28 Man Rposter - Why????

[kmkravitz]

Why not add a DL spot, or two? Could limit any added player to not exceed value of the DL player, or even some percentage of that player's cost, but only as long as the DL player is on the DL. At that point would either have to drop the replacement player, or the returning DL player. Up until that time the replacement player would not affect the team's salary cap.

Would seem to allow for greater use of those players for whom landing on the DL is a regular event. Some players are regularly avoided because of the injury risk. How about poor Willard Hershberger?

[nevdully's]

Interesting that Willard often gets drafted "because" he gets injured so much....keeping the other C bulletproof.

btw imo we already have this DL flexibility but choose to use minimum rosters and all our money...You could use X amount for a deep bench (28 man roster) or just save X money to use as needed based on your injuries.

[kmkravitz]

Except having 26-28 players impacts how much can be spent on the top players/pitchers, where having a DL would not. As opposed to having a $.50 player to fill in for H. Wagner's injuries.

[Valen]

In my ideal world we would have 40 man rosters with 25 man active rosters. Our money would be spent on a series by series basis depending on who we had active and who we had inactive. There would be a small transaction fee for transferring players on and off the active 25 man roster to keep people from keeping entire lineups or rotation sets and swapping them out between each series.

But then in my ideal world writing that code would be like Star Trek where they tapped a console a few times to write a program. Of course since current technology takes a bit more effort and this would not be at the top of my priority list my ideal world likely will not occur until ATG version 22.
:lol:

Then again once Bernie gets the site rebuild complete he just might have access to one of those Star Trek programming consoles, right. :lol:

[216 Stitches]

I enjoy filling the final roster spots after a LIVE draft, they are usually
low pressure moves, often they won't change much, but still they could.

Still, I have also wondered where the 28 comes from?

Guess there had to be some number. I kind of like it that it is not
an automatic choice, you as a manager can opt for your roster size,
within bounds.

[hackra]

Radical Concept to interject here-

I think it would be best if in the rebuild there was NOT catcher immunity. It makes no sense to me at all that the # 2 catcher can't get hurt. Make teams carry a #3 or suffer the choice to drop someone to get an injury replacement or let your random backup catch.

That said, I really like the option of a 28 man squad, and think it would not be unreasonable to expand further as long as one stayed within the salary cap.

This would perhaps need to be modified for live (uncapped) leagues, but I would also favor putting a choice of roster or salary cap on live drafts.

8-)

[TRW]

[quote:cba7aec872="nevdully's"][quote:cba7aec872]I agree limiting the roster to 25, would also prevent hoarding at 200m and the Live Draft.

With all the new players released, you can easily spend $200m on 28 players these days.[/quote:cba7aec872]

Somehow these two statements seem contradicting to me. :?[/quote:cba7aec872]


Sorry if my post was unclear.

I think the 2nd part is factual - in a $200m league, you can reach the cap these days with 28 or fewer players considering all the new players added. I am in a couple of 200m leagues and every team is just under 200m.

I agree that the 1st part may be a little dis-jointed and not fully explained.
It is not factual, just my opinion. It was based on the original suggestion that rosters be limited to 25 players.

I agree with you that it is a non-issue at lower caps.

IMO, there is a practice of hoarding in the big cap games, especially 200m. (Sometimes it is just part of strategy-wheter it be for platoon reasons or keeping certain players away from your opponent by keeping a unused player on your bench who could be a starter on another team. It's perfectly "legal" under game rules.

I know someone will say the player pool is so big, you can't hoard players. For those of us who play 200m & Live Draft, we all know that the entire player pool is not used for these games. Certain players are targeted because the fit your startegy or stadium you choose to play in.

The opinion I stated was that by limiting active rosters to 25, it might prevent this somewhat. (Then again, I'm sure there will be many who prefer the current system. )

I am not in favor of limiting your entire roster to 25 players. My suggestion would be for a 25 starting player roster. And then you would have a 5 player non-active roster (sort of like the minor leagues). The bench would also have a cap. So, maybe for the 200m cap game, the non-active 5 man roster would be 25m. You would not incur any charges to your cap to switch players between active & non-active, but your team would have to remain below both caps.

Lower cap games would also have the same set-up, but the non-active cap would be lower & in proportion to that particular cap. (But, as stated before, it would be a non-issue for all other caps because you mainly only carry starters and $1 baench players.


Just an idea. :idea:

[Valen]

You can easily spend all your money in a 200 mil league. I have had teams where I managed to spend all 200 mil on just 24 players with a good draft. But what about a bad draft? You for expensive guys but you miss on several. I have done what I consider a satisfactory job of recovering in many leagues by selecting the right role players and platoons. The 28 man roster is a large part of what makes that possible.

Limiting rosters to 25 would not keep anyone from hoarding anything. If someone is lucky enough to get Mantle and Speaker both they are not going to just release one of them even if you limited rosters to 25. And really, on 95% of teams those last 3 slots are not filled by someone who would start on a decent 200 mil team. They are filled with 6-8 mil filler material or general bench types or role players. At least relative to 200 mil that is what those level guys are.

If you do see some team with 3 10+ mil quality guys at one position instead of getting mad because you think they are hoarding something step to the plate with a fair offer. Those rare times such a thing has happened to me I would welcome a fair return over having one of them collect splinters all year.

[PotKettleBlack]

[quote:cb38ea0ce3="nevdully's"]Much ado about nothing imo. Almost every team in lower caps use 24-25 man rosters anyway....its nice to have the choice to use up to 28 though few do.[/quote:cb38ea0ce3]

I'd even say not much ado about nothing.

[Stormcrow2012]

Someone said:[quote:fdf1e0b041]Except having 26-28 players impacts how much can be spent on the top players/pitchers, where having a DL would not. As opposed to having a $.50 player to fill in for H. Wagner's injuries. [/quote:fdf1e0b041]

I completely agree with this statement. And if it is realism you are looking for we should be forced to carry more players, not less. There is no way a team could make it through a 162 game season with 24 players, the rosters are TOO SMALL! We all love baseball and examining SOM player cards, why not make us carry bigger rosters and add a little more realism to the game?

I like Valen's idea of the 40 man rosters,...the bigger the rosters the better!