I have to do this....because when I re-read my post it made me laugh really hard when I thought of it.Originally Posted by gilpdawg
Selfishly, I think we should go straight to 5 spots, since I have a bunch of minor league guys.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
The entire five man bench would be starting pitchers.
I support decreasing the amount of bench spots by three and increasing the NA spots to five this season...
You may be the New Kid on the Block but we will let you have an opinion too. Not only will we tolerate the rookie's opinion we will actually listen to it and take it into consideration. We are nice like that, but that is just how we roll.
Personally I like the 11 man bench. It gives you more players to work with to mix and match and manage your team rather than running the same starting lineup every day. In fact I am always wishing I had more roster spots available because there are always free agents I wish I could add to my team.
I think shortening the bench would negate the purpose of adding a minor league roster. It would restrict our options too much. The reason we have wanted to add minor league rosters is to allow teams to plan for the future while also being competitive now. As it is now (without the minor league roster) we are forced to choose whether to compete now or build for the future or try to do a little of both. With the new NA roster we will have more options. We can keep our bench the same and add even more prospects, or we can snag some situational players to use occasionally, or we can hold some major league bench players who we think might become more valuable in the future, or we can hold some extra injured or suspended players, or we can load up with 10-12 prospects in a total rebuilding effort while still being able to field a full starting lineup. You can still choose to hoard minor league players at the expense of your bench slots, only now you can hoard a lot more prospects than you could before.
As has always been the case in a true dynasty league, trades are the best way to improve your team. It is rare to find game-changing players who can step into your lineup right away in the draft or on the waiver wire. You can get prospects and some good players that way, but active stars need to be acquired via trade. You are not going to find too many quick fixes for your roster on the Free Agent list. That is true for the way it is now and will still be true when we add the NA roster.
In my opinion the new minor league roster will help the rebuilding teams more than the teams who are already good.
You know what would be awesome? A 50 man major league roster and a 50 man minor league roster. Yes please!
I thought about it some more & decided that I would like to see the five "NA roster" spots added right away. If a team goes into total rebuild mode they could stash a whole lot of minor league talent. Teams that are in win now mode could stash some as well but every game counts. I think a lot of leagues are won by using every game played & having a deep SP rotation so you don't have to start your pitchers in bad matchups. You need to use a deep bench to win a league. So the teams trying to win can't "have their cake & eat it too".
Also adding the NA spots seems to fit the dynasty format. Teams have minor league rosters just like major league teams do.
- Brett
.
If we start it this year, lets only add two slots.
I fear that having 5 NA slots basically will make it harder for those at the bottom of the standings to build up a good team and become competitive.
Right now, there is a trade off to be made. You can get in 'win now' mode and not hold any minor leaguers, you can hold just a couple prime guys that may be stars, or you can be in rebuild mode and stock up on young guys.
Having NA slots will most benefit those with strong teams. They can STAY in 'win now' mode, and still have an up and coming core of young guys waiting for next year. It will make it harder for those near the bottom of the standing to gain an advantage by re-building over a year or two period.
It seems to me that this is something that should have been implemented at the beginning of the draft (I know, it just became available). That way, we could have built it into the strategy we choose to follow. So the compromise is that we have two this year, and go up to five next year.
But I'll be fine either way.
Mike
__________________
"I think we’re starting to get to the point where people are starting to get tired of this stretch of ball,” Votto said. “I think something needs to start changing and start going in a different direction. I’m going to do my part to help make that change.”
*BaseClogger* (03-24-2013)
I changed my mind about one thing. If we do this I'd rather we NOT go all in. I prefer 3 NA spots very much now. If everyone uses 5 spots it will dilute the available talent alot. And the teams that could benefit the most might be the teams that are constantly scouring the player lists and news. I'd think someone that doesn't have that much time wouldn't be helped as much. 3 spots is a good compromise to give us a chance to just try it out.
Mike made some good points...
I think the rosters are too large already; the waiver wire is dystopian.
Honestly, there's some pretty good players out there because teams horde so many prospects...
There are quite a few good players out there I would love to add to my team. Not enough roster spots!
I'd go for reducing the bench by 2 (back to what it was originally) and adding 3 NA spots.
I don't buy that. The priority of teams at the top is to win now, not later. So, teams at the top are more likely to use bench spots for players that help them NOW. This is why I like the idea of decreasing bench spots while adding NA spots. Teams that are rebuilding can use all their bench and NA spots for prospects if they wanted. But, teams at the top just can't afford to do that.
Are there really enough prospects in the Yahoo player universe worthy of this many roster spots though? You gotta figure the best 60 or so will already be taken by the NA spots...
12 teams x 5 NA spots would end up being the top 60 prospects in the game. lets say yahoo has 80% of the top prospects in their system.
that would take you to the 75th best prospect (60 on NA rosters & 15 not in yahoo). If I am in a rebuild mode I can see rostering more that that. easily. especially when you count the guys who have fallen off the prospect list but could get it together. this happens with pitchers all the time.
or look at post hype sleepers like Domonic Brown who could finally get it together.
.
Again, I'm not in favor of doing 5 NA spots right away. Adding 3 spots means 36 prospects (or suspended or unsigned players). Take away 2 bench spots and it's a net gain of only 1 spot per team. That wouldn't deplete the available FA list much. Adding 5 NA spots and taking away 3 bench spots is a decrease of 24 fa's available. Adding 5 NA spots without taking away ANY bench spots = 60 FA's gone and there would be a possibility of turning the available FA list into a barren wasteland. I think both you and I agree that wouldn't be good. There could be less add/drops cuz there'd be less to add. By adding 3 NA spots instead of 5 we'd get to just try it out and see how we like it.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote