Roster Breakdowns/10 Draft Picks

[Royals]

I still fail to see the advantage to having 5 guys from one draft and 5 guys from another over just having 10 "draft" guys from any draft, not in the SIM.

What if I like the 2005 class a hell of a lot more than the 2006 class..why should I be penalized for that....?

No one will tell you the advantage, because there isn't one. You shouldn't be penalized, but you will be, because that's the way we do things around here.

I love when our established GM's can correct our newerish GM's on how things actually work...

[Mets]

First of all, it's not 5 guys from each draft, it's 10 guys from the last two draft classes. We made that change last year. If you like the 2006 class better than the 2007 class you can have 8 2006 guys and only draft 2 2007 guys while trading your other 3 picks (before the draft but after the season). Nothing wrong with that. As far as the 2005 players go, well you've now had 2 years to evaluate them and whether or not they are worth holding on to. If you want to protect them you put them on your 40-man. What exactly is the great advantage of changing the system? What's the big disadvantage with having it the way it is? Big rule changes (and I'd argue that this is a pretty big one) should only be made if there is a strong reason to make them, and no one has presented a compelling reason why this change NEEDS to be made.

Jake,

I think your breakdown was the first time it's ever made even a little sense to me.

The only thing I would really suggest changing is if a team has 5 "2005" picks (not in the SIM/Prospect level still) on his 40 man, there shouldn't be a penalty for not having 10 more additional prospects on the draft roster/minor league card.

Granted those 5 2005 players might not be top spects if they haven't made the SIM after 2 years, but nevertheless, the GM is still making an effort to have young talent, and I thought that was the point.

[Yankees]

Well said Rev...

I'm not even sure why this is an issue. We've got 30 teams, with 50 guys per team - I may not have my math correct, but I believe that is an ass ton of guys.

I'm all for making it 40 SIM and 10 non-SIM players, but there is no real compelling reason to even do that at this point - other then breaking this down to its absolute simplest form. All this A, AA, AAA, 7 guys of non-American descent, 3 ficitional non-Harry Potter characters, etc. just makes my head hurt.

[Cardinals]

If you base this upon where a player starts the year, that could very well work. It might mean someone you stashed on your AA roster ends up in the bigs by the end of the year, but so what? His roster designation would change the following season and he would have to be on your 40 man roster or released/traded. As Bren said, that could be much more like the MLB than the system we have now.

Anything is better than this draft year thing. Way too limiting.

How is Bren's proposal less limiting than our current one? I have Lincecum as an 06 player who's in the MLB; I also have Glenn Gibson who was in short season ball. That's hardly limiting.

[Royals]

If you base this upon where a player starts the year, that could very well work. It might mean someone you stashed on your AA roster ends up in the bigs by the end of the year, but so what? His roster designation would change the following season and he would have to be on your 40 man roster or released/traded. As Bren said, that could be much more like the MLB than the system we have now.

Anything is better than this draft year thing. Way too limiting.

How is Bren's proposal less limiting than our current one? I have Lincecum as an 06 player who's in the MLB; I also have Glenn Gibson who was in short season ball. That's hardly limiting.

I don't think either is more limiting than the other. I just think setting up a system that follows a format similar to an actual minorleague system is more logical.

[Giants]

I don't think there is a need to change the system at all, I also don't think that if the league is arguing for something simpler that something more complicated is going to fly.