|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Jun 25, 2014 21:03:03 GMT -5
Submitted by Atlanta Braves:
"Times are changing, SP are going less and less. With some of the silly AI decisions this allows teams to carry an extra pitcher and extra bench player to add some more flexibility. It also creates an extra 64 Major League jobs for those players sitting in FA or those 4A type players."
ALL DISCUSSION TOPICS OPEN THROUGH SUNDAY NIGHT, JULY 6th.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 6:07:31 GMT -5
No. This would favor high payroll teams and reduce strategy.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 8:36:25 GMT -5
How would this make the league better? Well, it takes $1million off each team which is probably a good thing, but I can't really see much else. SPs "going less" is not relevant to PBL as we haven't changed our settings so MLB changes don't reflect here.
How would it make things worse? It probably wouldn't make anything worse, possibly a slight advantage to those who can afford it so a widening of the rich/poor gap
No knock-ones I can see, just little point.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jun 26, 2014 8:37:27 GMT -5
No. This would favor high payroll teams and reduce strategy. Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards How does it take away from strategy? Youre adding a minimum of 1 million dollars in payroll so im not sure how that's really a bad thing. There are 3 dozen free agents that sit on the market every year that dont get signed until June. By adding 1 or 2 roster spots, 32-64 of those FA's disappear. Or that Rule V draft pick that just misses the club now gets to stay. I dont really see what the disadvantage is to adding 1 or 2 roster spots is. If you say that its an advantage to large market teams and reduce strategy then why even have roster expansion in September?
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Jun 26, 2014 8:43:09 GMT -5
not a fan of increasing the ML roster sizes, it's set at 25 for a reason, it's supposed to be somewhat of a challenge to balance your roster accordingly. Other than making things easier for GMs I see no reason to change it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 8:45:05 GMT -5
I like it at 25. Puts more value on versatile players and relievers with high stamina/good splits
No need the change this.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jun 26, 2014 10:09:53 GMT -5
I like it at 25. Puts more value on versatile players and relievers with high stamina/good splits No need the change this. +1 Well said
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jun 26, 2014 11:58:35 GMT -5
I'm on the side of it being a good thing:
1) It takes 64 players out of free agency 2) It creates MORE strategy as you need to budget at least another $1m into budget and you can now carry that extra power bat, contact hitter, defensive wiz, lefty specialist, run a 6-man rotation to give allotted off days to keep players healthy, a base running specialist and you can tinker with you strategy settings more 3) Its a minimum of $1m so this is no advantage/disadvantage to teams. Maybe big market teams throw more money around and get bad contracts helping the smaller markets....
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Jun 26, 2014 15:12:55 GMT -5
I'm on the side of it being a good thing: 1) It takes 64 players out of free agency 2) It creates MORE strategy as you need to budget at least another $1m into budget and you can now carry that extra power bat, contact hitter, defensive wiz, lefty specialist, run a 6-man rotation to give allotted off days to keep players healthy, a base running specialist and you can tinker with you strategy settings more 3) Its a minimum of $1m so this is no advantage/disadvantage to teams. Maybe big market teams throw more money around and get bad contracts helping the smaller markets.... I could care less about the 64 guys who may or may not make a major league roster and would otherwise sit in free agency, they'll have enough money to feed their avatar kids. The MORE strategy by adding an extra power bat, contact hitter, defensive wiz, also not buying as it still looks like it's just making things easier on GMs, teams always have to make tough decisions around spring training time as to who to keep on the ML roster and who not to, guys get put on waivers or sent down to the minors. Expanding the roster size will make it easier. Period. Why stop at 27? let's do 30. I think this is very enticing to playoff teams and teams with high budgets who have often missed a key missing piece for a complete champion juggernaut due to only being able to keep 25 guys. let's keep it that way
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 15:17:15 GMT -5
I would suggest that to get more strategy we should look to lower, not raise, roster limits. I'm not advocating it as there would be other negatives, but that would certainly make me think a lot more about my decisions.
27 man and I just add my next least bad bullpen arm and my next least bad hitter from AAA to ML. No strategy, no point.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jun 26, 2014 15:41:31 GMT -5
I like it at 25. Puts more value on versatile players and relievers with high stamina/good splits No need the change this. +1 Well said Agreed with this and what Rob has said as well. Not in favor of changing to 27 spots.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jun 26, 2014 16:03:14 GMT -5
Dont be surprised when MLB does this in a few seasons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 23:57:34 GMT -5
Not in favor... this feels like one of those 'if it's not broken, why fix it' things?
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Jun 27, 2014 10:39:47 GMT -5
I've seen valid arguments substantiating that it will add strategy to go to 27, and I've seen valid arguments that it will take away some strategy, as well. But for me personally, I enjoy the strategy that I have to employ because of the 25-man limit, more than I think I would enjoy the new strategy that I would have now have the luxury of employing at 27. Tough roster decisions are really some of the more enjoyable deliberations for me, and I think this would really remove some of that.
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Jun 27, 2014 10:51:49 GMT -5
Not in favor... this feels like one of those 'if it's not broken, why fix it' things? with sam, 100%
|
|