IBC

Cubs wrote: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.

There is actually, current evidence of GM's having to make decisions to drop 06 draft picks or move them onto their 40 man roster. Just went through it. We all just saw it happen during and after the draft.

Now whether or not the proposed rule change with hinder this activity or not is speculation. Just like, opinions on whether or not the rule change is better for the league, is pure speculation. That's why we're having the discussion.

I can see this is deteriorating into another emotion filled, name calling session, rather than active constructive discussion on the issue.

If you guys want the rule changed, I think both sides have more than spoken their peace at this point. Put it to a league vote and whatever happens, happens.

Move it to a vote already was going to be my next post. At the moment Gabe is the only non ExCo member voicing support. Where's the rest of the league on this?

Mariners wrote:

Cubs wrote: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.

There is actually, current evidence of GM's having to make decisions to drop 06 draft picks or move them onto their 40 man roster. Just went through it. We all just saw it happen during and after the draft.

Now whether or not the proposed rule change with hinder this activity or not is speculation. Just like, opinions on whether or not the rule change is better for the league, is pure speculation. That's why we're having the discussion.

I can see this is deteriorating into another emotion filled, name calling session, rather than active constructive discussion on the issue.

If you guys want the rule changed, I think both sides have more than spoken their peace at this point. Put it to a league vote and whatever happens, happens.

I agree with your last sentence that the substantive opinions have probably been stated, but just to comment on the notion of more activity, I think it's a wash. We can all speak most easily from our own teams, so while you just went through the process of deciding on your -6 designated players and, I take it, don't even turn over your 26-40 spots annually, for myself, the spots that are easily the most churned on my roster are the 26-40. In the process of looking for good prospects, I do a lot of adding and dropping (i.e. player turnover, which you guys are defining as a good thing). I change those guys much more often than the draft slots simply because there is a bigger pool to consider. I am more likely to be comfortable with my draft players because those ten spots are a much higher proportion of what's available and attractive. At worst I would guess that handful of GMs who do this similar to me, as well as the ones who do some of it but not as much, easily wash with your annual tough decision.

Brett I'm with you, I turn over 26-40 plenty myself. Thus, eliminating the draft roster for GMs like us is tantamount to roster expansion.

Athletics wrote:Brett I'm with you, I turn over 26-40 plenty myself. Thus, eliminating the draft roster for GMs like us is tantamount to roster expansion.

And that's fine, but you can't make both that argument and that this would hurt player action. It's one or the other at best.

Mariners wrote:

Cubs wrote: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.

There is actually, current evidence of GM's having to make decisions to drop 06 draft picks or move them onto their 40 man roster. Just went through it. We all just saw it happen during and after the draft.

I can see this is deteriorating into another emotion filled, name calling session, rather than active constructive discussion on the issue.

I don't know if that was directed at me or not, but all I was doing was stating the other side of the argument. I didn't mean to offend anyone's sensibilities.

Cubs wrote:

Mariners wrote:

Cubs wrote: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.

There is actually, current evidence of GM's having to make decisions to drop 06 draft picks or move them onto their 40 man roster. Just went through it. We all just saw it happen during and after the draft.

I can see this is deteriorating into another emotion filled, name calling session, rather than active constructive discussion on the issue.

I don't know if that was directed at me or not, but all I was doing was stating the other side of the argument. I didn't mean to offend anyone's sensibilities.

Just saying that all we really know for sure right now is that the current rule does force some player movement around the draft time every offseason due to GM's having to make decisions on player from their draft rosters that can no longer stay on the draft roster.

Everything else is just speculation by all of us, regarding how we think the proposed change will affect player movement under the new rules. That was all that I was saying above.

Mariners wrote: ... I think both sides have more than spoken their peace at this point. Put it to a league vote and whatever happens, happens.

Tigers wrote:I agree with your last sentence that the substantive opinions have probably been stated ...

Going back to the original post:

Tigers wrote:The new exco group has had some discussion on some long discussed roster rule alterations and is considering the following changes:

1. Officially setting a minimum of 25 database players

This must include one catcher and is only in effect during the season - Opening Day through August 31 (since September roster moves are not reflected in the DB). This would go into effect this spring.

2. Removing the draft slots

We were hesitant to do this too quickly, since GMs have presumably made moves with the idea that they must fill those spots effectively in mind. In my mind, having a period (like we do now moving forwad) where rosters must have no more than 40 non-7/8 players mitigates this concern, but that is my feeling, not the exco's. And a transition date would be a part of this discussion.

Together these would make the roster rules simple. During the season, we have a roster limit of 50 players with at least 25 database players. In the offseason, 50 players, period.

Thoughts? Please keep comments on topic and constructive.

I am not sure that this has been discussed to completion. Certainly much has been said, and is now being repeated, relative to the 2nd issue but little has been said of the 1st issue: the requirement of a 25 man active roster consisting of 25 players in the database, of which at least one is rated as a catcher. Are those "calling the question" wanting to vote on the 2nd issue, i.e. aboloition of the "draft portion of the roster", as a stand alone question or should these 2 issues remain combined?

There have been some compelling arguments on both sides here, but at the end of the day, I just don't see the point to either set of proposals.

Field a team, if someone wants to put themselves at a disadvantage by eating into their 25 man, let them, so long as they field a team and have a working MP. Maybe make it so they field a rated team(I.e. The 1 catcher suggestion), but you can field a competitive team with under 25. It may not be wise, but as long as a team isn't tanking games, then let them use those spots how they see fit.

Honestly, if you're going to make any sim limits I say the only limits should be 4 real SP and 2 real catchers (because the lack of either of those two produces incredibly unrealistic sim results game by game). Beyond that, as long as you field a lineup and a rested pitcher I don't see the need. It's currently set at a minimum of 20 right?

I'd definately separate the two issues (proposals).

I imagine the logic behind having a 25 minimum SIM eligible roster would be to try and make sure everyone fielded a legit MLB team. Now, prior to OOPSS it was an issue because non-SIM players tended to sneak into the SIM games (rosters were kept track of in the SIM prior to OOPSS, including prospects who weren't actually in the SIM, they were created as new players but not given any SIM parameters).

As mentioned above I'm not sure that it is necessary to have 25 SIM eligible players. I think it would be preferred in order to keep some sort of realism, but in the end, as long as you have sufficient players to play games, whether that be 8 positions players, 4 starting pitchers and some number of bullpen arms - I don't really know the answer. Do you set the minimum number at 20? 16? 25? Not sure......

I think there is some logic to requiring a team at least have 25 so the games can be kept somewhat realistic, but in the end, I personally don't have a real strong opinion either way. Not requiring any specific number though could result in some issues late in the season if teams do make a bunch of trades in a rebuilding mode and end up with a half ass roster which ends up impacting playoff races.

Voting on the two issues as one would be absurd, i can't imagine the ExCo would do so. The requirement to have 25 simmable players on your active roster is a very reasonable one, and one which i believe should have been enacted sooner.
As for Gabe's rant about not having the money... Find a buddy to split the cost with. Get a 3 month or 30 day subscription instead of an annual one. use the free sites. Google the information for the paid ones, it's out there. Don't whine about money, I'm not exactly loaded myself but I always find a way to get prospect information. If you don't have the time to do it, then you don't have the time, but that's part of the game, if you want to do well, you're gonna need to find or make the time. Granted, all your complaining about time and money doesn't seem to have inhibitted you from winning a title.

Kinda like the real life Marlins...

Wow, that Snyder one is bizarre. As for the Rauch/Tejada trade I certainly wouldn't have passed it, but the more surprising thing to me is that a guy who fancies himself a contender in the American League would trade a useful SIM piece to the Yankees.

Athletics wrote:Wow, that Snyder one is bizarre. As for the Rauch/Tejada trade I certainly wouldn't have passed it, but the more surprising thing to me is that a guy who fancies himself a contender in the American League would trade a useful SIM piece to the Yankees.

I've been saying for years that JB has voodoo dolls of IBC gm's in his closet. Tejeda is a guy whose stock has plummeted in the last year.

Athletics wrote:Wow, that Snyder one is bizarre. As for the Rauch/Tejada trade I certainly wouldn't have passed it, but the more surprising thing to me is that a guy who fancies himself a contender in the American League would trade a useful SIM piece to the Yankees.

I was sure I put this in the trade rule thread. Weird.

Don't you people have better things to do than talk about my deals for an RP. I do like the attention though Go IBC Yanks!

Athletics wrote:

Athletics wrote:Wow, that Snyder one is bizarre. As for the Rauch/Tejada trade I certainly wouldn't have passed it, but the more surprising thing to me is that a guy who fancies himself a contender in the American League would trade a useful SIM piece to the Yankees.

I was sure I put this in the trade rule thread. Weird.

More of JB's JuJu...

1) Where is it being written that Tejeda's stock plummeted?
2) Why does everyone think that Rauch is Johnny Paps?

I shopped Rauch, I need a future SS, I'm taking a chance on a high upside, big ceiling guy...is this really this massive of a discussion point?

Rauch was in the 7th spot in my bullpen - and would have had a tough time beating out Brian Wolfe FOR that spot. Plus Waecther, who would have a role in 90% of the bullpens in the IBC, does not in mine to open the season.

Doug Waechter:

2009 BJ projection - 5.65 ERA
2009 MARCEL projection - 4.35 ERA
2009 CHONE projection - 5.21 ERA
2009 ZIPS projection - 4.71 ERA

90%?? Seriously?

Well it was an exaggeration to explain my point, but thanks for the numbers!

Can we get some Rauch projections?

Jon Rauch:

BJ - 3.48 ERA
MARCEL - 3.92 ERA
CHONE - 3.91 ERA
ZIPS - 4.23 ERA

So a 4 era reliever for a very good young SS prospect - this entire exercise was definitely worth it...

Royals wrote:1) Where is it being written that Tejeda's stock plummeted?

Tejeda was 9th on BA's top 10 last year. The Sox graduated four players off that list yet Tejeda fell off the top 10 and Callis believes his future is at 3b. maybe you don't like the term 'plummeted' specifically, but his stock certainly took a significant hit. It can certainly rise again, but that's about where it sits right now.
And yes, i know there are other opinions than BA's and Callis'. Theirs is the most respected, so theirs is the one I chose to quote rather than making the full round of the prospect community.