|
Post by WWaS? on May 9, 2018 9:36:11 GMT -5
With questions about how some owners choose to construct their rosters, I think it's a good time to discuss creating a rule to ensure everyone is making a good faith effort to compete. Whether you want to call it tanking or not, having non-active guys in active roster spots is not something this league wants to see going forward.
After speaking to many of you, I believe that creating a rule that states the following would benefit this league:
1) Active roster spots on the MLB roster must be filled with active MLB players. - Having multiple players on the DL may cause problems, but again, those are active MLB players. - No consideration will be given to whether or not you believe they'll be active soon. - Active spots should be adding to season totals in the statistical categories we have chosen.
2) Only bench spots can be used for prospects. - This is pretty straight forward. You want to stash guys, fine, but it can't be at the expense of your active roster spots.
3) Only prospects at or above Double-A ball can be stashed. - No consideration will be given to whether or not you believe they'll get to Double-A. They must be at that level at the time you add them to your MLB bench. - There is absolutely no reason why any prospect below Double-A needs to be on a MLB roster.
I am open to suggestions on how to tweak these rules, but the end goal is to discourage owners from having active roster spots filled with non-active players.
|
|
|
Post by silvertips on May 9, 2018 11:57:49 GMT -5
I have a problem with anyone below Double A being on a roster. I can't recall a guy being called up to the majors from High A or below. At least at Double A there is a better chance than not that player will play in the majors at some point.
Active roster spots should be filled if possible. I know the DL now throws a wrench in that at times.
|
|
|
Post by Terry Ryan on May 9, 2018 12:27:07 GMT -5
I agree with above^^. You can still be competitive with AAA players on your roster but I dont see the need to have anyone below AA on your roster.
I am fine with the overall aspect of having prospects on your roster as this year is the first year that I can remember that I have had spects on my roster, and actually have a competitive team.(as competitive as you can be as a middle tier team in a roto.)
|
|
|
Post by DOG on May 9, 2018 13:05:59 GMT -5
I agree with suggestions 1 & 2 for sure. Number 3 feels like it would be too much to enforce with dudes getting promoted and demoted. I think if milb guys are allowed then that should be it. All or none.
|
|
|
Post by WWaS? on May 9, 2018 14:37:07 GMT -5
We could tighten that one up by saying any prospect with Double-A time (playoffs excluded) is eligible. Anyone who hasn't reached Double-A yet would be excluded.
|
|
|
Post by thewelt15 on May 9, 2018 17:50:49 GMT -5
I agree with all of these. DL players should also be disallowed in active spots as we have increased our roster size both major and minor leaguers to accommodate.
The rule allowing only AA players on the major league roster makes perfect sense. I would take it a step further and add in a piece saying if they aren't in the ESPN universe, they can't be on the major league roster.
What does everyone think about a GS minimum? Nothing crazy, like 170 or 180. This is another easy way to tank that drastically affects the counting stats and competitive balance. To enforce there could be a loss of draft picks penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Abe Lincoln on May 9, 2018 19:22:19 GMT -5
Does ESPN have a function that counts the number of starts for position players or are you just talking about SPs Welt? I’m onboard with this discussion. Everything I have read I like so far.
|
|
|
Post by thewelt15 on May 9, 2018 19:32:21 GMT -5
I just meant for Starting Pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by Carebears on May 9, 2018 19:37:36 GMT -5
I agree with everything here except I am not sure about the minimum starts. Dennis showed me that loading up on relievers can be a viable way to finish high in the league and with 15 teams hoarding 7-8 starters a piece the pickings can get slim on the waiver wire
|
|
|
Post by Abe Lincoln on May 9, 2018 19:58:40 GMT -5
What if it was 60 starts? That seems reasonable. Maybe even 75?
|
|
|
Post by Carebears on May 9, 2018 20:08:40 GMT -5
I would vote for that. That is 3 starters. That seems reasonable.
Of course I prefer to have lots of starters instead of relievers because relievers are so volatile. I have seen people who were legitimately trying to win make the reliever thing work in deep leagues like ours where the starting pitching pool dries up so I hate to outlaw it
|
|
|
Post by WWaS? on May 10, 2018 7:55:33 GMT -5
Lots of really good ideas here. I appreciate the input. Please don't hesitate to contribute more, either here or in a DM to me.
We will not make any changes now, but there will definitely be something put in place for next season.
I will discuss all the options laid out here with Welt and we'll see if we can't put something in writing that ensures a good-faith effort to compete.
Thanks guys.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Laser Cats on May 16, 2018 10:05:44 GMT -5
I need to throw out an important caveat for the DL part of the discussion. We must never punish an owner's long-term strategy because they had too many of their players hit the DL.
The way I see it is this:
- Owner has a less than full DL, wants to add an injured FA or two to fill that up? Acceptable
- Owner has a full DL, two more undroppable players get hurt, Owner keeps them on the bench? (aka the Laser Cats Special) Acceptable
- Owner has a full DL, moves and loses regular Internet connectivity for a week or two, comes back to find a dozen players on the DL. Owner drops 1-2, but continues playing his long-term stashes because he has to. Gray area, but ultimately acceptable.
- Owner has a full DL and no hope this year, so he stocks his bench with free agents who are out for the year? Not cool.
|
|