|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Oct 8, 2013 21:15:20 GMT -5
Thread to discuss possible changes to our current roster size (including DL spots, minor league).
Voice your opinions/thoughts/ideas/musings here.
After some discussion, we'll vote as a league
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 23:03:33 GMT -5
I think the roster size is fine, maybe shave off 2 players if anything. If you're going to reduce the roster, I think we should reduce the number of relief pitcher slots simultaneously. 6 is too many in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Oct 8, 2013 23:42:01 GMT -5
I'd vote for a roster deduction to 29, with 28 being the lowest I'd probably wanna go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds - Chris on Oct 8, 2013 23:43:25 GMT -5
I'd prefer to see a gradual reduction in roster sizes. Maybe reduce the roster by one slot maximum if it gets voted in. And then revisit the topic the following year? If the league wishes to reduce the roster further, one more slot would be removed.
If the vote passes it would be interesting to ask teams to drop two players from their MLB roster and the league holds a 1 round Waiver type draft to fairly disperse the players made available, to the other teams. Thus the one round cut.
I'd also like to see the DL slots increased to 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM on Oct 9, 2013 6:44:16 GMT -5
I'd prefer to see a gradual reduction in roster sizes. Maybe reduce the roster by one slot maximum if it gets voted in. And then revisit the topic the following year? If the league wishes to reduce the roster further, one more slot would be removed. If the vote passes it would be interesting to ask teams to drop two players from their MLB roster and the league holds a 1 round Waiver type draft to fairly disperse the players made available, to the other teams. Thus the one round cut. I'd also like to see the DL slots increased to 5. I like what Reds has proposed. A gradual drop is the best way to do this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 6:48:36 GMT -5
We say reduce the total MLB roster size to 28 active players and add one DL slot.
The 28 active is halfway between the 25 MLB teams carry and the 31 we have been carrying. The one extra DL slot is a bone to those who want added slots. These adjustments would make rosters potentially 32 players (counting DL slots).
Carrying 28 active players and 4 DL slots would also de facto lower everyone's salary cap and would be only a two player reduction all together.
Leave everything else as is, run it for a year and revisit it next year to see how it worked out.
Simulatneously, we suggest a reasonable starts limit for starting pitchers, something in the 220 starts range That comes out to six starters toeing the rubber 34 times each, plus extras for replacement starters. That should be waaay more than anyone needs to run his club properly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 7:26:41 GMT -5
Not to pull a cigar, but I think this is kind of a bullshit move. I've built my team around depth not having elite players and too be honest I'm kinda of getting tired of let's throw the lower level teams a bone. It's literally what you put in to your team you'll get out. I took over the worst place team and the next year I won my division. Did I get any bones thrown my way? NO and I don't need to. All this would do would benefit teams like Yankees and Royals who have elite players and would cut guys that would barely help them win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 7:50:26 GMT -5
That's why we said limit starts as well as cut rosters. Eventually, trimming rosters trims salary cap and feeds more SP and position players into the system, making it easier for lower clubs to acquire talent. We gotta force teams to hoarding SP. Six or seven SP is plenty for a team to carry, even allowing for injuries and the added DL slot.
Attempts to change the basic structure seem challenged as Cigar trying to take advantage of the league; couldn't be further from the truth.
What happens when top teams that also have the top starting pitcher prospects in their minors promote those guys? We all know who has the elite SP coming up... The best teams will have further widened the gap between the elite and the also ran, running out tons of SP every night. That has to be addressed now. Spread the wealth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds - Chris on Oct 9, 2013 8:28:24 GMT -5
Not to pull a cigar, but I think this is kind of a bullshit move. I've built my team around depth not having elite players and too be honest I'm kinda of getting tired of let's throw the lower level teams a bone. It's literally what you put in to your team you'll get out. I took over the worst place team and the next year I won my division. Did I get any bones thrown my way? NO and I don't need to. All this would do would benefit teams like Yankees and Royals who have elite players and would cut guys that would barely help them win. I don't know who the retards were that ran my team before me, but the team I inherited was garbage and my farm was garbage too. However, I should really be able to turn my farm around with this draft and all the extra prospects I pick up after the draft. I'm definitely not looking for any "bones to be thrown", nor do I need any. I just prefer a little flexibility within a league for anyone to pick up and utilize guys off the wire, which is why I suggested a very conservative approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds - Chris on Oct 9, 2013 8:31:46 GMT -5
That's why we said limit starts as well as cut rosters. Eventually, trimming rosters trims salary cap and feeds more SP and position players into the system, making it easier for lower clubs to acquire talent. We gotta force teams to hoarding SP. Six or seven SP is plenty for a team to carry, even allowing for injuries and the added DL slot. What's the difference between Royals "hoarding" SP and you "hoarding" depth bench players? Aren't you a perennial playoff club with a deep farm? So what's with the whoa is me attitude all the time? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 8:49:37 GMT -5
I'd vote for a one slot deduction repeated until the league is satisfied, with my personal end point coming between 25-28
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on Oct 9, 2013 12:52:49 GMT -5
I'm with Mariners, my team is built around non-elite players but I'd be ok with dropping one roster slot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 19:47:19 GMT -5
Reds quote: What's the difference between Royals "hoarding" SP and you "hoarding" depth bench players?
The difference is that the deep bench players can't play; the owner has to sit them to play regulars. When a team carries an absurd amount of starters, he can rotate in multiple starters all the time; it's like streaming pitchers. Essentially it's unfair to the system and skews the scoring categories dramatically. This has all been gone over a thousand times.
There's a big difference in trying to protect the way an owner runs his club and trying to eliminate loopholes in the system. Allowing so many starters on a roster is tantamount to streaming pitchers; it's bad for the league. When a team with a dozen elite starters comes into it's heyday, you'll all see what we are talking about. Won't be long, either... Better to solve the issue now.
We should set a limit on number of starts now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds - Chris on Oct 9, 2013 21:28:12 GMT -5
Reds quote: What's the difference between Royals "hoarding" SP and you "hoarding" depth bench players? The difference is that the deep bench players can't play; the owner has to sit them to play regulars. When a team carries an absurd amount of starters, he can rotate in multiple starters all the time; it's like streaming pitchers. Essentially it's unfair to the system and skews the scoring categories dramatically. This has all been gone over a thousand times. There's a big difference in trying to protect the way an owner runs his club and trying to eliminate loopholes in the system. Allowing so many starters on a roster is tantamount to streaming pitchers; it's bad for the league. When a team with a dozen elite starters comes into it's heyday, you'll all see what we are talking about. Won't be long, either... Better to solve the issue now. We should set a limit on number of starts now. No need to explain anything about moving SP's in and out of the lineup. But really when you look at the 2013 TPB set up, "streaming pitchers" is only good for attempting to win 2 stat categories (QS & K's). W & L cancel each other out due to the chance of the team winning or losing. And the rate stats are present no matter what. Having a deep bench with solid players pretty much ensures you have a starter every day at every spot and hitters have the possibility to influence 5 counting stats. I'm sorry, but this suggestion is eerily similar to another (money) league I was in where I built my team around an ultra deep SP staff. In the second year the Commish decides part way through the year that in the playoffs each SP is only allowed to pitch one start per week. It was downright goofy for that change to have occurred. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 14:17:39 GMT -5
Yeah, it is no secret I have a lot of SP and yes I planned it that way. I don't consider it a loophole, it is pretty obvious that having a lot of SP is going to help get wins and QS and as Reds points out it is personal strategy at work. Putting IP limits obviously changes what everyone was operating under when assembling their teams as having 5 elite SP is always going to kick the shit out of every other team every week where how we currently operate having 7 or 8 mediocre SP still gives teams a shot of at least taking wins and quality starts and K's although at the same time almost always punting on ERA and WHIP since the team with the better quality arms will take that. Is it a loophole if you have several SP, RP eligible pitchers who are now relievers and they get you a hold while they are in your SP slot? No, that is strategy (at least in my book).
If an innings limit is set it will guarantee whoever has the best 5 quality starting pitchers on their team win all pitching stats the vast majority of the time. If that is what the league wants to do that is fine but it isn't the assumption we have been operating under when we built our clubs which is very similar to you getting upset about the proposition to increase the value of HR and slugging by adding a SLG% stat because you build your club focusing on OBP, runs, AVG, SB, etc.
I understand the desire to decrease roster size and if gradual as suggested I'm cool with that (and also like increasing the DL slots at the same time as I think many teams have had as many as 10 guys out at the same time--3 slots is not "accurate" to the real MLB if that is what we are going for). Both setting an IP limit and decreasing roster size at the same time though I feel really changes the strategy of how many guys were running their teams dramatically however.
I do have lots of SP and have intentionally gone after a lot of depth there. Not trying to exploit a loophole but trying to be smart. Also how many sure thing SP prospects completely fail? Also how many great SP get hurt every year. My "hoard" of SP almost all year resulted in only 5 or so SP actually able to pitch for me most weeks.
|
|
