Rosters

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:08 pm

As many of you know, i've been checking rosters to make sure everyone is in accordance with the roster sizes

25 active players
15 inactive players
10 draft players

A player who makes the sim but is a 06 or 07 draftee can remain on your draft roster, but ONLY if he is not moved to your active roster.

Those of you who aren't aware of this, this is probably because you are in accordance with the rules, Kudos to you, you have the gratitude of the league for being in accordance and my own personal gratitude since I didn't have to write you up a reminder email.

Those of you who aren;t in accordance, you should do so immediately. To those who have done so qucky and politely, you also have my grattitude.

To those of you who have been less than polite or who may be stalling... get cracking. This isn't an 'at your leisure' thing. This should have been done before the season and you shouldn't need a reminder or someone nagging you to do it. If you stall long enough, you may be outed to the league.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:16 pm

Why isn't this something that is taken more seriously? These are rules that are being broken. How can we have some rules being enforced so rigorously and others so laxly (no, I'm not really sure if "laxly" is a word. I'm guessing no, but oh well)?

If a team is in volation of a rule, they should immediately be forced to fix it. I don't think it is a coincidence that there is one team (not to mention any names...) who is looking to trade for draft players. Why is this allowed? As someone who was punished for breaking a rule without realizing it, I am very upset at the way this is being handled.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:26 pm

Good point. Why should a team in violation be able to take advantage of the situation by dealing players they shouldn't have for players they should?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:27 pm

Basically enforcing it in the past has been a pain in the ass, there wasn't an easy way to check each team, in fact it was a pain in the ass to do. Shawn has made some adjustments to OOPSS though that have made it VERY easy from now on to check and enforce this rule. In fact, any GM can do it. When viewing another Roster through OOPSS, you can see who is on the Draft roster and who is not and whether a team is in compliance.

Phillies · Post by **Phillies** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:39 pm

i have 10 draft players but OOPSS says i have 8. is this because i have 4 '06 picks and 6 '07 picks? i thought i was okay if i had a total of 10.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:47 pm

Phillies wrote:i have 10 draft players but OOPSS says i have 8. is this because i have 4 '06 picks and 6 '07 picks? i thought i was okay if i had a total of 10.

Ashley
Beato
McAllister

all appears to be listed as "active" on your roster Nick. You need to go in to "change Roster Status" and move them to your draft roster.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:51 pm

Being on the TRC I will note vote for any trade that takes advantage of having violated the roster rules.

Phillies · Post by **Phillies** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:54 pm

thanks for looking at that ropers, i had no idea thats how i was supposed to do that haha.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:57 pm

Nationals wrote:Being on the TRC I will note vote for any trade that takes advantage of having violated the roster rules.

I'm not sure that's the role of the TRC. The TRC is to vote on trades based on fairness, not police rosters.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:04 pm

Pirates wrote:
Nationals wrote:Being on the TRC I will note vote for any trade that takes advantage of having violated the roster rules.
I'm not sure that's the role of the TRC. The TRC is to vote on trades based on fairness, not police rosters.

Policing rosters is OUR job. We were slow on doing it. That's our fault to an extent. However, everyone who was in violation had a responsibility to be within the rules in the first place. Having to cut players to get down, is essentially the penalty for not being in conformance in the first place.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:06 pm

RedSox wrote:
Pirates wrote:
Nationals wrote:Being on the TRC I will note vote for any trade that takes advantage of having violated the roster rules.
I'm not sure that's the role of the TRC. The TRC is to vote on trades based on fairness, not police rosters.
Policing rosters is OUR job. We were slow on doing it. That's our fault to an extent. However, everyone who was in violation had a responsibility to be within the rules in the first place. Having to cut players to get down, is essentially the penalty for not being in conformance in the first place.

To not vote on a trade or to let it affect your reasoning of a trade is ridiculous plain and simple. It is everybody else's duty to check the rosters and bring it to OUR attention and not use a vigilante law enforcement.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:08 pm

It is the role of the TRC to vote on the fairness of a trade. How can a trade be fair if one of the players involved should not even be on the roster?

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:08 pm

Agree with JP here. The TRC is only there to evaluate the fairness of trades, not to uphold all of the league's rules.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:09 pm

Nationals wrote:It is the role of the TRC to vote on the fairness of a trade. How can a trade be fair if one of the players involved should not even be on the roster?

Does it have anything to do with the players value? No.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:11 pm

You could argue that it does, since said player will eventually be available as a free agent, like in the NFL when a stud player gets traded for a late round draft pick because his value is low since every team knows he's going to be cut shortly.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:11 pm

Good point. Let me know what the ExCo wants to do going forward, but it seems to me we should not be rewarding roster violations by allowing teams to profit from those violations.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:26 pm

Pirates wrote:
RedSox wrote:
Pirates wrote: I'm not sure that's the role of the TRC. The TRC is to vote on trades based on fairness, not police rosters.
Policing rosters is OUR job. We were slow on doing it. That's our fault to an extent. However, everyone who was in violation had a responsibility to be within the rules in the first place. Having to cut players to get down, is essentially the penalty for not being in conformance in the first place.
To not vote on a trade or to let it affect your reasoning of a trade is ridiculous plain and simple. It is everybody else's duty to check the rosters and bring it to OUR attention and not use a vigilante law enforcement.

it is NOT "everybody else's duty to check the rosters and bring it to OUR attention" it is everyone's responsibility to make sure their own team is in accordance with the rules at all times.
ALL the GM's in question were breaking the rules. It was not malicious, i don't believe any one of them did so intentionally, but they WERE negligent. As a consequence fo that they shouldn't be allowed to take their time to make trades on who to deal off. You make the cuts immediately because you weren't responsible in the first place.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:29 pm

"RedSox" fact, any GM can do it. When viewing another Roster through OOPSS, you can see who is on the Draft roster and who is not and whether a team is in compliance.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:34 pm

I'm not sure how that's relevant to how the TRC should handle panic trades.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:36 pm

Athletics wrote:I'm not sure how that's relevant to how the TRC should handle panic trades.

The last deal did not meet the AA standard because it was a Rookie Ball player for a major leaguer (a bad one, but still a major leaguer) so the decision was easy. But it would be nice if we could get the violating rosters trimmed before seeing any more deals involving those teams.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:37 pm

Ok, let me spell it out again.

RedSox wrote: it is NOT "everybody else's duty to check the rosters and bring it to OUR attention" it is everyone's responsibility to make sure their own team is in accordance with the rules at all times..

"RedSox" fact, any GM can do it. When viewing another Roster through OOPSS, you can see who is on the Draft roster and who is not and whether a team is in compliance.

I'm not sure I'm addressing trades right now.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:55 pm

[/quote]
ALL the GM's in question were breaking the rules. It was not malicious, i don't believe any one of them did so intentionally, but they WERE negligent. [/quote]

Ok, how is this different from what happened to me and JP? It was agreed that me and JP weren't trying to take advantage, we were just stupid. And, in our case, we didn't even gain an advantage as it was something that would have been allowed in a few days time. This case these GMs ARE getting an advantage, though tiny. I don't understand the difference in consequences here. I think the arguement at the time before was that an announcement had just been made. You'd have to be kidding yourself if you think this hasn't been told to the league NUMEROUS times in the past. If you forgot, well you should lose your draft pick next year. Tough shit.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:11 pm

Pirates wrote:Ok, let me spell it out again.

RedSox wrote: it is NOT "everybody else's duty to check the rosters and bring it to OUR attention" it is everyone's responsibility to make sure their own team is in accordance with the rules at all times..

"RedSox" fact, any GM can do it. When viewing another Roster through OOPSS, you can see who is on the Draft roster and who is not and whether a team is in compliance.
I'm not sure I'm addressing trades right now.

JP, as always, you lack any degree of subtlety of understanding at all.
Any GM CAN check these things.
That doesn't make it their responsibility to police the rest of the league.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:18 pm

I agree with JP...it's not the TRC's job to check rosters, just to protect the integrity of the league.

It's the league fault for not policing this prior to now, and all teams should have a buffer period to correct their rosters. In all fairness, this should have been done between the migration & the start of the season.

Offseason is a lull because teams don't know who will and will not make the roster, and can't be expected to have their roster correct prior to the release of the projection.

In the future, I would recommend implementing a window for team to adhere to the roster qualifications following projections.

Angels · Post by **Angels** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:30 am

Rockies wrote:I agree with JP...it's not the TRC's job to check rosters, just to protect the integrity of the league.

It's the league fault for not policing this prior to now, and all teams should have a buffer period to correct their rosters. In all fairness, this should have been done between the migration & the start of the season.

Offseason is a lull because teams don't know who will and will not make the roster, and can't be expected to have their roster correct prior to the release of the projection.

In the future, I would recommend implementing a window for team to adhere to the roster qualifications following projections.

I couldn't agree more. Well said John.

I think the fact that so many teams made drops today (myself included) after being made aware that their rosters were not compliant is spot on in supporting John's comments.

Many of us are in multiple leagues which all have different roster rules, so it is easy for things to slip through the cracks to keep rosters under any league rules. I'm not saying this as an excuse to tolerate it, it is every GMs responsibility to be within league mandated rules. But rather than causing a crisis such as what happened today, perhaps there should be something put in place to remind GMs after the projections are released and before the season starts that rosters must follow league requirements. I'm not suggesting Bren or anyone else need to send individual emails to all owners, but a roster reminder as John suggested with a window to correct things, and then a penalty or maybe a "roster freeze" for that team until they are compliant.