|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 10, 2011 22:35:13 GMT -5
ESPN now allows larger rosters, up to 40 players. Should we add another bench or DL spot?
|
|
|
|
Post by C4 on Dec 10, 2011 22:46:37 GMT -5
I think we should split the voting options between those who want to vote:
* Add a DL spot only
* Add a roster spot only
* Add both a DL and a roster spot
* Add neither
I personally wouldn't mind a DL spot only. It would affect your salary cap too much, and with the deep rosters, some of us could really use the flexibility).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 10, 2011 22:53:04 GMT -5
I think we should decide if we want to add a roster spot before deciding what kind of roster spot it will be. Personally, I think 30 roster spots and 2 DL spots is plenty, but I wouldn't be totally opposed to adding a DL spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nellie's Holler on Dec 11, 2011 19:53:55 GMT -5
More roster spots only help the better teams. I think we need to start looking more at how we could make everyone more competitive, and allowing the better teams stockpile good players with large rosters isn't the way to do that IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Ayala - Matt on Dec 11, 2011 22:04:49 GMT -5
More roster spots only help the better teams. I'm not following you on this, what do you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by Nellie's Holler on Dec 12, 2011 0:36:15 GMT -5
Smaller rosters & lower salary caps should force the better teams that are full of talent to make decisions on winning now or later at the expense of some possible underperforming or undeveloped talent with upside. As is, I haven't had too much of a problem with that. The FA pool has always been slim pickings already in this league. If we expand rosters, it'll lead to a stagnant FA pool, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 12, 2011 1:12:13 GMT -5
Smaller rosters & lower salary caps should force the better teams that are full of talent to make decisions on winning now or later at the expense of some possible underperforming or undeveloped talent with upside. As is, I haven't had too much of a problem with that. The FA pool has always been slim pickings already in this league. If we expand rosters, it'll lead to a stagnant FA pool, IMO. I don't believe in changing the rules to make the league more competitive, because this league is competitive enough. With the rules as they are, I've gone from 16th to 4th in under three years. It took a lot of work and a lot of deals, but if I can do it, anyone can do it. If you want to make the league more competitive, get 16 active owners. That being said...I benefited from having a draft order that was the reverse of the standings, and I think we should go back to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Nellie's Holler on Dec 12, 2011 2:30:58 GMT -5
Who said anything about changing the rules just to make it more competetive? This is a discussion about expanding our rosters, which changes the rules. I'm not saying we need to slim down our roster spots, just leave them the way they are. I'm saying, lets not change the rules.
If we didn't have that one draft where it was reverse standings, I'd have Strasburg right now, not to mention whoever I would have gotten in the draft at the higher draft position. Bummer
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 12, 2011 4:16:23 GMT -5
I'm not saying we need to slim down our roster spots, just leave them the way they are. I'm saying, lets not change the rules. Whoops. I must have misunderstood what you were saying. We agree, then. I don't really want to change the rosters either. |
|
|
|
Post by Nuke LaLoosh Express on Dec 14, 2011 9:51:48 GMT -5
I think we should add another DL spot. It's not expanding the rosters but rather allowing a team with more than two injured players to keep an active player on the starting roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 14, 2011 12:56:39 GMT -5
I think we should add another DL spot. It's not expanding the rosters but rather allowing a team with more than two injured players to keep an active player on the starting roster. I could get on board with this. It seems like players are bigger pussies now than they use to be, so having another DL spot would be really nice. How many do real MLB teams get? |
|
|
|
Post by Severe Punishment on Dec 15, 2011 15:48:56 GMT -5
my 2 cents goes towards keeping the roster spot the same. A smaller roster requires owners to be more creative in compliling talent rather than having that "safety net" if a player underperforms.
I think additional DL's would be nice... if MLB has the luxury of a 40 man roster and tons of DL spots, then we should try to be as close to that as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lunatic Fringe on Dec 16, 2011 13:24:44 GMT -5
I'm only in favor of adding a DL spot or two. Otherwise, the rosters are large enough. We already have (up to) a 50 man roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 16, 2011 14:11:14 GMT -5
The way I was thinking this poll would work is that we'd vote on adding a roster spot or not, then if we voted to add a spot we'd vote on whether it was an active or DL spot. It looks like most people don't want to add a spot so far, so it may end up being a moot point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lunatic Fringe on Dec 16, 2011 14:26:51 GMT -5
Oh, I voted no even though I'm in favor of a DL spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lunatic Fringe on Dec 16, 2011 14:27:14 GMT -5
Oh, I voted no even though I'm in favor of a DL spot. There, I changed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Ninja Warriors (JB) on Dec 16, 2011 20:19:27 GMT -5
I am voting yes, but only because I want more DL spots. Can I reserve the right to change my vote if active roster spots get added? I don't in any way want that to be a possibilty. It almost caused me to vote no on additional spots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoink! on Dec 17, 2011 4:13:23 GMT -5
Changed my vote to yes, but only for a DL spot. I would vote no on an active spot
|
|
|
|
Post by Nellie's Holler on Dec 17, 2011 10:52:01 GMT -5
The way I see it, adding a DL spot is like adding an active roster spot. At some point we all will have 3 or more guys on the DL, and adding a DL spot doesn't force someone to drop a player that may be useful to someone else. I know its not season long like an active spot, but it still accomplishes the same idea.
|
|
