Roster Breakdowns/10 Draft Picks

[Royals]

One other thing...
It seems to me that the only thing changing the rule will do is make it easier to be a member. Less difficult, less complex, less in-depth.
Personally, I always took pride in the fact that this league was complicated, that it wasn't easy, that our GM's have to go the extra mile in order to compete because there are a lot of factors to consider.
This isn't some shallow 12 team fantasy league, it's the IBC, suck it up you pussies.

[DBacks]

You take pride in making shit complicated? Wow. Suddenly your whole reign as commish makes a lot more sense. Why do what everyone wants? That would be easy! Fuck easy. Complicated is where it's at. That's what all the cool fantasy baseball nerds do. They make shit complicated.

You keep saying "Few GMs" as if a third of the league hasn't already voiced frustration with this rule. Are you just ignoring them all? That's a pretty big number, especially when you consider how many GMs actually pay attention to the day to day business of the league.

All of us have made our points and they are valid. So valid, in fact, that there haven't been any logical arguments posted against them yet.

This is dumb. Why does this have to be a fight? I really don't understand it. At least 10 veteran GMs have said they would like the rule to be changed. A 10 man roster of guys not in the dbase.

There are a million reasons to do it and zero reasons not to. So let's get it done. This makes no sense. Why do we have to make everything so damn complicated? This makes draft pick trading easier, this gives GMs more freedom to run their team the way they want, and it still requires the GMs to manage a minor league roster. Why are we not doing this?

The rule change has support. Tons of it. And it's all coming from the right place, our core GMs. These other guys come and go and we all know that, but the core of us who have been here through thick and thin want this rule changed. So, ExCo, let's change it.

Even if all of you don't want it changed, so what? We've offered up a comprimise that stays true to the spirit of the rule while also allowing GMs to fill their minor league roster with something other than the leftovers of the previous drafts. 300 worthy players from the last two drafts? Think about it. I honestly haven't seen one reason why we shouldn't do it other than Bren doesn't like me. Is that really what's standing in the way.

Why not do what's best for the league and do myself, nate, jp, john, brett, jim and countless others a favor and just change the rule?

[Astros]

We put the 10 man draft roster in effect for one simple reason all those years ago: one year is not enough time to evaluate a prospect. If it was, then Jason Pridie would be an All Star. It serves it purpose, we have a 40 man roster, just like the mlb, and then the 10 man roster is, in effect, our low minors. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As for the people complaining about the ExCo making decisions, you are the same people that cried and moaned that Bren was usurping powers not designated to him in the charter and wanted the ExCo. The ExCo's job is to make decisions on small matters that aren't going to change the foundation of the league. Giving JP his draft pick back isn't going to change the league, someone's going to miss out on a player they wanted and pick somebody else, that's it. Anything that is a major change will be talked about league wide, come on guys, you know that. You're just complaining for the sake of complaining. Fact of the matter is we voted these guys in, they're our representatives in decision making. Its just like Congress, if you don't like the job your Congressman is doing, you vote them out next election. If you're upset with the ExCo, next time members are up for a vote, vote in someone new. Until then, let them do their job

[WhiteSox]

It serves it purpose, we have a 40 man roster, just like the mlb, and then the 10 man roster is, in effect, our low minors. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I have no problem with that aaron, but the problem now is all these 16-18 year old international players that are coming over are just like draft picks. They are young, start off in the low minors, arent expected to move very fast, etc. However, there is one big exception, these players (for the most part) get the 0- designation and not the 5-/6- designation.

No one is disputing the fact that these 10 spots not making up the 40 man roster are not for minor leaguers all im saying is what is the point of limiting it to (300 recent draft picks) when there are so many more young players out there more deserving of a roster spot? Why do I have to limit 20 percent of my roster on a pool of only 300 or so players? If someone could answer that for me I would be greatful.

[Dodgers]

Not that I disagree with your point JB, but that pool is potentially as large as 3000, minus non-signs, etc.

[Brewers]

Why not keep the 40-man roster as is...and use what is currently the 10-man "draft" roster and convert it into a 10 (or hell even 15) man roster comprised soley of players who have NOT exhausted their MLB Rookie status?

Might it be slightly confusing in some cases? Probably...but overall I think it's a better way to go than limiting it to players from the last two drafts. As numerous people have stated, with all the imports & young signings that don't get a draft designation roster space has become tight for a fair number of GMs. This would give everyone a little bit more flexibility in their roster....

[Cardinals]

I agree with JB's point and find it to be the most valid here.

[DBacks]

We put the 10 man draft roster in effect for one simple reason all those years ago: one year is not enough time to evaluate a prospect. If it was, then Jason Pridie would be an All Star. It serves it purpose, we have a 40 man roster, just like the mlb, and then the 10 man roster is, in effect, our low minors. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As for the people complaining about the ExCo making decisions, you are the same people that cried and moaned that Bren was usurping powers not designated to him in the charter and wanted the ExCo. The ExCo's job is to make decisions on small matters that aren't going to change the foundation of the league. Giving JP his draft pick back isn't going to change the league, someone's going to miss out on a player they wanted and pick somebody else, that's it. Anything that is a major change will be talked about league wide, come on guys, you know that. You're just complaining for the sake of complaining. Fact of the matter is we voted these guys in, they're our representatives in decision making. Its just like Congress, if you don't like the job your Congressman is doing, you vote them out next election. If you're upset with the ExCo, next time members are up for a vote, vote in someone new. Until then, let them do their job

Pretty much every word you typed is wrong.

It is broken. Two years is not enough, but three is? How many guys from the draft 3 years ago are actually in the dbase? And so these guys need to take up a 40 man roster spot now because they don't fall into your precious 2 year window? Are all of you retarded?

A 10 man roster of guys not in the dbase fixes the problem, because, newsflash, it is broken. If it wasn't broken, all of us wouldn't be on here posting about how it's broken. Is this really that hard to follow?

Every single one of you who have posted about not changing the rule have ignored every point that the rest of us have made. You don't refute them, you don't have arguments against them, you just ignore everything we have said and continue to blab about things we have proven ignorant time and time again.

IT IS BROKEN. So, please, could someone do their job around here and fix it. We're not asking for a major rule change, we're asking to ammend a rule so that it actually serves a purpose, instead of forcing guys to try to find the 298th best prospect from the 06 draft to fill out their roster.

As far as the ExCo goes, I don't have a problem with it. In fact, I love the idea much better than one Commish ruling everything. However, the first response I got from the ExCo after bringing this up was Bren saying "No." Despite overwhelming support from veteran GMs, it was shot down before the discussion really got started.

If we can't bring up issues as a league, then yeah, I got problems with the ExCo. If they're only going to work on the stuff they care about, and ignore the rest of us, then what's the point? If this many GMs have said they wanted the rule changed and we still get no response from the ExCo except Bren babbling on about things that still don't make sense, then I think the rest of us have a little bit of a right to be upset.

Just change the rule already. Who does it hurt? No one. There's no reason not to do it. Not a single one of you has given a legitimate reason why we shouldn't change it. So what's the deal ExCo...so far I think the vote is 2-1 in favor of changing it.

And do you guys vote based on what you want, or what the league wants? Just curious.

[Cardinals]

And do you guys vote based on what you want, or what the league wants? Just curious.

not the best way to go around flattering ExCo trying to get them to pass something you are pushing.

[WhiteSox]

Not that I disagree with your point JB, but that pool is potentially as large as 3000, minus non-signs, etc.

All bickering aside I would love to know how many people have an 05 or 06 on their roster that was A) taken after the 10th round of the 05 or 06 rookie draft B) Is not a draft and follow player C) Was taken after the tenth round in a draft and went for right around slot money.

I would guess that number is VERY low. Making the player pool we are picking from in this case generously around 750 player (10 rounds*30 teams*2 drafts + another 150 or so "special cases")

On a side note, I also think part of the problem was fixed this year with a better job done on the lockdown of all international signings as they will now be subjected to our rookie draft. However, in years past it was more of a free-for-all. However, that really only helps the problem in the future (after 2 more drafts are accomplished) than it does the present.

[DBacks]

not the best way to go around flattering ExCo trying to get them to pass something you are pushing.

who cares if the ExCo likes me or not? I wanna know how the process works. I thought it worked by me bringing something up, and then it being discussed, but since the second post of this topic was a member of the exco shooting the idea down, i must have been wrong.

everyone keeps jumping on my case about trash talking the exco, thats not the case, i just wanna know how this thing works, because obviously it wasn't explained very well.

[Dodgers]

As far as the ExCo goes, I don't have a problem with it. In fact, I love the idea much better than one Commish ruling everything. However, the first response I got from the ExCo after bringing this up was Bren saying "No." Despite overwhelming support from veteran GMs, it was shot down before the discussion really got started.

I think it is important to make clear the distinction between a member of the ExCo and the ExCo. That Bren didn't want to discuss it has nothing to do with the ExCo as a whole, so don't just to conclusions based on what he says. Really the only thing you will be hearing from the ExCo on a whole would be either a decision not to discuss something further (which would generally only be broadcast for topics such as this which are discussed league wide) or when we vote to approve a measure. Pretty much everything other than that you can take as coming from a GM instead of "the ExCo".

If we can't bring up issues as a league, then yeah, I got problems with the ExCo. If they're only going to work on the stuff they care about, and ignore the rest of us, then what's the point? If this many GMs have said they wanted the rule changed and we still get no response from the ExCo except Bren babbling on about things that still don't make sense, then I think the rest of us have a little bit of a right to be upset.

Actually Gabe, most of this is quite the opposite of reality. Most of the stuff we discuss has been brought to us by other members of the league and then voiced by a ExCo member to the general ExCo. Things are then discussed from there.

And do you guys vote based on what you want, or what the league wants? Just curious.

I can't speak for the rest, but I personally vote based on a flip of a coin....but in all seriousness, I weigh what I believe to be the league's stance (I voted for draft pick trading because most of the league wanted it) and what I believe is best for the league and make a decision based on that.

[DBacks]

Thank you. some things make more sense now.

[Dodgers]

Also Gabe, please keep in mind that the ExCo just started like 2 months ago, we're still feeling our way out on some of these issues (when to discuss with whole league versus just ourselves, etc). Give it time and I think it's going to become a great tool. Nobody has mentioned this, but it also has a member from each division, maybe we should make each ExCo member their division's representative and responsible for voicing concerns felt by the division?

[Astros]

Gabe, I would buy more into your arguement if it wasn't totally being put forth out of self interest. You've been wanting this forever for selfish reasons, you hate prospects and don't believe in developing a farm system and don't want guys on your roster that aren't in the sim. That's it, nothing more, nothing less, so don't go around acting like you're championing some great cause

[Giants]

Not that I disagree with your point JB, but that pool is potentially as large as 3000, minus non-signs, etc.

All bickering aside I would love to know how many people have an 05 or 06 on their roster that was A) taken after the 10th round of the 05 or 06 rookie draft B) Is not a draft and follow player C) Was taken after the tenth round in a draft and went for right around slot money.

I would guess that number is VERY low. Making the player pool we are picking from in this case generously around 750 player (10 rounds*30 teams*2 drafts + another 150 or so "special cases")

On a side note, I also think part of the problem was fixed this year with a better job done on the lockdown of all international signings as they will now be subjected to our rookie draft. However, in years past it was more of a free-for-all. However, that really only helps the problem in the future (after 2 more drafts are accomplished) than it does the present.

The only players who would have gotten draft status but don't have it now are international signings from 2005. Those subjected to the 2005 draft lose that status in a couple of months themselves, as would 2005 international signings if they had draft status. This isn't a fix for two years down the road, it's already effective going into the second draft.

Also, I second everything Shawn said about how the ExCo works. We are still feeling the process out and fixing the bugs, if anyone has any ideas about how the ExCo should be run talk to any of us and we're happy to discuss it (except maybe Bren...)

[WhiteSox]

The only players who would have gotten draft status but don't have it now are international signings from 2005. Those subjected to the 2005 draft lose that status in a couple of months themselves, as would 2005 international signings if they had draft status. This isn't a fix for two years down the road, it's already effective going into the second draft.

Funny, because i have Jesus Montero and Esmailyn Gonzalez on my roster, both 2006 international signings, both have 0- designations in the sim.

If you remember correctly the 06 international signing at the beginning were a free for all. Only after everyone was grabbing international guys immediately after they signed that year did the rule change and those players (Villalona for example) moved into the draft and had 06 status.

Basically Gonzalez, Montero, and Villalona... all from the 06 international signing period have different designations.

They are all young international players, all equivalent to an 06 draft pick, but because i didnt draft esmailyn or jesus (signed by Nils and Perryman) they have to be 0- instead of a 2006. What again is the point of having a 10 man roster of only the last two drafts as opposed to having 10 non-sim players? Not one person has presented a good arguement for the 10 man draft roster over the 10 man non-sim.

[Royals]

So much to reply to, let's see...

Gabe, yes, i think the league being a challenge is a good thing and i don't see where you have reason to complain since you won a title last year under the existing rules except for the fact that you got busted for having a WAY out of whack roster. I'm curious, how long was it like that?
<i>If it wasn't broken, all of us wouldn't be on here posting about how it's broken.</i>
yes you would. Some GM's hope they'll find an advantage, some, like yourself Gabe, are hoping to not have to bother with prospects. You obviously don't want to bother. I'm sure those GM's who do want to bother know that with fewer GM's looking around, they'll have better chances at getting better prospects.

I'd respond to a cogent point about how the system is broken if you'd present one other than "It's broken" or "I don't like it". How is it broken? I know you went to college, present an actual point where this broken system creates an actual problem. Show me how your system is better or closer to what MLB does because I haven't seen that point made. We have a 40 man roster and we USED to have two separate minorleague 'levels' to mimic what MLB has.

JB, an intersting point about the international prospects, but I still don't see how the change in the international signings changes the roster setup. Those prospects HAD to be kept on the 40 man before, now they can be on the 40 man or the 10 man draftee. What's the problem there? How is that a tougher or worse situation than before?

Brett, nice attempt at thinking differently, but that would be nothing short of disastrous and impossible to track.

[WhiteSox]

JB, an intersting point about the international prospects, but I still don't see how the change in the international signings changes the roster setup. Those prospects HAD to be kept on the 40 man before, now they can be on the 40 man or the 10 man draftee. What's the problem there? How is that a tougher or worse situation than before?

I'm confused isnt a player either in the dbase, a 0-, a 5-, or a -6? And dont you need to have 10 05/06 designated players? How can Jesus Montero (for example) be a 0- in the dbase, but be on my draft roster instead of my 40 man roster? If you are saying international signings from 05/06 can be on your draft roster (basically a 0- that is really a 5- or a 6-) I dont think a lot of people realize that. Do you have any idea how many 05/06 international players have a 0- designation, cause it is quite high.

Brett, nice attempt at thinking differently, but that would be nothing short of disastrous and impossible to track.

Not true, with the oppss system it would be easier than ever, but unfortunatly i realize this is an issue you won't budge on so i wont even get into it.

[WhiteSox]

Im gonna take one more attempt to lay this out as simply as I can, then I'm going to move away from this thread and only reply when someone questions a post i have made.

What I propose is this: one 40 man roster of your choice (sim/non-sim players) and one 10 man minor league roster (any player not in the DB)

This works on many levels: Part of being in a sim league is about getting to know more about prospects, building a roster simply of aging veterans will catch up to a team. Also when trying to get a new GM to take over a vacant team it helps if there is young talent on it. At the same time it lets you carry 40 players in the SIM if you wish.

What I don't get here is that within the current rules we are forcing people to have a minor league system, but telling them they can only compose it of 2005 and 2006 draft picks. If some GMs want to carry 40 sim players on their 40 man roster that is well within the rules of this league. Still with me? That team would then have 10 spots left in which to comprise his minor league system. However, they can't have any minor league system, they can only have players from the last two drafts comprise their last 10 spots. To me this just seems like a rule for the sake of having a rule. We are handcuffing GMs from comprising the best available prospects out there for their farm system because it is necessary to only have 2005/2006 picks on their last 10 roster spots. Who exactly does it benefit?

[DBacks]

don't want guys on your roster that aren't in the sim. That's it, nothing more, nothing less, so don't go around acting like you're championing some great cause

I don't want guys on my roster that aren't in the sim? Then why I have spent the last million posts arguing for a 10 man roster made up of guys not in the sim? Are you even reading this stuff? If you're going to participate in the argument at least pretend to know what you're talking about.

<i>Show me how your system is better or closer to what MLB does because I haven't seen that point made.</i>

This point has been made, and I'm not the only one who's made it. MLB has 40 man rosters, we have 40 man rosters. MLB has minor league teams full of players of assorted levels, draft classes, ages, and skill. We should have the same. A minor league that consist of more than just a small two draft class pool. 10 guys who are not in the sim. Any draft class. If you got a guy from 05 you wanna hold on to rather than try to dig up a 23rd rounder from 06, what's the problem? If they're not in the sim, you can't use them, so what does it matter?

[Nationals]

I am fully with JB. It makes no logical sense to have these in-between, unuseful 0-designate players as a part of a supposed 40-man roster. None whatsoever.

[Mets]

Anyone counter JB's arguement?

I've never understood the logic of having 05/06 designations. Is it more challenging? Probably. Do the majority of GM's favor that rule? I think it's time for a poll once and for all.

[Tigers]

I've never understood the logic of having 05/06 designations. Is it more challenging?

You have to know the history of how the rosters have evolved to understand the different designations.

At one point (after the first IBC new player draft) we only had 5 extra draft slots, instead of 10. At that point only draft players from that year could be in your 5 man draft roster.

Then after the next draft we expanded the draft roster to 10 slots. However it had to be made up of 5 players from the previous draft (5-designates) and five players from the current draft (6-designates). As such, players from each draft needed to be identifiable from their respective drafts.

Then last offseason we changed it again to 10 draft players from either of the last two drafts.

The 0-designates is pretty simple. Anyone who is not in the database and wasn't involved in an IBC new player draft is an 0-designate.

Obviously, if the rule were changed to what JB is proposing, then the indivdual draft disgnations would not be needed anymore and everyone not in the database would/could become an 0-designated player.

Just 2 cents on how the player designations got to where they are today.

[Giants]

Im gonna take one more attempt to lay this out as simply as I can, then I'm going to move away from this thread and only reply when someone questions a post i have made.

What I propose is this: one 40 man roster of your choice (sim/non-sim players) and one 10 man minor league roster (any player not in the DB)

This works on many levels: Part of being in a sim league is about getting to know more about prospects, building a roster simply of aging veterans will catch up to a team. Also when trying to get a new GM to take over a vacant team it helps if there is young talent on it. At the same time it lets you carry 40 players in the SIM if you wish.

What I don't get here is that within the current rules we are forcing people to have a minor league system, but telling them they can only compose it of 2005 and 2006 draft picks. If some GMs want to carry 40 sim players on their 40 man roster that is well within the rules of this league. Still with me? That team would then have 10 spots left in which to comprise his minor league system. However, they can't have any minor league system, they can only have players from the last two drafts comprise their last 10 spots. To me this just seems like a rule for the sake of having a rule. We are handcuffing GMs from comprising the best available prospects out there for their farm system because it is necessary to only have 2005/2006 picks on their last 10 roster spots. Who exactly does it benefit?

Since you all are wondering what goes on in the ExCo, I'll give you all some insight into it by reposting my argument against the 10 0 player roster spots.

Actually it would make it easier to do that, since they could theoretically keep that 0 eligibility for 5 years instead of the two we have now [referring to keeping international signings]. JB's post is misguided because he's claiming that the new change making those guys draft eligible will have effects that won't be felt for the next two years, while the reality is that since 06 signings are already affected the only group who are disadvantaged are guys signed in 05, who would be losing their draft roster eligibility in 2 months anyway. The problem with making it non-DB players is that so many minor leaguers now make the SIM (in fact I have 2 such 05 players, Mayberry and Broadway), while some major league guys don't (I have Ryan Bukvich right now as a 0-player, and there is of course Tim Lincecum). JB's idea makes sense for a small subset of players who it won't matter about soon anyway (and coincidentally enough would benefit him more than anyone else, kinda like how Gabe's idea would benefit him more than anyone else), but it doesn't work for the rest of them.

In addition, JB you have 2 of the only 3 exceptions to the rule (I believe Moises Tejeda is the only other one). I counted (my quick glance math might be wrong so consider this approximate) 12 06 international signings who are on someone roster as 06 players and 5 more who were signed at one point and cut. It was that very free for all over the players you mentioned that prompted the rule change to put international signings in the draft. Rules should be changed to prevent something from occurring again in the future, there will be no more 16 year old 0-players. If you want to petition for 6-eligibility for those guys bring it to the ExCo, you just might get it. They aren't a good enough reason to change the entire roster structure.