Roster restriction vote

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:06 pm

Probably about time for this vote.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:21 pm

I'm tempted to vote any 40+10 draftees period out of spite.

But the more I think about it,I don't see any problem with the system (I HATE agreeing with Bren.) This is just a few GM's here on extreme ends of the spectrum: JB wants it lifted for more 0 guys, and Gabe wants it lifted for more shitty sim players. I see 40+10 draftees as a good balance. Nobody has had a real problem with this before. How many sim players are you gonna carry? 32-35 probably which still leaves you 5-8 "0"'s. You don't need eleventy billion sim players.

That said, JB's point of the young defectors does make sense that they take forever to get into the database. the 16 and 17 year olds. That's where I really agree.

I'm on the fence and leaning towards changing it to any 10 out of sim being protected on that 10 man. Ill mull it over more

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:43 pm

I'd consider it opening up to 3 years of draftees, but I still don't see how the change in the international signings changes the roster setup. Those prospects HAD to be kept on the 40 man before, now they can be on the 40 man or the 10man draftee. What's the problem there?

Like I mentioned in an email to JP, when we had the 40,5,5 setup, we basically had two 'levels' of minors and a 40 man roster.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:48 pm

As someone with 2 16 year olds on my draft roster right now, I understand the implication is that I'll have to carry them as 0 players for a while before they reach the bigs. That's a downside to having them, with the upside being that they have superstar potential. I firmly and comfortably vote with sticking to the current system, international signings were made easier by the new rule changes, we don't need to make it easier for people to stash away 16 year olds.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:53 pm

Guys, three voting options isn't good unless we're doing two rounds of voting. Similar choices are diluted when you do that.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:57 pm

I assumed there would be another round of voting if it seemed necessary (meaning none of the options got 4). I don't think we're quite ready to vote on this bindingly yet though, completely changing the league's roster format is kind of a big decision.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:13 pm

Well, if we have another round, that's better. It still skews the results though.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:43 pm

Athletics wrote:As someone with 2 16 year olds on my draft roster right now, I understand the implication is that I'll have to carry them as 0 players for a while before they reach the bigs. That's a downside to having them, with the upside being that they have superstar potential. I firmly and comfortably vote with sticking to the current system, international signings were made easier by the new rule changes, we don't need to make it easier for people to stash away 16 year olds.

Jake, just for what it's worth, that point is made void by a 40 / 10 0-'s, which I believe is what JB is calling for. We already allow people to stash 16 year olds as draft players now, so changing the rule to 40 / 10 0- (instead of 5/6-) would not alter anyone's ability to "shash 16 year olds."

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:52 pm

Actually it would make it easier to do that, since they could theoretically keep that 0 eligibility for 5 years instead of the two we have now. JB's post is misguided because he's claiming that the new change making those guys draft eligible will have effects that won't be felt for the next two years, while the reality is that since 06 signings are already affected the only group who are disadvantaged are guys signed in 05, who would be losing their draft roster eligibility in 2 months anyway. The problem with making it non-DB players is that so many minor leaguers now make the SIM (in fact I have 2 such 05 players, Mayberry and Broadway), while some major league guys don't (I have Ryan Bukvich right now as a 0-player, and there is of course Tim Lincecum). JB's idea makes sense for a small subset of players who it won't matter about soon anyway (and coincidentally enough would benefit him more than anyone else, kinda like how Gabe's idea would benefit him more than anyone else), but it doesn't work for the rest of them.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:34 pm

You know, I don't really care about this issue that much, but I am so worn out on the disingenuous logic behind some of the arguments on both sides.

All this boils down to is some guys wanting to be able to have more good players on their team and some other guys wanting to try to stop them. Some would expand rosters to 70 if they could because they will find good players to fill the spots and gain more of an advantage. Some would limit them to 40 because they are too lazy and/or "busy" to field a good roster past their major league slots.

I'm one of the former, but this rule hasn't impaired and isn't going to impair me much. I just have a hard time relating to the attitude of wanting to make yourself more competitive by keeping other guys from maximizing their rosters, rather than doing something to improve your own. Notice that it's some of the same guys who have admitted that deep down they'd like to redraft to "even out" JB's advantage who are voting for this.

And as I said, this is clearly a rule for the sake of having a rule, which bugs me as well.

I do think that if we're going to have the rule stay the same, it might be good to actually enforce it.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:47 pm

I'd also like to add...I want to beat JB as bad as anyone else, including Bren and the guys who have been around the whole time and are rivals, and he knows that. He's the king of the mountain, from a roster/favorite standpoint. But I don't want to beat him by enacting rules that force him back to my class. I want to beat him straight up.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:09 pm

Amen. I don't think JB's roster is healthy for the league but I take a lot of pride in being able to beat him and keep up or ahead of him in the standings.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 4:50 pm

In this case I was talking about JB's minor league prospects, not his major league roster. We aren't enacting a new rule, we have a rule already in place that JB wants to change for his own benefit.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:54 pm

Can either Shawn Jake or Bren in one sentence tell me the benefit to restricting the 10 to draftees only?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:39 am

You mean aside from the fact that the 10 were created SPECIFICALLY for draftees? That it forces GM's to pay attention to the minors and the draft?

I haven't seen any actual benefit presented for changing the rule, all I've seen have been a bunch of "I wants" and ways it will be good for individual GM's, not how it's good for the league.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:39 am

My one sentence is that the draftee rosters are necessary to ensure that all GMs pay attention to the draft.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:08 am

Frankly my vote here was not on the basis of there's a benefit of restricting, it was that there's not a benefit of changing the rule. As such, I voted for no rule change, not a specific option.

IBC

Roster restriction vote

What should roster restrictions be?

Roster restriction vote