Keeping a Roster Active

[Demreb]

Welcome back to the CFCL Forum!

This off-season your Executive Committee has been working hard for your votes, er, I mean your benefit. We have painstakingly gone over the Constitution word by word in the hopes of closing loopholes and making the rules as clear as possible.

(**I would like to offer an aside here. As the EC was about to set out on this endeavor, I suggested that each of you look over the Constitution as well to make sure there were no gray areas. To date I have heard from one owner with some feedback. That's fine. But it will be very hard to rule in favor of an owner this year that states he wasn't clear on the meaning of the Constitution.**)

During the course of our scouring we came across a topic that we need league feedback. It involves fielding an active roster.

The Constitution states that each team can field no less than 23 players on their active roster. There is also a section that allows teams to activate players from the DL or the minors that have not yet been activated by their National League team.

So now we have a loophole. There is nothing in the constitution that specifically states you cannot have on the DL, in the minors, retired or even dead on your active roster for any length of time you deem appropriate.

HOWEVER, by having a player on the active roster who is clearly not active, you could be influencing the standings even if your team is not being negatively impacted.

So I would like the discussion to begin. What are your thoughts on potentially being required to have 23 ACTIVE players on your ACTIVE roster?

I'll throw in my two cents after a few owners have responded.

[MGrage]

Yeah, this was a fun place to hang back in the day. Young master Bentel must think of this place much like grandma's house. Tho I do think I can detect the faint smell of moth balls ....

Ok, getting back to Rich's question. I'd need lots of persuading to vote for a rule change. I think being able to protect your rate stats can be crucial down the stretch. Also, how do you handle the times where you have no active players to substitute? There were several periods last year that happened to me. Would you force somebody to activate an M contract player to start their clock? That could really be harsh.

[mcoulter (archived)]

Astonishingly, I am in agreement with Grage. While owners should be encouraged to field a competitive team, sometimes injuries at key positions prevent this from being in the best interest of the franchise and possibly even the standings.

Last season, I lost Buster Posey for the year in May, shortly after I had jettisoned my third-string catcher. I still had Devin Mesoraco on a 13+ contract, but he wasn't active at the time. Should this rule been in effect, I would have had to 1) release a player of some value to my long term plans and 2) dip into my free agent budget for a player (Henry Blanco?) who would essentially give me one start a week for his real team anyway and drag down my offensive stats, as the free agent pool for catchers was terribly depleted. And, in some respects, being forced to play a sub-par player can adversely effect the standings, thus rendering the team less competitive than if they had just kept the DL's player active.

I always keep an open mind to rule changes...but this mandate would take some real convincing to garner my support.

[headruffin]

I agree that a blanket rule mandating that you must activate someone at the next transaction period would be too harsh. However, Rich has a point about roster spots that go unfilled, not for strategic purposes, but due to 1) owners who have stopped paying attention, or 2) owners who are out of the race, have stockpiled keepers, and don't want to cut someone. In either case, said owner could be adversely affecting the pennant race for no good reason.

My rule of thumb for things like this is to think about what makes sense relative to an actual major league team. We've all seen examples of teams playing with 24 in order to avoid placing someone on the DL. I'm not saying the limit should be two weeks, but maybe it's worth exploring the possibility of instituting a limit on the amount of time an active roster spot can stay vacant, say three weeks? Or maybe we need to peg the limit to the transaction period. A related issue would be whether or not it would be too difficult to police such a rule.

[mcoulter (archived)]

Well, a real major league team would simply place the injured party on the Disabled List, allowing them to fill their active roster while not forcing them to lose a player off their 40 man roster to do it. I brought up as a suggestion just last season that perhaps in certain circumstances we should consider instituting a disabled list, allowing a team to place clearly disabled players -- like Posey or Wainwright for the Clowns this season -- on the disabled list then filling their roster spot with someone from the free agent pool using the team's free agent budget. At least this would allow the team -- just as it does in real baseball -- to fill the roster spot of an injured player without having to sacrifice another player on the team's 40-man roster just because they didn't happen to have the foresight to carry four catchers. Once the disabled player is active, the owner then must choose to cut a player from his roster and reinstate the injured player, or cut the returning injured player. This idea was roundly debunked...but it would serve the dual purpose of allowing a team to field an active roster while not giving up a resource they drafted just because a player fell to injury.

[kennruby]

Man I had to jump through hoops to re-register. I see others without many posts, so I guess you did the same.

My opinion: keep it the way it is. If an owner wants to keep his roster with inactive players for some reason, he should be allowed to. I've certainly "activated" pitchers who were in the minors or DL at times in September in order to avoid having playing some starting pitcher that will surely get shelled. It's a valid strategy.

Dave makes a good point, as always, to make it mimic an actual major league team as much as possible, and while that's a legitimate point, there are ways that fantasy baseball and real baseball are different, and I think employing a strategy like this would is valid.

I don't like the additional DL list, because that seems like making the rules far more complicated that they need to be - if we're going to make any change at all, I'd vote for saying you can do it for two weeks (either on purpose or by indifference) before you're forced to activate someone. There would need to be an overseer to keep track of the timing of it all, but that shouldn't be THAT hard. But like I said, i'd prefer no change at all.

[morkertt]

In looking over the Constitution, I actually had the question myself. My thinking is that in fantasy, we try to mirror the actual game as much as possible. I see the 23 man active roster as a place to field active players. If an MLB team loses a man on their roster to the DL, they replace him. The replacement may never see anything beyond the end of the bench, but they do carry him. I think we need to do the same. If a player is lost to a DL spot, we send him down and find a replacement. It may mean a change in philosophy as to how reserve rosters are kept, but carrying a backup IF or OF, just in case, might be needed.

I also hate the thought of having a team change the outcome of a category because of a lack of 23 active players.

Another thought was that if I'm carrying an underperforming player that is killing my team stats, an injury would seem to benefit my team, as I could keep him active while on the DL, as opposed to having to bench him and call up a sorry replacement who will hurt me just as bad, if not worse.

I like the idea of allowing for DL players to be active, for the purpose of activating somebody in anticipation of their coming off the DL. But I see the idea of using active roster spots for DL players as a "fantasy baseball" move and not a baseball move. I like the idea of trying to mimic the actual game as best we can.

That said, the league has lived (and flourished) with the rule as it is for many a year. I won't argue til' I drop...just adding my two centavos.

[headruffin]

Kenn, yes, I had to re-register too. Sucks as I had built up about 20 posts. All gone. I'll have to work that much harder now to catch up to the Rebels. Anyhooo, Mike, my point about mirroring MLB was to suggest that if we had a rule at all, it shouldn't kick in until two weeks elapsed, if not longer, given that MLB teams often see fit to play shorthanded for a time because they want to avoid placing someone on the DL. I'm somewhere between Kenn and Tim on this. I see the problem, but don't know whether the cure is worse than the disease. We've eliminated anti-dumping rules, confident -- or if not confident, hopeful -- that owners take the whole best-interest-of-the-league thing seriously. Maintaining a full roster despite being in 8th place in September would seem to fall into that category. And yet...I hear you, Tim, a rule mandating good behavior seems reasonable.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think we're all agreed that there are good reasons to allow owners to keep an inactive player on the active roster for a time. The question is whether we're concerned enough to mandate anything. Can an owner have three inactive players on the active roster? On the other hand, say an owner disappears. Does the EC step in and activate a player or three on the absent owner's behalf? Now there's a hornet's nest for you.

I'm genuinely undecided on this. Rich, you started this thing. What are your thoughts?

[Demreb]

Thanks to Owner Emeritus Mahlan, I didn't have to re-register and lose my 398 posts, so here's lucky #400!!

It appears I am in the vast minority on this one. While I will admit that it would be difficult if not impossible to legislate, I completely disagree with the idea that keeping inactive players on the active roster is a valid strategy.

Let's take this to the extreme for a moment. Let's say I put together a killer pitching staff of Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay, Tim Lincecum and Clayton Kershaw (this IS after all, fantasy baseball).

The Constitution says I have to fill my five other pitching spots. So I fill them with two injured guys, and three players currently in the minor leagues. I will dominate in WHiP, ERA, K/BB; compete if not win in QS and I give up H/S. With that rotation I will fulfill my Bald Eagle Inning Requirement. And according to the Constitution I have a legal roster. But is that the spirit of the game? I don't think so.

The predicament the Clowns were in last year was unique in that the catching options are usually limited at best and losing two catchers is difficult to overcome. But if I remember right, Posey was injured, but the Clowns traded away their other starting catcher with only Mesorasco in reserve.

In addition (and I'm not picking on Mike, just stating a fact), it's hard to argue that putting a schlock catcher (or any other position player) would kill the team offensively. At best the OBP could go down .0001 but ANY offensive production would be a positive in the other four categories instead of a zero. The argument works a little better on the pitching side of things.

So, the spirit of how we're supposed to manage our team is that we are supposed to field the best 23 man active roster possible and place that up against the other nine teams.

This is just my opinion, but we are supposed to be playing for THIS SEASON. Halfway through it may be evident (as I have experienced for 15 straight years) that winning the league just ain't gonna happen. So we start making plans to build for next year. But first and foremost our responsibility is to this year. If we can do both at the same time, great. But if I have fifteen minor league players that I think can be studs next year and four active guys on the DL, I have to lose some of the minor league guys to fulfill my obligation to this season - for the best interests to the league as a whole.

The hard part in this is the legislation. Having read through the Constitution, I realize (as I'm sure all of you who have responded realize as well) that this league is not easy. There are A LOT of rules. Adding more is not what we need. But relying on owners to do the right thing doesn't mean it's going to work that way.

We have the Anti-Dumping language in the Constitution, yet we still see trades that some owners call in to question. So it's not a perfect problem to solve.

I also am concerned with trying to differentiate between an owner who's "checked out" for the year vs. one who is "strategically leaving DL players on the active roster". That could open a can of worms and a lot of hurt feelings.

Going back to my Fantasy Pitching Staff. The Constitution states that I cannot have those four starters and five open roster spots. But if I fill the roster spots with the five options I listed above, what's the difference?

There is a loophole in the wording of the Constitution and I think it should be closed, or the hole should be made smaller if nothing else.

How we do it? Not sure yet.

[Demreb]

OK so as I lay in bed the other night I thought about our options. This is certainly not a comprehensive list, but does cover the spectrum.

1) We do nothing. We understand as owners the point of running a team and work to do what's in the best interest of the league. As Revenge Team President, Mr. Morkert, pointed out we've been doing it this way since the beginning of Ultra and it seems to have worked fairly well. The drawback of course is that owners could put their team ahead of the best interests of the league and pennant races could be affected.

2) Jumping to the other end of the spectrum, we could mandate that all injuries, retirements, minor league demotions be addressed within a certain time period. This would certainly force all teams to stay extra diligent on the status of their team's active roster. The only problem I have is multiple. A) Monitoring that could require A LOT of effort by someone (Commissioner? On-Line Czar? Executive Committee?) B) What happens if a team does not comply? Does the person in charge of monitoring make a transaction move so that the offending team stays in Active Roster Compliance? Let's say they need to replace an OF. Does the Monitor then activate an OF (and which one if there are multiple choices?) from the Reserve List? If there is no OF on the Reserve List, does the Monitor place a bid for an OF and then decide who gets waived from the offending roster? What if there's not FAAB left to acquire anyone? In all honesty, while I don't like the idea of a team leaving demoted, injured or retired players on their active roster, I don't think we've had too many egregious occurances to warrent this type of approach. I do, though, like the requirement. It's the enforcement end of things that could get dicey.

3) Perhaps a meeting in the middle. We could, like we do on the Active Roster, have a positional requirement on the Reserve list so that there should always be players in reserve to call on. We could say you are allowed a maximum of five Mx contract players. The remaining 12 slots would be made up of players qualifying at the various positions along the lines of 3 OF, 3 Pitchers, 1 C, 1 3B, 1 SS, 1 2B, 1 1B and 1 Any Position.

In addition if you were to make a trade wherein your Active Roster was going to be jeopardized with position requirements and you didn't have the proper reserve players you would need to ask for a scrub throw in. Going back to the Clowns roster as an example. Mike had Posey injured. Posey would get reserved and his C reserve would get activated. If Mike wanted to trade his other active catcher, he would need to get one in return since Posey is injured and Mesorasco is in the minors.

I don't know (or particularly think) that this is the perfect solution, but at least it would give us a framework rather than a subjective approach to handling a roster (Option 2).

Thoughts?

[mcoulter2008]

Guess what I am lacking in this thread is the empirical proof that this has had any effect on the pennant chase in the past -- or enough of one to warrant the "big government" feel the proposed new rules and roster limitations would have on owners.

These new rules would hinder free trade. They would totally reconstruct the strategy behind the rotation draft. And they could force a governing power (online czar, commish, EC) to usurp a team's owner and manipulate their roster in some cases. How are we supposed to read the minds of owners? If a trade is made that forces the activation of an injured or minor league player for a period of time, how are we to know that is not what the owner wants until they can pluck someone from the free agent pool? Perhaps they are designing a trade with the idea of signing someone in the pool to replace the traded away player. Shouldn't they have that right?

All of this seems to me to be for something that I am not even sure has hindered the pennant chases in the past. Every season I have been a part of the CFCL the races have been incredibly tight and competitive without all of this legislation.

[Demreb]

There are a couple of things to keep in mind.

First of all, we're not on a witch hunt. This question simply came about from the review of the Constitution to make sure we cleared up any confusing language, made things consistent from one section of the Constitution to another and close any lingering loop holes.

Second of all it's tough to provide "emperical proof" that this issue has influenced pennant races. I will have to defer to Emeritus Owner Mahlan to provide specific documentation, but a few years ago we had a, now thankfully former, owner disappear after April. When we looked at the standings and where the delinquent owner's team was we were able to guesstimate what impact his negligence did to the pennant race.

I will also submit that for the last four or five years our pennant races (or at least money spots) have come down to the last week, if not the last day. You can't tell me that with categories so tight, it isn't possible (if not likely) that an owner not making an effort to run his team could impact the standings.

As for "Big Government" coming in to run things, I think you're taking it to the extreme. I would think the first step would be to alert a team that their roster has a DL'd player and they need to do something about it. This league has elite owners. We don't have some of the "vile, despicable scum" from years ago. I would think we would all do our part to run our team with honor and a focus on this year as the priority.

If we can look each other in the eye and agree to that, then I'm good. I think there should be language in the Constitution that that is the expectation so any new owners understand their duty.

What I think is unfair is if a team tanks this season so they can stockpile nine "stud" minor leaguers and a bunch of low priced, underperforming longshots for next year.

Much in the same way I don't think it's right that a team can suck at the draft (let's say through lack of preparation and effort) and then make some dumbass lopsided deal at the deadline to make a run for the money. The draft is supposed to be the focal point for building a team with trades and free agent acquisitions being supplemental.

After I posted the three options, the more I thought about it, the more I figured we don't need "official rules" and positional requirements. We just need language in the Constitution to let everyone be aware of the expectation. **

** Much like we don't have official rules on making trades but there is language on what a Dump Trade is and why it's frowned upon.

And if we can all commit to each other to field competitive teams during the course of the season, we should be in fine shape.

That being said, I would still like to hear from as many owners as possible to get their thoughts and reactions.

[MGrage]

Feb 4, 2012 16:50:00 GMT -5 Demreb said:

OK so as I lay in bed the other night I thought about our options. This is certainly not a comprehensive list, but does cover the spectrum.

OK, I'll begin with a completely gratuitous Commish slam, wondering if thinking about baseball is all what you married guys think about while you lay in bed. Mine would be boobies!!

Secondly, I don't believe that Rich's Four Aces strategy would be very effective in real life. Those four starters only picked up 98 QS which would have been good for 8th last year. So even if all 4 stay healthy, you would max out at 33 pitching points and would have needed to pick up 42 hitting points to win this year. Those four pitchers would have cost a minimum of $156 which would leave you at best $104 for all your hitters to draft them. You'd have to average better than a third place finish in all the hitting categories to meet that mark. Only the Revenge would have met that requirement this year. To finish third, you'd need 40 points a total only the Ruffins met along with the Revenge. Both teams spent way over $104 on their offenses to get those points too.

The point goes for previous years too. Just to make things simple I'll take the top 4 QS totals for each year. 2010 six players got 25 QS. 100 QS would have finished 7th for 34 total pitching points. You would have needed 52 hitting points to win, which is mathematically impossible. To finish third, you'd have needed 43 hitting points, only the Ruffins did that.

2009 100 QS 4th for 1st (42 hitting points) 3rd (40) only ME? & Coppers did that
2008 101 3rd for 1st (54 hitting points) 3rd (41) only ME, Ruffins & Stones did it

2008 was the last 12 team year too. I'm not going to go further back but I'm sure the results would be similar. So I would love for someone to try that strategy since it's pretty much a guaranteed loser.

Not to pick on you Rich, ok, I admit it, I want to pick on you. I also feel there is a very big difference between an empty roster spot (ERS) and an active player on the DL or in the minors (APOTDOITM) (er APO). With an ERS, there is zero possibility to pick up any stats. With an APO, there is a slight possibility. Players can get sent down and then brought back up in just a day or two so that demoted player could be back as early as the next day. You also have the ambiguity of players on the DL. Many times I've activated a starter coming off the DL thinking he'll start, but the team will decide to give him an extra day off or skip his turn in the rotation. Should I be penalized for this?

Since I've joined the league, I really can't think of too many instances of someone having an outright empty roster slot. The only times it's happened to me was after a trade where I'd forget to make sure I have a player at the position in reserve ready to go. The solution was always either modify the deal or put it on hold until I could FAAB someone. I don't think anyone has willfully left an active roster spot completely open on purpose in the last 11 odd years ...

I don't think I've ever left a spot empty with the bi-weekly active/reserve transactions. I have blown a few deadlines once football season rolls around after the trade deadline though. The only consequence was missing a start or two or leaving someone active who's going to pitch in the BOB though. I just never seem to be in contention by then and I've really well in fantasy football the last couple of years. I've won over $2K in the last two years. So my mind wanders over to the sport I seem to actually do well in ...

I would strenuously object to any limitations on drafting minor leaguers. I know, quelle surprise!! Yes, that's French, something else I think of in bed besides baseball Rich. I would also object to mandating a specific number of OFs or SS you have to take in the rotation draft too. Sometimes due to position scarcity, more trades are made because someone has a surplus of reserve 3B and Mike needs one. I think less trades would be made with a requirement like that. Plus I think you'd be the rotation draft much, much longer if guys have to look up in various books, magazines or data files to find the 80th-85th OF on their depth charts ...

I've found that even with 8 minor leaguers, nine should be enough to cover most injury situations. With just a couple multi-position eligibility players, that gives you alot of roster flexibility.

One change I would be amenable to would be to expand the rotation draft a round or two, especially if we stay at 10 teams. Or maybe add the option to put a player on a DL list which would open up a spot on our 40 man roster. Then you could add a player without having to waive one first. But when you want to re-activate that DLed player, then you'd have to waive someone to get back down to 40. Or you could just leave him on that injured list.

Well, that's about it. I've got to go back to killing some dragons in Skyrim. Talk to you later guys. Mahalo

Matt

[Demreb]

Ah Matt, I have missed your statistical thesis on the Forum. I figured after the league not using this medium for a few years there would be a long missive waiting to get out.

Actually, I DID like your statistical research, the only problem I have is not that you poked fun at me but that it was irrelevant to the debate. I threw out the STUD pitching staff as an extreme example, not fully knowing or caring if I would win four categories.

I fully agree with you that there is a difference between an APO and an ERS and that many of us (since we allowed it) have activated a disabled or minor league guy in anticipation of them joining their major leage team. In fact, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT in begin able to do it. Previously our rules were that you could not activate a non-active NL player to your roster. What the rule adjustment wasn't supposed to encourage was activating a player who had no possibility of being active on his Major League roster for the forseeable future.

I know there have been more examples than just the Clowns of 2011, but that's the one I can remember (don't have time this morning to try and research any others) so we'll go with this to discuss the intent of the rules, not to pass judgement on Mike C.

Mike had Posey on his active roster at C. Shortly after (days if not hours) his injury it was widely known that Posey was out for the year. When Mike made a trade later in the season that involved his only other active catcher, he activated a catcher (Mesorasco, I think) who was currently in the minors and was not about to be called up. While your argument normally is true that any player in an active slot has the POTENTIAL to earn stats, (vs. an empty roster slot) there was no way Posey was going to earn any for 2011 and just slightly more of a chance that Mesorasco would in the near future.

So in my opinion, the spirit of the rule wasn't being followed in activating Mesorasco after the trade, because while he did qualify at catcher, he wasn't really an active player. He was simply put in the slot to allow a trade to be completed, not to field a competitive team.

I also disagree with the idea that we need to create a Disabled List. WE HAVE A 17 MAN RESERVE LIST! That's why we have it, to allow us to keep the guys that get injured during the season and to have access to players that we have pre-established rights to. If we have to make a decision to (again using the above injury as the example) reserve Posey and figure out who we need to cut, that's part of the game. I may not want to cut anyone, but situations dictate that I need to in order to field a fully active team.

I understand that major league baseball has a few more options (guys on the 60 day DL don't count against the 40 man roster, or whatever their rule is) but we're not playing major league baseball. We're trying to have as close to a real baseball experience as possible, but it's not the same. Wasn't meant to be EXACTLY the same. Real baseball doesn't have a hard salary cap either. What we do and what Hoyer does is similar, but not the exact same thing.

Again, I'll go back to the above comments that I'm not sure we need a rule enforcing any player movement, much like we don't have a rule that allows certain trades and disallows others. I really think this is the same thing as a dump trade, only with roster slots. Teams can make dump trades (and have) and say, "What? I'm building for the future and after the trade I had players in all my roster slots." Was it a legal trade? Technically. But was it ethical and within the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish as a league? No.

Same could be said for this. Having a player that qualifies at a position is not the same as having an active player who qualifies at a position.

There hasn't been a rash of this to the point the league is in peril of staying around. We simply noticed wording in the Constitution that could lead to issues down the road and we wanted to see if we needed to add wording to discourage certain actions (my recommendation) or legislation to prohibit such actions (not my recommendation).

[mcoulter2008]

So much for this not being a witch hunt...

Let me make sure I am completely understanding of the rationale behind this proposed new language.

As a manager and team owner, I lose one star catcher to a season-ending injury. With Mesoraco as my only other option, I would have had to activate him anyway to have a valid lineup, right?

So, I activate him in order to not have to release a player who would have a higher chance of contributing to my team in the future just so that I can dwindle my free agent allocation budget further to sign some backup catcher who will drag down my percentages and have no future on my team?

Meanwhile, I am offered a trade for another catcher that betters my team in the long run -- from a team that is in the pennant chase. And I accept it, thus improving my team's chances for next season while helping a team that is in the chase improve their chances of winning this year by bolstering them in an area of need.

Instead...

I should have released two players who have value and waste at least 1/10th of my free agent budget to sign two players who will not have a future on my team? I am to waste two possible keepers and at least 10 cents of my free agent budget that could be saved to bring in more talent to an obviously underperforming team, just so I can roster and start the likes of Henry Blanco and Corky Miller?