IBC

Everyone is hurt. Scott Kazmir just left the game with a shoulder injury. I need healthy bodies.

Royals wrote:Everyone is hurt. Scott Kazmir just left the game with a shoulder injury. I need healthy bodies.

Time to look at the waiver wire bruh!

Any thought to the league adopting a "60 day DL" policy, for guys that are lost for the year? Maybe have a limit of like 2 or 3 spots to stash guys who go down for lengthy periods of time?

My two cents: it's unnecessary, and part of the challenge. We get 50 man rosters, 40 of which are dedicated to guys we can use. I feel like that's plenty.

But hey, I'm all ears for people to debate it.

Yeah, we do get 50 spots.. I know some of us wouldn't mind more(yet another debate.).. but with TJ surgeries seemingly on the rise(perhaps an anomoly) the past couple years especially.. just a thought.

We mirror a ton of things in MLB, but not that. Why not?

That would be interesting to include a 60-DL slot or two for those long term injuries that don't count against the 40 man and can't be included in the 10 man last two draft column. I would say anything above and beyond that is extreme as most teams that are active already have a plethora of options beyond their 25 man...might not be the best, but they are still there.

I think one or two 60 day DL spots wouldn't be terrible. If you lose someone to TJ that's a spot you can't use an entire year. If you have 3 or 4 guys with TJ that's a lot less wiggle room

Cardinals wrote:I think one or two 60 day DL spots wouldn't be terrible. If you lose someone to TJ that's a spot you can't use an entire year. If you have 3 or 4 guys with TJ that's a lot less wiggle room

"Since the start of 2012, 53 Major Leaguers have undergone Tommy John surgery and had a full year now to recover. Only 32/53 are back in MLB."

That is from September 2014. So over the course of three full seasons, only 53 MLB players had Tommy John. Highly improbable you'll roster 4 worthwhile guys with TJ in a given season.

edited to add: This would just protect guys 37-50 on a given roster. It's not insurance for Adam Wainwright for me. It just insures that I keep Wyatt Strahan on my team, or Dace Kime.

Sure.. But it doesn't have to be limited to tj.. Could be shoulder.. Or in my case with Mesoraco, a hip impingement..

My thought also is, you have say mm 2 slots for this.. If you put a guy on it, he has to stay on the entire year.. Would make you think about using it or who you put there.

Yeah, but you're not stashing Mesoraco. You're stashing the player that you would drop to replace him.

Pirates wrote:Yeah, but you're not stashing Mesoraco. You're stashing the player that you would drop to replace him.

No.. I'm stashing Mesoraco and not being forced to possibly dump a player I like to CMA for a few..

I think I'm probably the poster child for this potential rule, but I just don't see the value of it. With 40 non-draftees allowed, if you have so many injuries that you start having to make tough decisions, I view that as a good thing, rather than letting everybody sign a couple more replacement level players to fill holes.

Dodgers wrote:I think I'm probably the poster child for this potential rule, but I just don't see the value of it. With 40 non-draftees allowed, if you have so many injuries that you start having to make tough decisions, I view that as a good thing, rather than letting everybody sign a couple more replacement level players to fill holes.

Just curious as to what makes it a "good thing" to have to drop players you potentially traded for and/or scouted/picked up/used a waiver claim for?

Scott Kazmir hasn't been the model of perfect health in his career, so it's sort of a risk you assume taking him (all pitchers come with risk, some more than others). Only roster expansion that I think would be beneficial would maybe granting rebuilding teams a few extra spots so that they can stash more prospects.

Orioles wrote:Scott Kazmir hasn't been the model of perfect health in his career, so it's sort of a risk you assume taking him (all pitchers come with risk, some more than others). Only roster expansion that I think would be beneficial would maybe granting rebuilding teams a few extra spots so that they can stash more prospects.

Fair enough.. There's certainly merit in the strategy of managing a limited roster.. but then why not just have 40 mans and flood the wire with prospects.. ?

As for roster expansion, if I had my way we'd have another 5 slots each, in an attempt to mirror a farm system - AAA/AA/A - 5 spots each. But that's a different discussion

Rockies wrote:

Dodgers wrote:I think I'm probably the poster child for this potential rule, but I just don't see the value of it. With 40 non-draftees allowed, if you have so many injuries that you start having to make tough decisions, I view that as a good thing, rather than letting everybody sign a couple more replacement level players to fill holes.

Just curious as to what makes it a "good thing" to have to drop players you potentially traded for and/or scouted/picked up/used a waiver claim for?

I feel like every decision shouldn't be easy for us. Deciding whether to drop a prospect in order to field a team is the kind of decision I think it's good that we have to make. I think this roster size has proved to be a challenge for all different kinds of situations (JB's "dynasty", rebuilding projects while fielding a team, etc.).

Expansion is brought up, so you know I'll pipe in (& expect Bren to come out of the woodwork in opposition).

Now that we are firmly a "ZiPS" league, and he (Dan Z) has players graduating to SIM status very early (I have 4 - '13/'14 draftees with projections on my 'Draft Roster') I think it's time to Expand.

I would make it that once a player has a projection, they are on the 40 man roster, period. Then we get rid of 'Inactive Roster', make our draft roster include all year's (no more "0's", players keep their draft year '11, '12, '13 etc., until they graduate), and expand 'Draft Roster' to 20 players (15 if the league deems only expanding to 5 players).

This could be done organically, we don't allow for Expansion until the Post-season draft, and teams simply draft, and don't have to cut.

The key to this is all teams would have 40-man SIM rosters, and only 20 (Non-Sim players). This will also serve for a more competitive league as teams will be forced to have 40 SIM players, or simply not get to use those 40 roster spots for any draftees/non-Sim players.

For teams that want to rebuild, there are so many good prospects with projections, you could have a full house of prospects still between those with projections, and the 15-20 non-projected prospects.

Just my annual 2 cents on the subject.

BTW, my changes would sure make it easier for Shawn every year!

Dodgers wrote:I feel like every decision shouldn't be easy for us. Deciding whether to drop a prospect in order to field a team is the kind of decision I think it's good that we have to make. I think this roster size has proved to be a challenge for all different kinds of situations (JB's "dynasty", rebuilding projects while fielding a team, etc.).

No, not every decision should be easy. But I'm proposing the addition of a 60 day DL in a scenario where difficult decisions still have to potentially be made:

i.e. - put a guy on IBC 60 day, he has to be kept there the entire year. Don't allow him to be traded, etc. Only allow to put on 60 day DL if put on 60 day in MLB. etc etc. As I said, the mechanics could be worked out so that this isn't just a normal slot to stash a player. You would have to think real hard about putting a guy there.

In any case, if making hard decisions adds some kind of element, again.. why don't we just have 40 man rosters? Heck, even 25. Would definitely help rid the league of any dynasty, unless you took a really challenging rebuilding path.

No interest here in taking any action that would further deplete the quality of players in the free agent pool.

Rockies wrote:

Dodgers wrote:I feel like every decision shouldn't be easy for us. Deciding whether to drop a prospect in order to field a team is the kind of decision I think it's good that we have to make. I think this roster size has proved to be a challenge for all different kinds of situations (JB's "dynasty", rebuilding projects while fielding a team, etc.).

No, not every decision should be easy. But I'm proposing the addition of a 60 day DL in a scenario where difficult decisions still have to potentially be made:

i.e. - put a guy on IBC 60 day, he has to be kept there the entire year. Don't allow him to be traded, etc. Only allow to put on 60 day DL if put on 60 day in MLB. etc etc. As I said, the mechanics could be worked out so that this isn't just a normal slot to stash a player. You would have to think real hard about putting a guy there.

In any case, if making hard decisions adds some kind of element, again.. why don't we just have 40 man rosters? Heck, even 25. Would definitely help rid the league of any dynasty, unless you took a really challenging rebuilding path.

I'm not sure this would be that hard of a decision. I would put Ryu and Parker there immediately and get two more roster spots.

My two cents:

You need DL spots in fantasy because rosters need to be tiny. We have plenty of roster room to deal with injuries if one places a priority on depth over extra prospects.

If there's interest in controlling more players, let's just raise the roster limit. We have been pretty poor about self-managing our rosters in areas like this where the site doesn't completely do it for us (namely during draft time), so I don't think that the headaches around guys "not paying close attention" are worth it. I'm for raising rosters to 55 spots, though that's always been voted down in the past.

Last, if you get in a real crunch, playing with 23 players for a while isn't the end of the world. I've spent time in the double digits of injured guys the past couple of seasons so I know it stinks, but you don't need 25 in DMB to win.

Favorite part of this thread: Everyone ignoring Gudim's plea for help.

Tigers wrote:Favorite part of this thread: Everyone ignoring Gudim's plea for help.

Why worry about pleas for help when we can have fun watching him make tough decisions

I actually went a couple weeks without a backup catcher. Avila was injured, so all I had was Zunino. The beauty of our league is there are no in-game injuries, so you can run with a thin bench, like Brett said.

Orioles wrote:I actually went a couple weeks without a backup catcher. Avila was injured, so all I had was Zunino. The beauty of our league is there are no in-game injuries, so you can run with a thin bench, like Brett said.

Right.. except my starting C is DL'd as of next MP round.. and my backup C has been DL'd since the start of the year.

So that leaves me with.. No sim eligible catchers.

I find it hard to believe that you don't have a fringe prospect you can cut to pick up a catcher.