Illegal Rosters/ Roster Size change?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:10 pm

we're supposed to have 10 draftees, right?

Well most people (myself included.) don't. I have 8 but thats partially because of recent trades that brought me down to 8. I have 3 or 4 "0"''s though. My problem will be corrected by weeks end.

Cubs
Roster Size: 50
Last Name First Name Position Date of Birth
0-Blanks Kyle 1b 9/1/1986
0-Peguero Tony p 2/17/1981
0-Petit Gregorio 2b 12/10/1984
6-Cooper Craig 1B 10/27/1984
6-Miranda Juan 1B 04/25/1983
6-Tanner Clayton P 12/05/1987

3 "6's" out of 50 on the Cubs roster.

Rockies only has 5.

I'm too lazy to check everybody's, but whats the point of having the rule if its not enforced?

Additionally, instead of enforcing this one to the max why not just change it to 10 0's/5's/6's? People would still be offenders, but just not as much .Gabe would still have to cut 4, though. That is kind of ridiculous.

I don't really care, but people have brought it to my attention and I either think we have to make them abide by the rules or change the rule.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:17 pm

Maybe we should appoint someone to keep track of this. As DMB has included a number of lower level guys more 5-players made the DB (on my roster that includes John Mayberry, so if you were to count the list it would like I was in violation). I agree that Gabe is ridiculous, I sincerely doubt he has 7 05 DB players on his roster, but I also think we need to enforce the rule, what's the point of having a rule we don't enforce.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:01 pm

In situations like this, where a GM is clearly not in compliance (or very questionably at least) then any ExCo member has the authority to say something about it to that GM. "Should we yell at gabe?" Is not something that needs to be voted on. Just make sure to copy the other members of the ExCo on the discussion so we know someone is addressing it.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:09 pm

ok, what about expanding the parameters to include 0 players in that 10 then?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:12 pm

No. everone knows what those roster spots are for. Draft picks.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:13 am

Agreed, especially as we just expanded the definition when we added the international signings to the draft. I might have to carry Angel Villalona as a 0 player for 3 years beyond his draft eligibility, I knew that going in.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:17 am

Frankly, this is another thing I can blame on OOPSS. The problem is that the rules aren't straight forward such that I could just check how many 5- and 6- are on a team and use that. Not many people use the change roster status page which could also be used. That being said do any 2006 draftees have projections this year? If not, it would be possible for me to keep track of 2006 draftees who get a projection next year, remember that they were 2006 draftee and therefore could be stored as a draft pick and then tie in their IBC stats such that when they play a game they lose that status possibility. Also, I could force my way by restricting signings past 40 non-draftees and saying if you want to be able to sign you'll have to use the change roster status page to set up your roster correctly, but I'm not sure if that's the approach I want to take (though I'm not sure there's any alternative). Either way there's not much I can do with the 2005 draftees who got projections and haven't played since I think there are quite a few of them. Once winter rolls around though, this will be much easier to handle, in the meantime I guess we'll have to self-police.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:37 am

Morrow has a projection. Not sure about any others from 06

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:42 pm

I believe Joseph Smith got one too.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:39 am

I have emailed Gabe and CCed everyone.

I really wish there was less of the "Someone on the ExCo needs to address problem X" and more "This problem has been discussed, we know what has to be done, I'm doing it and CCing everyone so they know what's going on"

Everyone knows now that Gabe's roster is a problem, why did it take until now for someone to contact him about it and why did that someone have to be me?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:13 am

I was waiting until I saw him online.

But point taken. I'll just start acting instead of reacting.

Bren gave me... a...au...authoritie. Respect it!

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:46 am

RedSox wrote:I have emailed Gabe and CCed everyone.

I really wish there was less of the "Someone on the ExCo needs to address problem X" and more "This problem has been discussed, we know what has to be done, I'm doing it and CCing everyone so they know what's going on"

Everyone knows now that Gabe's roster is a problem, why did it take until now for someone to contact him about it and why did that someone have to be me?

Along with this, does anyone think that we should establish a ExCo@ibcleague.com email that we can all use rather than having an email which is really coming from the ExCo coming from a single individual? Or is that too over the top?

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:33 pm

I don't think thats necessary, plus I already have enough email addresses to check one more would just be a hassle.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:25 pm

yea i think its a bit over the top.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:43 pm

RedSox wrote:I have emailed Gabe and CCed everyone.

I really wish there was less of the "Someone on the ExCo needs to address problem X" and more "This problem has been discussed, we know what has to be done, I'm doing it and CCing everyone so they know what's going on"

Everyone knows now that Gabe's roster is a problem, why did it take until now for someone to contact him about it and why did that someone have to be me?

Ok, that's no problem. I think that human nature in a new arrangement like this it to not step on people's toes, but I agree, if any of us observes something, we just need to act. I do think that it's important to notify eveyrone else if we do act on something (and you basically said that as well).

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:07 am

The one hesitation I had, and admitedly stillhave, about a committee style of running the league is situations like these. Either no one addressing an issue that everyone knows needs addressing because everyone assumes someone else would do it or multiple people addressing an issue separately and not communicating it with each other, duplicating work.
Communication is key to this working.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:04 am

If communication is the key then I'd like to communicate that I call Alfonso Soriano if we make Gabe cut him

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:16 am

With Jim, Brett and JP seemingly on the for change and Bren on the against change side of this issue, I guess it's up to me and the Rev to decide where we stand and put it to a vote.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:14 pm

Since nobody ever seems to be on during the day, I'm gonna talk to myself. One major drawback of the draft pick restriction is that as of yet we really haven't followed it, I'm guessing at least 1/2 the teams (myself included) are in violation. I've been trying forever to find more draftees but the fact remains that it is quite hard to find players by a certain draft year. At this point I'm leaning towards just abolishing the rule because it's been a pain in the ass every year--the need to convert players as well as the need to attempt to police it, without mention of the seemingly hundreds of players I've had to correct because they were logged with the wrong draft year. At this point, since most of the league seems against it, I'm willing to vote for removing it. Rev, where you at?

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:13 pm

What Nils said made a lightbulb go off...why set any restrictions at all? If we give GMs the opportunity to use the spots however they want, the ones who don't want prospects will inevitably fail, while those that do can still use the spots for draftees, non-sim, etc. We would be encouraging this through a draft and by allowing trading of those picks. If I know Gabe doesn't want to take his draft picks I'm not going to offer as much for them, thus allowing some additional balancing. Why are we forcing one train of thought (the best way to win in the future is building a farm) on teams, when it may not be the best way in their eyes, certainly doesn't give the most freedom and they don't agree with it. Let them do what they want and we'll have the last laugh when they fail miserably. I change my vote from keep draft spots intact to free rule over a 50 man total roster with the stipulation that we never (Josh never!) go over 50 for a roster limit.

Kind of all over the place, but the thoughts individually make sense I believe.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:43 pm

I'm curious, what problems has the rule changed? Who has it harmed? This rule has served us well for 5+ years, do you think that changing it is actually going to do any good? I seriously doubt it.

I think you guys have gotten carried away with the idea of change for the sake of change.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:51 pm

RedSox wrote:I'm curious, what problems has the rule changed? Who has it harmed? This rule has served us well for 5+ years, do you think that changing it is actually going to do any good? I seriously doubt it.

I think you guys have gotten carried away with the idea of change for the sake of change.

Well, I think that you tend to be carried away with having rules for the sake of having rules, in cases like this draft roster thing.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:54 pm

Also, JB has pointed this out to me on several occasions, but the reason that this makes more sense to repeal now than in the past is our rule change from last summer on the international players. As it is now, we have this weird, unnecessary disconnect.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:38 pm

I don't see how the international prospect thing makes the rule any less relevant. If anything it makes it more sensible since there are more players eligible for those draft spots.

Like i said in the other thread, this just seems like an excuse to sacrifice a level of complexity for the sake of making it easy on the lazy or less knowledgeable GM's. We should not be making the league 'easier'.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:27 am

RedSox wrote:Like i said in the other thread, this just seems like an excuse to sacrifice a level of complexity for the sake of making it easy on the lazy or less knowledgeable GM's. We should not be making the league 'easier'.

Frankly this statement is just insulting seeing as the majority of the complaint are coming from the established GMs of the league. This is not about making it easier or harder at all, it's about allowing GMs freedom with their roster.