|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 16, 2008 18:18:04 GMT -5
Before free agency gets underway, I just wanted to notify everyone of a policy change. You are allowed to have less than 40 players on your roster during the season, however you will be charged 400K/yr (league minimum) per open roster spot. We do this to encourage people to retain the maximum amount of players, because it's only beneficial to carry as many guys as you can. Just because somebody isn't a big name prospect, doesn't mean he won't turn out to be a big name player, and if you're only carrying 35 guys, your missing out on 5 opportunities to land a little known prospect that turns out to be a productive major league player. The other main reason for this is that we don't want there to be a monetary advantage for carrying less guys. Feel free to share any questions or concerns, but I think that this is the best way to handle this issue.
|
|
|
Post by bull on Mar 16, 2008 23:46:29 GMT -5
i agree
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2008 23:55:18 GMT -5
sounds good to me, good thinking.
|
|
|
Post by alexortiz21 on Mar 17, 2008 0:36:48 GMT -5
In my opinion I do not think we should be told how to run our farm system. I don't think I have bucked leadership in any way here, but on this one I would have to disagree. All teams take different approaches to how they value prospects and how they run their farm systems. Some organizations choose to spend tons of money on it and others don't. Accordingly teams have to deal with the consequences of that. If I choose to deplete my farm to make a run that should be my choice.
Example if in mid season I choose to trade 3 prospects for a stud that might push me over the top, the league is saying I have to go out and find 3 prospects no matter what is out there to fill those spots because that money is tied to a minor leaguer. I just t think we should be able to manage out roster as we see fit as long as we have a legal lineup. Poor roster management will take care of itself in the long run. (This league is about the long run?)
Also I think it is a little late in the game to tell owners how they must allocate there funds. If this was the case it should have been so from the jump start. This might be a rule change that needs to be looked at for future seasons when owners will have a whole off season to adjust not just a week with only a few decent players to be had.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Mar 17, 2008 0:59:26 GMT -5
I'm with Mets on this one. I plan on having a full minor league and major league roster but I don't think you should be penalized if you don't. Your penalty is you have less depth and less options, that should be enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2008 1:02:30 GMT -5
is the current rule, prior to this amendment, that the 40 man needs to be filled? i'm under the impression that was the rule, so i'm just confused about the mets argument here. he doesn't want to have to stock his roster w/ minor leaguers for the sake of it, but he doesn't want to change the rules at this point. so... he doesn't like the original rule, but doesn't want it to be changed. to a rule that would take away money from the money he would have been forced to pay a minor leaguer in the first place?
i totally agree w/ his thinking here, i don't think anyone should be forced to fill their minor league roster, especially in that example. i'm completely on board w/ what you're saying here alex. i just don't get why you'd be against a rule that allows you to keep as many (or as few, however you want to look at it) players on your roster as you'd like. and only have to pay the league minimum per empty spot to do so.
this new rule makes loads of sense to me. i agree w/ adding something in to require a legal lineup, but i can't see how this rule change would have an effect on anyone's payroll this season.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 17, 2008 6:07:04 GMT -5
I see the commish point on this one and have no problem with it either way. But I would suggest, if we are doing this, we need to make sure that teams have a full lineup and are not allowed to leave any of their 18 starting spots empty.
If we do not want teams being able to have empty roster spots because it helps their money, then we need to not allow them to have empty spots in their lineups either, as it has its advantages, too. For example, I do not need to worry about a C, because I don't have to have one in my lineup at all. So, instead of having a C, I can go with another OFer or another P.
Also, how many teams have you seen take only 8 people out onto the field to face 9? Never.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Mar 17, 2008 8:28:15 GMT -5
What if you can't fill your team with a player because you don't have enough cap space left??
Mariners, why would someone not use a starting spot though? You'd be losing production.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2008 9:01:22 GMT -5
The whole point is to not have a team go out and spend all of their payroll on MLB guys and then have no one in their minors. Its another way of evening things out a bit.
|
|
|
Post by blackwatch31 on Mar 17, 2008 9:03:17 GMT -5
i agree with nats on this - you see major league teams short changing their farm all the time in order to focus money on their major league team. In the long term it may not be so smart, but each team has their own way of focusing their resources.
|
|
|
Post by Cubs GM (Scott B) on Mar 17, 2008 9:10:47 GMT -5
Its a 40-man roster salary cap league, everybody knew that coming in. You should have to pay at least league minimum for each roster spot. If you dont want to have a player in that spot fine but you should still have to pay the league minimum on it.
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on Mar 17, 2008 10:58:44 GMT -5
I think Ty may have misspoke in saying this is a "rule change", as alluded to earlier, its not really a change, its always been you had to have a 40 man roster, we are now giving people to opportunity to get out of this, if you don't want to pick up some lesser known prospects you don't have to, but u still have to pay for it. The main reason is that there could be a team that only has 30 players and spends there full payroll, lets say $100M. This gives them a competitive advantage because theoretically they can spend more money on the big name guys and get the best players to fill their lineup. so their avg over 3M per player, while the GM who has a full roster is avg 2.5M per player because he followed the rules. Now spending more money on the player doesn't exactly equate better production, but it often does.
In summation this isnt really a rule change its a clarification of the "punishment" of not having 40 players on your roster. and I'm using the word punishment in the loosest sense of the term.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 17, 2008 11:59:04 GMT -5
What if you can't fill your team with a player because you don't have enough cap space left?? Mariners, why would someone not use a starting spot though? You'd be losing production. Sometimes, not having a player in your lineup will help your team more than it hurts. On the flip side, sometimes having a player in your lineup can hurt you a lot more than it would have had you left the spot blank and did not have a player there at all. Catcher is a great example. According to the rules of this league, I don't have to have a starting catcher in my lineup. In fact, I don't have to have a catcher at all. I can leave that position blank all season long and not worry about playing a below average catcher who will hurt my AVG and OBP while doing almost nothing for my other stats.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 17, 2008 12:23:20 GMT -5
With that said, I would NEVER go with anything less than a full lineup for my own team. I can maybe see going with an injured player, or slumpping player, in a spot for a few days until I can find a replacement (could take up to a week to get a player through FA). But you'll never see me anything less than a full 18-man starting lineup.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (jfleming) on Mar 17, 2008 12:36:58 GMT -5
I think we should be allowed to keep empty roster spots on our minor league roster. When the draft comes around if we choose to sign our top pick then we have to release a prospect to make room for him costing us 200,000 on the release and another 400,000 to sign the draftee. I wouldn't mind keeping a spot or 2 open for that reason. I may not but it is a thought that has crossed my mind.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 17, 2008 12:41:04 GMT -5
I think we should be allowed to keep empty roster spots on our minor league roster. When the draft comes around if we choose to sign our top pick then we have to release a prospect to make room for him costing us 200,000 on the release and another 400,000 to sign the draftee. I wouldn't mind keeping a spot or 2 open for that reason. I may not but it is a thought that has crossed my mind. If it costs us $200,000 to cut a minor, then I'm 100 percent against being forced to carry a player that does not meet my standards. Honestly, I had not considered that and was thinking minors on one-year contracts could be cut without penalty. That was my interpretation of the rules I read. If it costs us to cut them, then I'd rather just keep the spot empty and pay $400,000......... then when I do sign a player for that spot, just give him the $400,000........ it saves me $200,000.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 17, 2008 12:46:24 GMT -5
Maybe there should be a rule that says you can cut a minor and his league min. contract so long as he is replaced by a minor on the roster.
Texas GM makes a great point above that, with a full minor league team, you then have to come up with $600,000 in salary cap to sign one player for $400,000.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 17, 2008 12:48:31 GMT -5
I think we should be allowed to keep empty roster spots on our minor league roster. When the draft comes around if we choose to sign our top pick then we have to release a prospect to make room for him costing us 200,000 on the release and another 400,000 to sign the draftee. I wouldn't mind keeping a spot or 2 open for that reason. I may not but it is a thought that has crossed my mind. The deal would be to plan on carrying and empty spot or two for draft picks, then you can sign them and their contract would replace the 400K 'penalty' for having that spot empty. It works out to be the same thing. If you're going to end up adding your team's draft pick(s), that 400K is sort of holding their spot, so you don't spend the money elsewhere. Nobody is forcing anybody to carry more people than they want to.
|
|
|
Post by alexortiz21 on Mar 17, 2008 12:55:37 GMT -5
"Each franchise will have the capability of retaining the rights of a “40-man” roster. This roster can include any MLB players or players signed by any MLB affiliate team (minor leagues) the GM desires. For the purposes of the inaugural fantasy season for “Circle Change Dynasty”, each franchise will start with a 40-man roster of their choosing. Each player initially added to a 40-man roster MUST belong to the affiliate team or its minor league farm system. Once posted, this will be your 40-man roster throughout the season unless modified by free agent acquisitions or trades with other teams."
The above quate is taken directly from the rules thread under Rosters. As you can see it states that each owner has the capability to retain 40 players. IT DOES NOT SAY WE MUST HAVE 40.
Like I said earlier I do not think we should be making changes to these rulees this late in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Mar 17, 2008 13:17:06 GMT -5
Here's a question and it could very easily happen.
Say I have 39 players and I have $200,000 left, I would have to spend $400,000 more on an empty spot which would then force me to drop another player/prospect because I would be over the cap limit leaving me with two empty spots instead of one. I shouldn't be forced to drop someone because I had one spot left thus leaving me two or forcing me to go over the cap, that just doesn't make any sense (in that situation, which could easily happen).
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on Mar 17, 2008 14:44:25 GMT -5
thats part of cap management, its the same as everyone else is dealing with why would a team get an advantage for having less players. you get a loophole becuase u have 39 but i plan on havni 40 and am punished.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Mar 18, 2008 0:53:31 GMT -5
How are you punished? By having a full team? That isn't punishment. I just think it would be ridiculous to have to drop another player because you don't have a full roster and can't afford to pay for no one (so you get to pay for two no ones).
|
|
|
Post by scottystyles on Mar 19, 2008 8:42:36 GMT -5
I do not see what the big deal is, from the start we knew we had to have a 40 man roster, the fact that there is flexibility to have empty spots in the farm system is more then fair, even if you have to use the 400K leauge min towards it, it just means when you eventually pick up a player you will not be adding salary.
I understand the point about teams maybe wanting to go all out on their big leauge team, but if you use all of you money on the MLB team and have $0 to spend on the farm, that is not realistic either, because no matter how weak a teams farm system may be, they still have a full system despite the talent level.
There is one distict advantage I am aware of, a team can take advantage of by having one or two empty spots and it actually saving you salary space.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 19, 2008 10:06:12 GMT -5
I do not see what the big deal is, from the start we knew we had to have a 40 man roster Not true. More than half the league didn't know it. Not saying it's not in the rules, or that everyone shouldn't have known it, but obvisouly, not everyone knew it. I'm here hours every day on this site. I've read every rule here at least 5 times. I never knew it. But I'm also not saying anything against us having to have a full roster, or pay .400 for each open spot. Sounds fair, and makes perfect sense. But, not everyone knew it as you say, and that is my whole point.
|
|
|
Post by scottystyles on Mar 19, 2008 10:23:58 GMT -5
Well I guess since I assumed that we started with the premise of a 40 man roster, that it would be the rule. It is kind of a common sense thing, i guess ican see how it may have been an over sight to really address it, since it was one of the 1st things we were told about team structure 15 man MILB and 25 MLB Roster.
I can't say literaly that everyone knew, but i guess from my own assumptions of the league, I thought the should have known.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 19, 2008 10:35:55 GMT -5
Well I guess since I assumed that we started with the premise of a 40 man roster, that it would be the rule. It is kind of a common sense thing, i guess ican see how it may have been an over sight to really address it, since it was one of the 1st things we were told about team structure 15 man MILB and 25 MLB Roster. I can't say literaly that everyone knew, but i guess from my own assumptions of the league, I thought the should have known. But obviously, since you were here in this league for a few weeks before some of us, you had more of a chance to know this. But did you read it in the rules that you had to have 40 players, or still pay them if you leave the spot open? It's most certainly not common sense, otherwise, Ty would not have to be explaining it as a policy change, which means it was not part of policy before. I was not in the league until 22 other teams had already been taken. My first contact with Ty came on the day that I got to pick my team, the Seattle Mariners. Some other owners were not here until mid-way throught he draft. One owner was not here until after some teams had completed their drafts. I've been playing fantasy for almost 20 years. I've never played in a league that made you carry a full roster, or pay for open spots. So it's not common sense. But again, I'm not complaining about it. I think it is actually a good thing. It makes sense. But, I think most would agree, this is the first time they've seen a league force you to carry a full 40 man roster or pay for open roster spots.
|
|
|
Post by alexortiz21 on Mar 19, 2008 10:36:57 GMT -5
I do not see what the big deal is, from the start we knew we had to have a 40 man roster As I stated in a Earlier post the rules do not say we have to have a 40 man roster. It says that each team will be capable of having a 40 man roster. Big difference and a statement I based my team plan on.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 19, 2008 10:43:35 GMT -5
And we need to make sure to recognize that none of this is the fault of the league office or commish. This is just a very slight mis-understanding of a rule. You are going ot have that in all new leagues. It will take some time to get the small bugs worked out. I view this as a small bug in the system.
This is not going to be the last time a rule is taken different ways by differnet owners.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 19, 2008 10:50:31 GMT -5
NYY, Just so you know, you have some players on your team with incorrect contracts. You show at least two players making below league minimum. It is my understanding of the rules I read, that you cannot pay a player 0.3 M......... the league min is 0.4 M.
Also, this question is for the league commish, how many numbers after the decimal point do we need to count in our salary? For example, I notice a lot of players with contacts of 0.465 that are only being paid 0.4 and not the .065.
Some count it, some do not. What is the rule on this? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on Mar 19, 2008 11:11:58 GMT -5
we kinda stated earlier when we did the keepers, that would would not necessarily hold people to exact numbers to make it easier. its different for different contracts, most contracts we want two decimals places. For players around league minimum, which in MLB i believe is .3845M, we want people just to put .4M. AS far as the range we want for league minimum, i think Ty and I said anything from .46 or .47 can be rounded to .4M. While this seems like poor math and esp incorrect rounding, we justified it because all minor league contracts would actually be a .3845 so when adding those up we believe that it all kind of evens out. Of course when we checked the keepers for each team, i know i told every team to round their numbers, and most didnt really do it so. We want everyone to round, but if you don't it will really hurt you more than likely so whatever.
and of course you are correct in saying that .3M is below league minimum and not allowed.
|
|