so you guys are bitching about the DSL players being able to be stocked away and now you're bitching that useful players won't be put into the free agent pool? Seems to me like you're either going to get DSL players or useful players but not both.

I wouldn't call it bitching, I would call it stating our view of the proposed rule change. Its no more "bitching" than calling what you guys are doing, "bitching" about the current system. Its a discussion regarding the pros and cons of the proposed change and whether or not it actually does make the league better.

If you don't agree with our view of the proposed change, fine, I don't expect everyone to agree with my view point. However, I can say one thing is for sure, when asked and often even when not asked, I'm going to throw my opinion out there.

These kind of comments though, sure don't do anything to support the proposal or change my mind that the proposed changes are better for the league. That's for damn sure.

[DBacks]

Saying that there won't be talent to sign is ridiculous. What about all of these draft picks that everyone loves? You think everybody is just going to cut all their picks? If they do, then there's plenty of draft guys with upside to sign. For every veteran someone signs for that 10 man roster, a prospect becomes available. Every team still has 50 guys. All we're doing is making rosters easier to manage by eliminating the draft statuses and giving GMs more freedom.

If I and whoever else decide to sign higher minor league guys (because there is more info on them readily available) and bench guys, there are ten extra draft picks and prospects in the pool who weren't there before.

I think saying that there will be nothing available in the FA pool and assuming that roster movement will slow is incorrect. I think trading becomes easier because pieces are easier to move and rosters are easier to manage, and I think FA signings and drops become just as steady if not more frequent since as guys impress or disappoint over the course of a season they can be signed or dropped more freely.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that this will decrease roster activity. There's just as much of an argument that it will improve roster movement as there is that it will hinder it.