Winter Meeting Proposal #4
Add a 10th pitcher. I feel like we already added an additional hitter when we voted to create the c/dh spot so now I think it’s time to add another pitcher.
Add a 10th pitcher. I feel like we already added an additional hitter when we voted to create the c/dh spot so now I think it’s time to add another pitcher.
When we created the C/DH spot, it did not change the number of hitters, just changed the eligibility. The 14 position players was still intact.
I’m a traditionalist, I like the 14 & 9 setup.
I’m open to this idea.
I think with the cap the way it is this would make it very hard for us to add more players. I’m with EE, I like it as it is now
I don’t see why we would just add a pitcher and not a position player. I’m against it for two reasons. 1. I’m a traditionalist 2. Would create even further cap issues.
This would help alleviate the roster crunch with all the young farm pitchers being promoted. I feel that the c/dh is basically a 2nd utility position.
I don’t see how it solves that problem, when we can just adjust how young players are currently treated. We need more control over our farm players.
Traditionalist? I respect your opinion but we are changing all sorts of rules tradition no longer applies . We own a minimum of 43 players and have 23 active roster spots
No brainer for me, I’m for expansion. I’d prefer both a hitter and pitcher and agree with EE, we didn’t add hitters when we changed the rule from C to C/DH, just changed eligibility. I don’t get the traditionalist argument, what’s the tradition? I’m pretty sure SOT rules don’t follow traditional roto rules, whatever they are.
2004 – 3 farm, 23 active MLB
2005 – 6 farm, 23 active MLB
2006 – 10 farm, 23 active MLB
2007 – 10 farm, 23 active MLB
2008 – 15 farm, 23 active MLB
2009 – 20 farm, 23 active MLB
How can EE and DMB say they are traditionalist when they share a love seat at the draft? If anything that is so 2010 Adam Lambert.
I like the expanded roster idea.
Leaving the 23 man roster as it does two things in my mind:
1. Make it tougher for teams to determine which players to keep going into every season. I don’t mind owners having to choose between keeping d. Barton or keeping that spot open to draft a FA.
2. Generates more players available for draft each year.
I can hear wtny saying: “why should the bottom feeders be able to pick up our scrapes”. If we implement proposal #1 it would help teams protect those young player who are farm eligible.
Under the current rules most of those players like Barton are going to get reserved anyway. Maybe a few will slip through the cracks but I am pretty sure Barton has yet to be available draft day.
“1. Make it tougher for teams to determine which players to keep going into every season. I don’t mind owners having to choose between keeping d. Barton or keeping that spot open to draft a FA.”
You’re proposing a new rule, which I like by the way, that does the exact opposite of this statement. The new rule allows teams to reserve someone like Brantley or Saunders, therefore eliminating the whole “tougher for teams to determine which players to keep” part.
“2. Generates more players available for draft each year.”
How does this work?
My rule is simply placing these type players on a teams farm. We are changing the rule which stats any player who starts the year on the MLB roster must be included on your 23 man roster, except those players eligible for your farm system.
My new rules mentions nothing about “reserving someone”. These players must be placed in your farm to start the year or they are subject you your 23 man roster.
Just to clarify, Mike your new proposal would make any player that started 2009 in the minors eligible to be place back on the farm or reserved…..Last year you had to have Brandon Wood on your active roster before the draft, but he started in the minors……but techniically he has lost prospect status in both MLB and SOT……if Wood starts in the minors is he eligible for your farm this year? Or are we restricted in to players like Flowers or Saunders that began 2009 as farm eligible only
Wood is not eligible for my farm under my proposed rule. Players who appear on Prospect Lists are eligible for farm: Players like Saunder, Matusz, Brantley, etc.
Players like Barton and Wood, who have lost farm eligibility can be reserved after the draft, when all teams have a full 23 man roster.
that’s what I thought, I just wanted to make sure
Mike’s talking about guys with less than 150AB’s, 45 days in the majors, 50IP, etc. (assuming those are the right numbers).
I like your rule Mike, I think it solves some problems. At the same time though, it’s making it alot easier for teams to put together their rosters. If I don’t have to choose between keeping Brantley or Hairston for example, because I can simply keep Brantley on my farm, that’s making it a lot easier on my roster construction, right? Yet you don’t like active roster expansion because you prefer to see teams make the difficult decisions between “which players to keep going into every season.”? How does that make sense?
There difference is this:
Tough decisions need to be made with player without farm eligibility. The Barton, Hariston, Aviles, Marte, B. Wood types. We know today that no matter what these players are not farm eligible, therefore we know what to expect come keeper day. It’s either 23 man roster or Free Agency. These are the tough decisions i’m referring to. Players without farm eligibility, who might not contribute.
On the other hand, we won’t know until April 1st if the likes of Saunders, Matusz, et all are going to be on the opening day roster. And with the numnerous amount of farm guys, this is almost impossible to predict. So allowing teams to have these players on their farm to start the year certainly makes sense.
I think we’re getting off the point of proposed expansion. We’ve increased our farm to 20 from 3 yet haven’t addressed the major league roster. I think we’re now in a position to increase it with every team having the chance to further develop their farm roster.
“Tough decisions need to be made with player without farm eligibility.”
- I don’t disagree completely with this sentence, but just because one player has 150 AB’s and the other guy has 149, seems an odd way to potentially penalize teams who have drafted better than others. With each of us doing a better job at the draft, these difficult decisions will become more prevalent, and I think adding an extra spot or two alleviates some of the potential issues. If a team drafts well, and happens to have more young 400k guys, I don’t think they should be penalized for that.
I’m also not sure I understand why the timing matters. Come roster submission day, everyone knows where their players will be.
Timing matters because as of right now i have to decide on Dejesus or Wiggington making my roster. Have 4 months to decided on which one to keep. Under the current rule players like Saunders and Davis may make the roster, but i won’t find out until April 1. This difference is huge. Especially if i’m trying to work a deal to improve my team. What happens if a trade for an OF, then Saunders makes the team, i’m screwed.
It seems unfair to have to wait unitl April 1 to know what minor leaguers are making the big sqaud. This new rule alleviates that.
I don’t follow…
But I think both of us have provided enough info here for the rest of the league to read through and make a decision when we vote.
At this point, the WM’s should take 15 min’s.
As long as this rule doesn’t pass, I’m done. But if this is going to close, i’m gonna keep going. Because, i feel like this rule will severely hamper SOT.
Derek?
It could be just us going back and forth then, because I like the rule. In fact, most that I’ve talked to like it but we’ll find out on Vote Day.
Get out the Vote!
How will an extra spot hamper SOT? Cap wise or?
I’m still against expanding the active roster, for two main reasons.
1. Impact on salary cap
2. Impact on competitive construction of rosters.
Impact on salary cap, I get that, and I can see why teams would be against this if they’re tight right now (and by the way, I’m one of them). It was only two years ago that people were complaining because the cap was too high.
I’m not sure I follow the 2nd point, care to explain a little.
I believe SOT was created to emulate MLB as best as possible. With the addition of holds and adding QS and not increasing the pitcher spots, saves have almost become useless in this leauge when in real life Mariano Rivera may be the best player of the decade. I think if we add a 10th slot we can allow managers some SP and holds depth with out aborting saves. The extra spot will help make closers relevant again when in real life some of the best players are closers.
I will be voting in favor of adding a 10th P.
Not sure I follow this Pat. Creating a 10th pitcher will only make it more difficult to carry a Saves guy do to cap restraints. Save guys are much more expensive than a starter to holds guy.
Saves are irrelevant in SOT because of the cost to acquire them. I agree we should do something to fix the holds vs saves problem, but i’m not sure taking on additional salary with a 10 player is the answer.
I dont see how adding a 10th P spot creates cap restraints. Most SOT teams dont carry a big money closer yet our salary cap is based on real mlb rosters that are dishing out big contracts to closers. Take Rivera’s, Fuentes, Wood, Nathan’s and others contract out of our cap # and then we can talk cap restraints.
My point was, adding a 10th spot can help teams who chose to have closers have some flexibility in adding an additional holds guy or starter.
Tillman and WTNY have explained my proposal much better then me.
Not sure why we need to a pitcher without adding a hitter. I don’t care either way, but if roster expansion is at play, why only address pitching?