Rules; bitches, moans, gripes/complaints....

[Deleted]

And yes Brew....Loopholes.


Please post any rules you would like to see changed. Let's try to follow a template so it's easy for Cards, Mariners, and myself to review.

What needs changing? (answer here)

Why does it need changing? (answer here)

How do you propose it be changed? (answer here)


It's ok if you don't answer the "how", but the "what" and "why" are obviously pretty important so we can talk it over.

[WhiteSox]

1. Having a player who is over 150 abs or 50 ip on their minor league roster

2. Allows someone to stash players who would otherwise be starting or at least be a utility player on another team. Also those numbers put them past rookie limits.

3. Once a player reaches those limits he has to be placed on the major league roster or be dropped

[Deleted]

You're saying once a player hits those career numbers of 150 AB or 50 IP you don't think the player should be eligible for demotion to the minors right?

[WhiteSox]

More so during a season. Say a player has an injury and doesn't play in the majors that year he could be sent down the next year until he reached those limits

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

Nov 27, 2014 7:41:27 GMT -5 @rays said:

What needs to be changed? Stopping all avenues of player stashing & cutting roster size back to a realistic 25 man roster.

Why does it need to be changed? To increase the available player player pool.

How do I propose it be changed? 1) Cutting 3 roster slots per year for 2 years. 2) Option system changed to career numbers of AB or PA and IP when those thresholds are met or exceeded that player is no longer eligible to be placed on a minor roster. 3) DL system, under no circumstances should a player be permitted to be placed on the DL while on an active roster(not being on an actual real live DL 7D, 15D, 60D) during the season. Or during the off season any player that finished the year in an active status. Also need a date to have those players who did finish the season on the DL to be added to the roster or dropped. No one should start the season in a DL spot but should be carried on the active roster and transferred to the DL after the new season opens.


I could see a 31 player roster if this was a 20 team league but with it being a 30 team league I don't understand the logic of having a larger size roster then available players. Or, maybe I could see it with small MiLB rosters but again with 60 there's no reason to stash 6 extra players and 11 if you count the DL. 

All TPB contracts should count towards the Cap no matter the amount.  This is also a form of stashing players and a way of circumventing the cap limits.

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment here.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't mind seeing some of these issues explored:

1. ROSTER SIZE

The MLB CBA, with its limitations on options, is in place to ensure that MLB calibre players cannot be stashed in the minors forever at the expense of their careers, skills and earning potential. It is designed at least in part to protect the players while ensuring that the best 750 players in the world are playing for the fans

I agree that there should be fewer players on our rosters. I don't know if we absolutely NEED to go to 25, but 31 is too many. It permits stashing of players who could be useful to other teams. I'd also like to see a minimum MLB roster size and a requirement that a franchise be able to field a team in competition every day.

I don't know if I would prevent a team from putting a guy in the minors based on rookie eligibility, but perhaps a Waiver system that would say that if your guy is over the rookie limit for IPs or ABs, then you get a limited number of options and then, if you want to demote him, he goes through waivers. That might be complicated, but what the hell, I'm not doing it (I would be prepared to take responsibility for policing that if necessary).

2. SEASON LENGTH

I realize there are practical limits on this, and I recognize that this is a really unique league where the journey seems to be far more important than the destination, but it seems wrong to have what amounts to 7 weeks of playoffs. This means that the season is over for 2/3 of the teams by the middle of August.

Those are two. I'm sure I might have more.

[Deleted]

Nov 27, 2014 8:11:31 GMT -5 @indians said:

I wouldn't mind seeing some of these issues explored:

1. ROSTER SIZE

I agree that there should be fewer players on our rosters. I don't know if we absolutely NEED to go to 25, but 31 is too many. It permits stashing of players who could be useful to other teams. I'd also like to see a minimum MLB roster size and a requirement that a franchise be able to field a team in competition every day.

But what is the purpose of having more roster spots then available players?  I think if you want every team to be able to field a somewhat competitive team on a daily bases  then those extra MLB players need to be available.  Also, I think the MiLB rosters should have topped out at 40 making more players available.

I don't know if I would prevent a team from putting a guy in the minors based on rookie eligibility, but perhaps a Waiver system that would say that if your guy is over the rookie limit for IPs or ABs, then you get a limited number of options and then, if you want to demote him, he goes through waivers. That might be complicated, but what the hell, I'm not doing it (I would be prepared to take responsibility for policing that if necessary).

I don't necessarily think it should be rookie eligibility limits but something along the lines of 250 AB/PA and 100-150 IP or 70 appearances  as examples.
2. SEASON LENGTH

I realize there are practical limits on this, and I recognize that this is a really unique league where the journey seems to be far more important than the destination, but it seems wrong to have what amounts to 7 weeks of playoffs. This means that the season is over for 2/3 of the teams by the middle of August.

I would like to see 2 or 3 more weeks of the regular season if possible.

[Red Sox]

If a real team loses a player, they just bring one up from the minors and immediately plug them in and they get playing time. We can't force major league teams to play our minor leaguers. How are we supposed to replace players that get hurt if we can't have a buffer? Maybe 31 players is too many but 25 seems insane. There has to be a happy medium somewhere

[Red Sox]

And I am all for setting a career atbat/innings limit and making those guys who pass the limits have to be put on a major league roster or be dropped or traded.

[Deleted]

I agree with Kirby, but I also agree with Rays. Life is hard

[Deleted]

In terms of player movement, each team will likely be dropping 13 guys at the all star break and a lot of teams will be dropping mlb guys soon to get under cap.

[Dodgers GM]

I agree with the roster decrease but i would like to see a 28 man roster....that frees up 90 players + because of teams with DL guys aswell which helps out teams that need to field a somewhat competetive team. I am not for giving players away after I have worked to get them. I understand where some teams are coming from and that some managers inherited these teams but look at REDS for example. He took over what was probably the worst roster I have ever seen both mlb and milb and has put together a team he can field improved his minors and added alot of cap. If someone wants to improve bad enough they can do it without getting hand outs from other teams dropping a whopping 6 guys from their roster to bring it to 25 which is kinda ridiculous. As for minors in real life there are more than 70 players on every mlb farm system. yes some good and some bad so why is it a problem in here with less guys? Is it because some people dont wanna make an effort to research players and dig a little deeper to find someone. Thats a part of this league that is great, putting in the extra effort to make your team better.

[Deleted]

Kris, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that the league would have more roster spots then available players but still have rules against tanking. If you can't field a starting lineup the end results are the same. 750 players can't stretch into 930 no matter how much you try.

The idea that only having 25 players seems insane to some because they can't replace an injury that may occur. Well what about the teams that can't have at least 25 MLB players, how are they supposed to replace their injured players.

Maybe the answer is contraction so there are enough players to go around for all the teams.

[St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew)]

with all due respect, off the top of my head ... Munenori Kawasaki and Tuffy Gosewisch ... two players with over 100 AB in 2014 ... owned by ... you guessed it ... no-one. If I cared enough to spend the time, I could find a 25 man roster of players with 50+ AB or 20+ IP that are unowned.

it's as simple a case as some teams simply don't want to field competitive teams.

some people just want everything handed to them on a plate.

around mid season last year, I was looking for cheap holds. I went through every player that had 5 holds and found more than 20 guys that were sitting in teams MILB rosters.

sorry but we could cut rosters to 25, some teams would pick up extra players ... some teams would still sit with empty teams.

another example of this is the dispersal draft between you and Twins ... how many MILB players were picked before DAVID PRICE ?

[St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew)]

and don't forget that the average MLB club would have anything up to 10 or more guys on the DL by the end of May, guys come up and get sent down (my boy Bedrosian was an example) and then in September MLB rosters expand to 40 so the MLB active players increases to 1200.

[Halejon/Nationals GM]

Nov 27, 2014 23:34:32 GMT -5 @rays said:

Kris, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that the league would have more roster spots then available players but still have rules against tanking. If you can't field a starting lineup the end results are the same. 750 players can't stretch into 930 no matter how much you try.

But it's not the same 750 players the whole year. 1212 players appeared in the majors last season and there were 853 on opening rosters (including DL). And yeah, a lot of those are just cups of coffee but it's not like the majority of teams in this league have 31 full-timers on their rosters, nor do you need 31 to field a starting lineup. I'm all for reducing rosters to liven the waiver wire up a little but the idea that we need to do so (or contract?!) because mathematically there aren't enough players to go around doesn't fly. If a manager can't find 19 players to put together some semblance of a team, they're not trying. The tanking rule is to discourage managers from fielding nothing at all when there are clearly better options.

[Deleted]

Of those 1212 how many were Sept. call ups which wouldn't have much positive affect on most of the league since most teams season have ended. I still think my point remains that only 750 players are active at any one time with the exception of double headers when 26 players are allowed.

No, there is no need to contract teams but I think for people to say the idea to have rosters at 25 to match MLB is ridiculous & insane doesn't make anymore sense. The idea that 31 roster spots are needed to cover for injuries is not sound reasoning since there still remains the fact there are only 750 active player at one time. So it's still impossible for everyone to have that opportunity whether they choose to for not.

Unless lineups are set weekly and not daily, I think the imbalance is in pitching department. I don't understand why the need for 5 SP spots when there are not enough SP to go around to need 5 on a daily bases. More like 2 SP, 3 RP, and 2 P (SP/RP). That right there would reduce 4 roster spots and not disrupt anyone's scoring.

I guess what my issue comes down to is competitive balance or the lack of it and equal opportunity. Which is mathematically impossible in the format as it is now. I can't say for sure but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the cause of the turnover in this league. And I may be the only one that feels this way but allowing cap to be traded is not good for the league. Anyone who would trade cap away is foolish. A lesson I learned the hard way.

[Deleted]

Collin McHugh and Brock Holt two players I picked up off the waiver wire during the season. There are still players avaliable you just need to do the work. I think the 31 benefits rebuilding teams as it gives them a chance to maybe put a fringe mlb player like Mchugh or holt and see they become anything, instead of a playoff team needing those spots. I think I'm just tired of hearing how we need to throw the weaker teams a bone. Perfect example: Reds and I both have up playoff teams to take over the worst teams in the league in those respective years. I've won my division every year after I took over and reds has a good shot to make the playoffs this year. Neither of us were thrown a bone, we just did the work.

[Dodgers GM]

^^^^^^^^^

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

I agree with your points Rays, to an extent. I also am not convinced that cutting three roster spots will really open up the waiver wire that much. For example, I feel like I have a top 10ish team in the league right now. If you cut down to 28, I'd drop Matt Thornton, Tim Federowicz, Michael Blazek (two of which are in my minors), so you open up one 38 year reliever and two bleh fringe MLB/AAAA guys. Most teams are going to have a similar situation where they can send down guys to absorb the blow and drop so-so guys. Maybe I'm strengthening your point for 25 man rosters, but I think league sentiment (or at least the sentiment of those contributing to this post right now) is that cutting rosters to 28 is okay, but not drastically going down to 25.