IBC

This has all probably been covered in detail at different times, but just thought I'd throw it out there again since the new "Edit" function Shawn put on the player pages might be useful for designating injured guys.

Not sure how recently this type of thing has been discussed, but given the size of our rosters (50) and the 10-man draft roster requirements, I'd advocate either expanding non-draft rosters or allowing us to somehow flag a limited number of guys (3? 5?) as injured (and thus ineligible to play until activated by clearing an active spot).

All of this would depend primarily on ease of administration/self-policing like our current inj system, but if we found the right approach (or even just added a couple roster spots and had a supp. draft) I think it would make sense for a few reasons.

For one, given the quality of the GMs in this league and the ease with which we can add/drop/claim on the league site, not likely any kind of general roster expansion would lead to GMs carrying open roster spots for long stretches (which was once a legit concern if you weren't a "prospect guy")

Most importantly, imo, expansion (or adding a DL) would encourage more teams to try to remain competitive deeper into the season. Just about every GM has had a tough season where they lost a few key pieces early. In order to remain competitive year-to-year most teams have to keep 5 or 10 spots filled w/ non-draft prospects (whether just for their trade value, or as expected contributors in the near future). A team that didn't expect to be in the hunt (carrying 10-15 non-draft prospects) might get better-than-expected projections or start out hot only to find that 3 big injuries a few weeks into the season reduces their usable number of projected players substantially. The GM whose team is exceeding expectations all of a sudden has to choose between dropping 2 or 3 of their best 10 prospects in favor of replacement level FA vets and retread SP, or hanging onto some guys who may have been on their roster since they were drafted.

A team on the fence w/ some key injuries doesn't have much incentive to try to hold it together w/ scotch tape when it's to their advantage to quit on a lost cause as quickly as possible - extra roster spots to gamble on good early-season performances (MLB or MiLB) from guys who aren't useful in the sim yet and a significantly higher draft position (knowing that in the IBC 1st + 2nd round picks can be used to acquire impact guys in trade) are enticing rewards for throwing in the towel.

I know the draft roster is discussed at length every off-season (and I'm in favor of keeping some kind of draft roster - be it 7, 8 or 10 total), but one approach would be to re-allocate 2 or 3 draft spots to general roster depth while adding a couple of spots to give GMs a little bit of a cushion when hit with a rash of injuries. In this scenario, the total number of players in the FA pool would prob be decreased by only about 75 since some teams already carry more than 10 recent draftees anyway.

Another possibility would be to use some of the new functionality Shawn has worked into the site to allow GMs to designate their player as injured (maybe by inputting a link, or just a "DL" note/checkbox of some kind on the edit player page). As opposed to a simple roster expansion to 53/55 or something (which should be considered as a third alternative, imo), GMs could add up to 5 guys officially listed on the DL to an injured reserve which (like the draft roster) wouldn't count towards their 40 total spots and, as with 07s on the draft roster at the end of this year, would require a decision to cut someone in order to activate.

Just kinda throwing some stuff out there. If this DL idea has been discussed and closed previously (which wouldn't surprise me at all), I couldn't find it so if that's the case maybe somebody can point me to the right thread.

A large part of the purpose of the 15 player inactive roster is for injured players. Actually, it was initially 10 spots for injured players and prospects (not counting draftees), then was expanded to 15 so GM's could fit more prospects on their team and because that aligned it nicely with MLB's 40man roster concept (no, it's not a perfect parallel, but the concept is there).
We've got 15 spots of 'cushion' for injuries (and I'm using more than half of them at this point in the season... Webb, Lowrie, Youk, Scott, Dukes, Quentin, Buck, Hansen... ARGH!). We've had 2 roster expansions already, each time people said stuff to the effect of "we won't need more than this" or "This is the right number of players to have." If we expand again, then it won't be long before Gm's are pushing for another expansion. Then after that will be another. Then eventually another. Part of the challenge of the game is in playing with the limitations of the roster size, it's making the hard decisions on who to cut and who not to cut. Do you cut the vet with the projection that you might use if you lose a couple OFers in order to sign that prospect? Or do you hang onto him?

MANIFEST DESTINY!

RedSox wrote:A large part of the purpose of the 15 player inactive roster is for injured players. Actually, it was initially 10 spots for injured players and prospects (not counting draftees), then was expanded to 15 so GM's could fit more prospects on their team and because that aligned it nicely with MLB's 40man roster concept (no, it's not a perfect parallel, but the concept is there).
We've got 15 spots of 'cushion' for injuries (and I'm using more than half of them at this point in the season... Webb, Lowrie, Youk, Scott, Dukes, Quentin, Buck, Hansen... ARGH!). We've had 2 roster expansions already, each time people said stuff to the effect of "we won't need more than this" or "This is the right number of players to have." If we expand again, then it won't be long before Gm's are pushing for another expansion. Then after that will be another. Then eventually another. Part of the challenge of the game is in playing with the limitations of the roster size, it's making the hard decisions on who to cut and who not to cut. Do you cut the vet with the projection that you might use if you lose a couple OFers in order to sign that prospect? Or do you hang onto him?

That would be a more "challenging" decision at 25 players, but part of the fun of the league is also the prospecting and scouring the waiver wire for guys submitting unexpectedly good performances. As my initial post said, how deep into your farm system you're willing to cut to stay competitive when faced w/ injuries also has to do w/ expectations going into the year.

We want everyone to try to compete as far into the season as possible, do we not? I know in the past the biggest prob with the DL spot idea was the difficulty getting injury info out there and just generally administering a system of some kind. However, it seems like that might be a bit easier now with some of the features added to the site.

MLB teams will obviously have more personnel in their system to choose from to fill temporary holes in the big club, and while nowhere near the same, I think we could approximate that flexibility with a 2-man DL (basically a draft roster for injured guys). Tying your acquisition of a player directly to the injury that necessitated the signing seems like a good way to encourage teams battling for a WC to try to stick it out through injury rather than racing for a top 10 draft pick. If your injured guy is good enough to make an impact, then you know you'll be forced to make a cut when he's ready to return. Just seems to jive a little more w/ long-term team-building than having to cut your 3rd round draft pick or something to add a temporary backup C.

If you do get to 3, 4, 5+ major contributors injured, then you're at the point where you better have some in-house solutions already prepared b/c the FA pool isn't going to help much, but rationalizing riding out that kind of misfortune might be a little easier to handle for a team hovering around .500 and considering packing it in pre-ASB.

Honestly, i couldn't disagree more with your rationale in the last paragraph. If you're going to be a competitive team, you need to have those replacements lined up on your roster already, not digging on the FA wire for replacements when someone goes down. You should have better backups on your roster than what's on the FA wire if you're planning to compete.

There are always going to be players on the DL, I can't imagine there are many, if any, teams in the league that don't have at least 2 players of some quality who are on the DL at a given time, there will always end up being players stashed on those DL spots, that's just smart roster management. It's the same as a roster expansion.

Bren, your comments in no way really address any of the points I made, and you actually wrote "I couldn't disagree more," and then agreed with the last thing I said. So maybe I didn't state my interest in the question clearly:


1. Based on what I personally think about the available FA minor league and major league players, I wouldn't mind seeing rosters expand for really any reason. Sure, part of it is that if you enjoy mining for prospects, an unlucky run of injuries can eat into the 15 or so spots typically used for adding and dropping prospects throughout the season, and spoil some of the fun. I think that's kind of a bummer, and not having committed to a full rebuilding season (yet), I've found it to be a tight squeeze trying to maintain depth around the diamond without abandoning the prospect side entirely. I'm guessing that some GMs would enjoy having a few more spots to turn over throughout the season, adding and dropping players. Maybe everybody else thinks our rosters are the perfect size, but I don't know... hence the posts to gauge league-wide opinions on roster size.

2. If nobody has interest other than me, that's aight. It's not like I've never wasted a bunch of time writing about something of much greater interest to me than anyone else (par for the course, really). I'm not forcing anyone to read it. I'm interested in exploring the costs and benefits of roster expansion, and if interest isn't high enough to merit much discussion, ok.

3. I brought it up partly based on the assumption that the original reasoning for the chosen roster size had to do with what were wide differences in activity level and familiarity with (or subscriptions to) online resources for evaluating prospects, esp b/w newer and older GMs. There was often a learning curve w/ new GMs familiarizing themselves w/DMB and the league, so a smaller roster closed the gap a little. I know I recall at least one roster expansion since joining the league 5 yrs ago. Maybe rosters have been expanded two, three or more times since I joined and I just don't remember. Not sure why it should matter. The "slippery slope" argument doesn't really do much for me. The lack of too many responses to this thread seems to indicate people are ok w/ current roster size, but if there was enough interest in adding spots one way or another, the fact that someday GMs might decide even bigger rosters would be better shouldn't be a deterrent.

4. If enough GMs thought they could find 5 names they'd like to add w/out reaching too much, a draft to fill open spots might be fun even before considering the potential utility of something like tagging GMs injured players for a purpose other than avoiding penalties.

5. DL spots don't necessarily equal straight roster expansion, as was suggested earlier. The rules could be fine-tuned to serve the intended purpose of allowing flexibility when addressing injuries, or be less restrictive and closer to a straight expansion, depending on consensus.

6. One benefit of allowing for some kind of DL system would be to encourage GMs to keep a closer eye on the injury status of their players, and offer flexibility in dealing w/ injuries. A stacked team expecting to compete for the division isn't likely to give up on a season based on injuries to key players unless some sort of perfect storm of DL stints sends their squad plummeting out of contention. On the other hand, a GM at a middle stage of team-building who suddenly finds himself in the hunt for the WC might be less likely to sell off useful vets or to pack up the season before the ASB based on a few key injuries if they could avoid having to compound the harm caused by losing an ace with having to drop a prospect they've been watching develop for a year to add an innings-eating arm from FA to keep the rest of the staff fresh and competitive. More teams vying for the postseason later in the season is always a good thing.

The original reasons the roster size was set where it is and expanded over the years were to address the issues mentioned here. We looked at this yet again in the offseason and determined we were fine where we were. I see no reason to expand rosters and further dilute the player pool.

First of all, re-read my post. I said "I couldn't disagree more with what you said in the last paragraph" Don't even try to start some nonsense saying I agreed with you. I was pretty clear what I was disagreeing with.

There have been two roster expansions in the past, one expanded the inactive roster from 10 to 15, the other came after our second season when GM's were shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that the 5 man draftee roster meant they would have to decide who to cut and who to keep before our second rookie draft (forget the fact that it was spelled out in the rules...), so the draft roster was expanded to 2 5 man rosters (later to merge into a single 10).

This is a topic that, probably more than any other, annoys me every time it comes up because it IS the slippery slope. Each time in the past it's been a similar argument that boils down to how it's SO hard to decide between that marginal A-ball prospect and that guy I have to sign to replace my ace who went down with a strained hemorrhoid. Then guys just sign a bunch more prospects and make the same argument again later.

Any GM that couldn't name 5 guys that they'd like to add to their roster probably isn't a very diligent or sharp GM. Of course we can all name 5 guys we'd like to add, hell,I keep a running list of potentially useful projections in case of injury and of prospects to keep an eye on, but that doesn't mean a roster expansion is needed or a good idea.

That rule fine tuning you mentioned means more work for Shawn, more monitoring by the ExCo and unnecessary complications. We've struck a good balance between complexity and simplicity at this point, i don't think anyone really wants to mess with it.

Your point number 6 " to encourage GMs to keep a closer eye on the injury status of their players"... pure horse shit. We're finally, FINALLY, at a place where Gm's have been doing a really great job monitoring the DL, we have very few violations and a fair system in place for addressing those violations. we finally got something fixed that had been universally accepted as our biggest problem and longest complaint and you are suggesting that this expansion is going to somehow contribute to fixing something we've just fixed?
And signing guys off the FA wire ISN'T going to save the season of a GM whose team has been riddled with injuries, not even close. The quality of players available as FA's just isn't that high. In fact, the ONLY way you'd have a chance of changing things so there WERE really usable free agents available as FA's would be to CONTRACT the rosters, so GM's had to release more usable players. If you want to compete, you have to be prepared for the injuries before they happen, before the season even starts.

for the record....draft slots suck.

Keep rosters at 50....make it a max of 45 'projected' players, and unlimited uncarded.

This is the only league I'm in (out of 5) that has a discussion about roster slots and DL rules every 6 months.

I will say this...every year a team has some 0- guys that should make the SIM, but don't.....so a team can have their 5 "8-" guys and their 5 "7-" guys, and be penalized and have to play short handed if they want to keep their 0- guys that ZiPs/DMB f'd up on and should have projected.

Last time I'll ever voice my opinion on roster sizes.

I don't mind it as much as I used to..as we all play under the same rules....so even though it's not what I would do, we're all on the same train here.

if I get the IBC projection system worked out (not so much happening there the last few weeks unfortunately) and the league signs off on it then 0- guys not making the sim will be a non-issue down the line. even if someoen gets overlooked at the start of the season, we can still produce a projection for them.

brilliant.

Ah, now I see. To be honest I couldn't understand what your reasoning was until you started capitalizing one or two words per sentence. Now it's clear you weren't really making any points at all, just explaining that YOU are RIGHT and little else.

Honestly, between Ken succinctly and adequately addressing what I was asking, and nobody chiming in to agree with me, I was content to drop this issue, but I guess your condescending non-argument was packed w/ just enough douchebaggery to goad me into continuing on the subject. I'm sure I'll regret it, b/c now it'll continue, but whatever. Not like its never happened before.

First of all, the main reason behind my posting about roster expansion is that it seems like some of the original reasons for the limits are less applicable than in previous seasons. This is a baseball SIMULATION league (see, the caps-lock clearly strengthens my case).

So generally we're trying to re-create MLB as a hobby within the limitations of our time/resources, tweaking certain aspects to keep it competitive and fun while trying to minimize the workload of those doing the administrative stuff. All of the insane improvements Shawn has made to the site have had the effect of making roster moves/player research much less time consuming than before. We also now have more experienced/better GMs, and less turnover than in years past. If the gaps in time, experience w/ DMB, and access to info b/w GMs are substantially less than before, wouldn't slightly deeper farm systems better simulate MLB player development? Wouldn't that also give teams greater flexibility to deal with injuries using guys already on their roster?

There have been two roster expansions in the past, one expanded the inactive roster from 10 to 15, the other came after our second season when GM's were shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that the 5 man draftee roster meant they would have to decide who to cut and who to keep before our second rookie draft (forget the fact that it was spelled out in the rules...), so the draft roster was expanded to 2 5 man rosters (later to merge into a single 10).

So, about 7 years ago under completely different circumstances the rosters were expanded because people didn't read the rules, and that annoyed you. Not sure what that's supposed to illustrate. That Bren gets annoyed at critical discussions of the rules, or even just suggestions to discuss alternatives? I am shocked, SHOCKED at your aversion to a little discourse on league matters, being as how you've always accepted disagreement so gracefully. SHOCKED.

This is a topic that, probably more than any other, annoys me every time it comes up because it IS the slippery slope. Each time in the past it's been a similar argument that boils down to how it's SO hard to decide between that marginal A-ball prospect and that guy I have to sign to replace my ace who went down with a strained hemorrhoid. Then guys just sign a bunch more prospects and make the same argument again later.

Again, don't really see much of a discussion point here other than "this annoys me, so I'll just take a bitchy backhanded shot at someone rather than try to explain why the current number fits." Slippery slope is not an argument. Ever. It's just a way of saying "if I didn't set you idiots straight, you'd run right over the edge."

Any GM that couldn't name 5 guys that they'd like to add to their roster probably isn't a very diligent or sharp GM. Of course we can all name 5 guys we'd like to add, hell,I keep a running list of potentially useful projections in case of injury and of prospects to keep an eye on, but that doesn't mean a roster expansion is needed or a good idea.

Really? I think it does support roster expansion. It certainly doesn't mean it's a bad idea, does it?

If 5 years ago keeping such a list or just seeking out 5 suitable guys and signing them was infinitely more time consuming (b/c of the website, availability of info online, etc), then wouldn't the fact that every GM could now easily rattle off 5 names they'd be happy to add be a pretty big difference b/w the circumstances when rosters were capped at 50 and today? At that time, I'm positive there were a number of GMs who at times had trouble reaching the limit, let alone going over it. That's definitely not the case anymore. GMs are better across-the-board, and signing/releasing takes a couple of clicks.

That rule fine tuning you mentioned means more work for Shawn, more monitoring by the ExCo and unnecessary complications. We've struck a good balance between complexity and simplicity at this point, i don't think anyone really wants to mess with it.

Ease of administration is probably the primary concern here, and I mentioned that earlier as well. It's a little knee-jerk to say any rule "tweaking" is automatically more work for Shawn though, when I didn't really propose a hard and fast rule of any kind. I put out there for discussion that with all the tools now available b/c of the site, maybe it's worth thinking about alternatives that might be more effective. A checkbox, or even just the "notes" section, where GMs could check injured guys for calculating roster totals if there were some kind of DL roster. Who knows. I can't say I really thought about it that much before tossing it out there, as it was just material for discussion.

Your point number 6 " to encourage GMs to keep a closer eye on the injury status of their players"... pure horse shit. We're finally, FINALLY, at a place where Gm's have been doing a really great job monitoring the DL, we have very few violations and a fair system in place for addressing those violations. we finally got something fixed that had been universally accepted as our biggest problem and longest complaint and you are suggesting that this expansion is going to somehow contribute to fixing something we've just fixed?

Most of what I've been saying doesn't really even deal w/ the injury reporting/ DL system, so not sure why you're going that direction. The system is working better than in the past. Nobody disputes that. That doesn't mean it can't always be improved if the opportunity is there though. My suggestion was just that we might be able to further improve that system if GMs had to perform some sort of simple adjustment, like checking something or writing "DL" in the notes box that's already there to be able to add a player w/out dropping anyone when they're at the roster limit.

And signing guys off the FA wire ISN'T going to save the season of a GM whose team has been riddled with injuries, not even close. The quality of players available as FA's just isn't that high. In fact, the ONLY way you'd have a chance of changing things so there WERE really usable free agents available as FA's would be to CONTRACT the rosters, so GM's had to release more usable players. If you want to compete, you have to be prepared for the injuries before they happen, before the season even starts.

Sorry, there were too many lowercase words in between the capitalized ones for me to wrap my tiny head around this last part, though I guess we should all feel pretty lucky to get that Branch Rickey-like tip on "how to compete in the face of injuries" completely free of charge. You should get a smiley-face sticker or something for that. In the interest of my goal of creating more work for Shawn, maybe he should permanently put a special yellow smiley-face sticker that says "#1GM!" on your team page.

Honestly though, the only reason someone can't "save their season" w/ FA this year is because of the limitations of the ZiPs projections. You'd hope there wouldn't be enough talent out there that a team could play FA/waiver pickups in key roles for injured players and still make the postseason.

Yet last year I replaced the players I had slotted in 5 of my 8 starting lineup spots (1, 2, 3, 5, 8) for a minimum of 40 games each, mostly using FA pickups mixed in with a couple of UT-types and young extra OF already on the team My team made the postseason, and crappy replacements like Nathan Haynes, Omar Quintanilla, Edgar Gonzalez, etc "saved my season."

That it needed saving was in large part b/c I hadn't yet (and still haven't) figured out all the intricacies of NL roster depth. Not having the DH is a substantial factor that does make working w/ a short roster harder for the NL than the AL. Fortunately it's not a huge competitive advantage for the AL b/c we don't play often. Either way, no matter if you capitalize underline bold italic what you were saying about the depth of the FA pool, it doesn't turn it into a good point.

Anyway, I think I've laid out the reasoning behind my posting this thread. People certainly don't have to agree with me, and I can see I'm in the minority as far as wanting to expand rosters so I won't rail on about it. I guess if people are comfortable with the roster size as-is it could be argued that the uncertainty around the projections (I'm not a fan of ZiPs - and don't think anyone really loves them) makes it tough to know what the FA pool will look like in future years, I'd be content to bring it up again when we have a better idea what kind of players will have useful projections. I guess you sort of half made that point w/out factoring in the projections system. So we'll call that a winner. Score another one for you Bren. Right again!

OK, I admit, I got a little overboard with the CAPITALIZED WORDS. That doesn't make my points wrong, nor does spending half of your post mocking it make you right. Neither does jumping on the same old fire away at Bren, he's everyone's favorite target.

My problem with your argument isn't that it disagrees with mine (believe it or not, I have changed my mind in the past when presented with a reasonable argument). It's that it's the same argument that's been given over and over again in the past. I know there are quite a few GM's here who agree with you on roster expansion, but you're presenting the same arguments that they have presented in the past which have been shot down in the past (by me, by the ExCo and the league) including as recently as this past offseason if I recall correctly. It'd be like me bringing up getting rid of draft pick trading again, there's no freaking point. There were a few people who agreed, but not enough and it isn't gonna happen.
That this has come up many times before and you seem to think that bringing up the same arguments again will result in a different result makes me wonder whether you've been paying attention at all for the past 5 years. Do you want to try suggesting abolishing the draft and making it a completely free signing market next? It's been at least a year since that horse has been beaten.

To address some of your "points"...
I brought up the DL system because you initially brought it up (I quoted you). You brought it up, it didn't make any sense, so I addressed it and the suggestion it will improve DL management just doesn't fly. The primary reasons GM's seem to have DL violations is they simply miss a player (which wouldn't change) or for whatever reason they don't get a roster in (which also wouldn't change).

As far as midseason FA players saving your season last year... what you're saying essentially is that you screwed up, didn't know what you were doing and needed to make desperation signings to beat out Atlanta, who didn't have all that great of a team himself that season. Congrats on that.

The adding of even a check box will be more work for Shawn. Shawn handles the website, any changes to the website are going to make more work for Shawn. I would think that would be self-evident, but what do I know, I'm always wrong.

RedSox wrote:OK, I admit, I got a little overboard with the CAPITALIZED WORDS. That doesn't make my points wrong, nor does spending half of your post mocking it make you right. Neither does jumping on the same old fire away at Bren, he's everyone's favorite target.

Poor Bren. Before you start crying "woe is me," know that I can count the few times I've "jumped on that train" on one hand (this would be time #4, the others being when you tried to have me booted; when you treated a friend of mine who would have been a quality GM rudely enough by booting him within a month that he had no interest when asked back; and then when you unnecessarily deleted one of my posts - but of course you didn't deserve all that. Boo hoo. woe is you).

My problem with your argument isn't that it disagrees with mine (believe it or not, I have changed my mind in the past when presented with a reasonable argument). It's that it's the same argument that's been given over and over again in the past. I know there are quite a few GM's here who agree with you on roster expansion, but you're presenting the same arguments that they have presented in the past which have been shot down in the past (by me, by the ExCo and the league) including as recently as this past offseason if I recall correctly. It'd be like me bringing up getting rid of draft pick trading again, there's no freaking point. There were a few people who agreed, but not enough and it isn't gonna happen.

That this has come up many times before and you seem to think that bringing up the same arguments again will result in a different result makes me wonder whether you've been paying attention at all for the past 5 years. Do you want to try suggesting abolishing the draft and making it a completely free signing market next? It's been at least a year since that horse has been beaten.

Those are not the issues I was addressing, so no, they don't specifically apply here. The discussion this offseason does indicate that there wouldn't be a lot of support for what I'm suggesting, but it was primarily focused on eliminating draft roster slots and placing requirements for the number of active players, so not the specific direction I was going in terms of a straight expansion on top of the draft roster, or throwing out ideas for DL-related changes.

To address some of your "points"...
I brought up the DL system because you initially brought it up (I quoted you). You brought it up, it didn't make any sense, so I addressed it and the suggestion it will improve DL management just doesn't fly. The primary reasons GM's seem to have DL violations is they simply miss a player (which wouldn't change) or for whatever reason they don't get a roster in (which also wouldn't change).

I'm sorry, maybe I'm a little slow. Could you explain the difference between arguing a "point" and arguing just a regular old point? What if it was in CAPS italicized and quoted? Would that be like a triple dose of you saying you're above such a discussion? Does a blanket statement that something is true or not true without any actual reasoning or evidence involved what count as a "point" or a point?

Anyway, I'm suggesting that the possibility of having a spot open w/out having to drop anyone would be an incentive for GMs to not "miss players." Depending on how it eventually worked out, maybe the penalty for playing an injured guy would be losing that extra roster spot and having to bench the guy for the the full term of his injury + time he should have been out (maybe w/ a reduced add'l inj penalty, or none at all, again not a comprehensive rule proposal here, just some ideas) w/out the benefit of the added roster flexibility.

Neither you or I can say definitively whether people would be more or less diligent w/ injuries if there were a positive incentive (like a roster opening) as opposed to a negative one - an idea being supported in the current thread about DL tweaks. Though its near impossible for you to actually know how people would respond, that apparently isn't a bar from saying it would fail without any real reasoning. This seems to be a trend.

As far as midseason FA players saving your season last year... what you're saying essentially is that you screwed up, didn't know what you were doing and needed to make desperation signings to beat out Atlanta, who didn't have all that great of a team himself that season. Congrats on that.

Um, yes, that is essentially what I am saying. My exact words were:

"That [my season] needed saving was in large part b/c I hadn't yet (and still haven't) figured out all the intricacies of NL roster depth."

Did you not understand that statement the first time, or did you just feel compelled to rephrase my statement to make yourself sound like more of an ass? I know you can't really wrap your head around saying you could have done something better, or (gasp) weren't right 100% of the time.

Yeah, more depth would have been helpful to me, but I'm pretty happy with how it worked out (w/ 90+ W's and an NLE title) given how much run production I was missing. It sucked, but I won't be goaded into harping on who was out and for how long just b/c you're getting snippy with me. So feel free to look it up, or just keep talking from your ass, whatever. Having built a team for the AL, and made what turned out to be an impactful trade (Loney for McGowan) with the idea that I was moving to the Texas or Cleveland, you could say I failed to remake my roster quickly enough to jump into the NL, but don't worry about my team so much. I'm sure I'll be fine and figure it out eventually.

The adding of even a check box will be more work for Shawn. Shawn handles the website, any changes to the website are going to make more work for Shawn. I would think that would be self-evident, but what do I know, I'm always wrong.

Seriously? You know there's a "suggestions" thread right? I didn't say we unilaterally implement something and force Shawn to do it no matter how difficult it is. As I've repeatedly stated in response to this same point, ease of administration is a major concern when making rule changes about roster management, so I don't think anything would be put into action that A) hadn't been confirmed to be easily doable and approved by those affected (incl Shawn) or B) substantially increased anyone's workload in league matters. In fact, part of the reason I suggested it was because I thought there might be a way to get GMs manipulating and updating player info and status in such a way that it would be increasingly easy to administer the site, etc.

And seriously, enough w/ the "nobody likes me, everybody hates me, boo hoo quit picking on me" routine. I'm not sure anyone really cares as much about being "pro-Bren" or "anti-Bren" as you think.

Either way, you're right that nothing's happening on this now (or any time soon, for that matter). I prob could have picked a better time to throw this stuff out there, so I guess I'll revisit this and provide a more concrete proposal or two for people to critique once we have a sense where projections will come from after this season.