Keeping a Roster Active

[morkertt]

I think we are looking at a philosophical difference in how this game is to be played. I think both could be seen as valid arguments, but we need to think about which direction we want to move.

My personal opinion is that the 23 man roster is an active roster. Of course, exceptions can be made for players soon to be activated, but I really feel like those 23 are the ones that should mimic a real team...with 23 active players. How we use the 17 reserve spots should be up to each owner but risk can be taken by not having adequate backups. I'm actually not completely opposed to having a limited DL roster, but more for players who get injured during the year, not for players who begin the year on the DL.

I think what we need to figure out is if the league as a whole views the idea of rostering a DL player is a "valid strategy" or not. If the league sees it that way, so be it, and that should be clearly stated in the rules. If not, that should be clearly stated as well. When reading the rules back to myself, it just seemed that the section on rosters did not address this issue and I know it is addressed in other leagues I've played in.

I don't think anybody is at fault here. It just seems we have a difference of how the rules are to be interpreted. No witch hunt...no finger pointing...

[mcoulter2008]

First off... in my last comment, I was teasing Rich regarding the witch hunt comment...since the Clowns seem to be the focus of this. Trust me, unlike some of these dust ups from years past, I have real thick skin when it comes to this and I am probably the best possible owner to use as an example to try to delve into these types of things.

Having said that, I guess I still fail to see an owner's motivation in rostering clearly inferior players at the expense of players that can help them in the future (which once placed on waivers can be claimed at no cost by another team) and at the cost of free agent budget resources just so my team can help another team win a title. I don't see this as an ethical question or a game strategy really but more as an owner acting in his team's best interest.

I have a similar disconnect in the axiom that a team should be built primarily through the auction. I happen to like the thought of it...but in practice, at least since I have been in the league, once the race heats up and the haves and have nots have been determined, the rich get richer and the poor get younger and cheaper. Seems to happen every year...the champ...and often the closest runners-up have swung pretty significant trades around midseason.

[Demreb]

I am in agreement with Tim. While this topic has not reached epidemic proportions each and every year, it certainly has the potential to influence pennant races when it does occur. I would strongly suggest to all owners, if this comes to a vote you certainly need to vote your conscience, but also vote for the best interest of the league as a whole. Not for what may happen in 2012, but what is best for 2012-2050. History has proven that our ten owners will not be the final ten, so we have to provide guidance to future owners as well.

All that being said, I did want to answer Mike's question. Short answer, yes. Yes, Mike, (in my opinion) you should have either gotten a catcher in return when you traded the one active catcher you had, and yes, you should have bid .05 on one (or two) catchers to fill your active roster. If that meant making a tough decision on a potential keeper for 2012 or beyond, then that's what needed to be done.

Granted (I looked at last year's standings) the fact that Posey's slot wasn't filled for over four months did not influence the pennant race. Not unless Mike Piazza had come out of retirement. But activating or acquiring a catcher should have taken place. You have mentioned a few times that bidding on a bum catcher (Blanco, et al) would have hurt you in the ratio categories. There's only one on offense. ANYTHING a slug catcher does at the plate will help offensively except possibly lower your OBP. Had that happened in 2011 you would have lost one point to the Danger and still finished in eighth.

Oh, by the way, had you done that and the worst (as you've laid out) happened wherein you lost in OBP, you would have stayed the same, standing-wise, but the Danger would have gained a point and finished ahead of the Killers. Now that's assuming that your activation of two playing catchers would have forced your OBP down. You didn't get harmed by the inactivity, but Scott did.

One of the problems I've had in thinking this through is dealing with the fact that last year the issue was at catcher, which is typically a dog category after the first four or five are taken.

What if this had happened with outfielders or corner infielders? In my mind it doesn't matter. The point is to play for 2011 first and build for the future after that.

Any team is certainly welcome to build for the future when they feel they don't have a chance to compete in the current year, but they still have to field a team that has players at each position.

I fear I'm about to recycle a previous post and I don't want to waste everyone's time in doing that. So in short (too late, I know) yes, you were supposed to use your FAAB to fill the two open spots on your active roster. That's what the FAAB is for (in addition to snagging low priced guys that could help us next year). I think we get too wrapped up in nabbing the Rookie Ball studs or .05 pitchers who will make an impact at the end of next year and sacrifice the ability to field a complete team in the present.

[mcoulter2008]

I can see that I am likely going to be in the minority on this one.

And that is fine.

I tend to take a bigger picture look at my franchise than most owners perhaps. If you truly believe that you should build a winner through the auction and rotation draft, you should realize this is accomplished by drafting and clinging to inexpensive gems and long-term prospects. Being forced to surrender those assets acquired during the auction/draft phase for clearly inferior talent, then exposing those assets to be plucked free of charge from the waiver wire, seems counterproductive to the league's agenda of building your franchise through the auction and draft. It also is akin to giving someone who drafted poorly a mulligan, allowing them to cherry-pick cheap[talent off the waiver wire for free while discarding their mistakes. Is this any way to reward an owner who did his homework and drafted wisely?

I would not have been able to acquire a "Rookie Ball Stud" through the free agency once the season started...as those players are off-limits per the rule change we put in place when we moved to On Roto. So no more plucking Brandon Belt off the free agent pile before he is called up, as I was able to do two seasons ago. That means in order to have a farm system of cheap future talent ready to replenish my roster once contracts run out, you can only acquire them through the draft/auction or via trade.

One of the things I enjoy most about the CFCL is being able to simultaneously build a team to compete for this season while also building a foundation for the future. Compromising this by forcing owners to relinquish talent to acquire players they have no interest in keeping would greatly diminish this aspect of the game for me. That is one of the reasons I broached the topic of a limited number of Disabled List slots. Seemed like a fair idea at the time, seeing how several owners were besieged with injuries and with the league wanting to approximate what a real team does as close as possible. The DL idea apparently never made it out of committee.


I, too, have read and re-read the Constitution numerous times. From my understanding, the Candy Colored Clowns were not in violation of any of its rules last season. If the league truly wants to create an atmosphere where a single season is the only goal, future be damned, then you are going to see a pretty intense change in my management style. If single-season team building is more important than long-term franchise building, then cutthroat managing styles will win the day. I can certainly play that way. It would just suck a large measure of the enjoyment out of it for me.

[Demreb]

Wow this has run into the ravine pretty quickly. I think we need to clarify a number of points.

1) It has been stated more than a few times that there is no claim the Clowns did anything illegal last year. The whole reason this conversation came up was because the Executive Committee was looking over the Constitution to see if any clarifications needed to be made and this was one area that seemed a little vague.

2) I never claimed that the Clowns acquired any Rookie Ball Stud in Free Agency. My point is that at the DRAFT many teams tend to focus on nailing down that Rookie Ball Stud at the sacrifice of building a solid reserve list that can support the injuries and ineffectiveness of players throughout a season.

3) Mike seems to feel that I have made the claim that playing for the future and playing for the current year are mutually exclusive. That's simply not true. Earlier in this post I clearly stated that any and all teams should try to build for future years, but NOT at the expense of putting a competitive team on the field for the current year.

4) Completing that thought that "a single season is the only goal" (which was never suggested), I'm pretty sure that threatening the league with "playing cutthroat" is not the way to go.

As in any discussions, this has gotten blown WAY WAY WAY out of proportion. No one ever suggested that a team could not play for next year, in fact that's the whole essence of having Long Term Contracts and this being a keeper league. What was suggested was that having an "active" roster with players in the minors or on the DL for the rest of the year was not in the best interests of the league.

Look, I get that teams like to plan for next year, especially if this year looks so bleak (believe me, I have 15 consecutive years of having that perspective). But if a team is constantly playing for next year they will never compete, unless by luck. As the saying goes "Tomorrow never comes."

Anyone else care to chime in before we try to make some decisions?

[Go Beatniks!]

Wow...been a long time since I've been here. Things feel weird...sort of the way I imagine Grage might feel as he approaches a sober moment.

I'm much more conservative in the realm of constitution evolution than my prior incarnation was, I think. I guess I thought that the spirit of the constitution was that active rostering of a DL'ed player was verboten already. After all, post-trade or call-up you'd need to have fielded a valid active roster *and* have sufficient slots for your combined roster, so why does limping a DL'ed player along seem okay? I'd have thought that the constitution already spoke here, but it looks like Rich has identified a way in which it might not.

I recall the heady days of my life on the EC when an owner applied a lot of "legal reasoning" to try to game the September call-ups in some way. Definitely legally valid reasoning but also definitely in violation of the spirit of the constitution. So, obviously, we can't be trusted to "just be good guys."

On the other hand, enforcement of such a provision is also fraught with peril. There really isn't a nice way to force an owner to make a roster change. Anything done here by the EC or its agent will likely lead to hard feelings and the need to find a new owner in the off season. Which, I guess, if this needed to happen during the season it may not be an owner worth keeping around.

So here is what I'd say w/r/t this issue: The spirit of the constitution is definitely that an owner should do their best to field a full roster of players on active MLB rosters. Floating a DL'ed player over a couple of transaction periods is probably acceptable, especially if there is a chance the player comes back during the current period. What probably isn't acceptable is rostering a D/L'ed player without a position on an MLB active roster for months on end. Can you legislate against that? I don't think so. It's possibly too gray and probably likely to cause hard feelings. Can you apply peer pressure? Possibly.

I'm not entirely clear on the case presented last season but it seems to me that the Clowns probably should have picked up a catcher at some point in the season to fill an active roster spot. Injuries happen and when they do it doesn't seem fair (see Picts + Ken Griffey's knee, e.g.). That is also part of the real game. Part of the challenge of fantasy baseball is coming up with alternate plans when things go tits up. If you trade in such a way as you do not have a backup for a given position, you are gambling on your remaining players remaining healthy. When that gamble does not pay off there should be repercussions in my opinion. I don't know that I'm swayed by the argument that one shouldn't have to spend $FOO percent of their free agent budget to fill slots because of an unplanned or gambled against injury occurs.

Oh...and it's good to be back!

[headruffin]

“With malice toward none, with charity for all...”

Two years ago, I cast a vote for Tim for GM of the year because of the admirable job he did rebuilding his team. At the end of 2011, I voted for Mike for the same reason. I hope the next time I find myself out of things – which I have a bad feeling will be in a matter of months – I can do half as good a job rebuilding as you guys. I relate this because I want to make clear up front that the CFCL wouldn’t be nearly as fun if we couldn’t decide to play for next year and do so effectively by flipping costly but trustworthy veterans for cheap keepers, while also trolling the waiver wire and free agent pool for potential gems.

However, I think one can play for next year AND fulfill two obligations to the current year: avoid dump trades and maintain an active roster of active major leaguers, with the obvious short-term exceptions that have already been discussed. We have 17-player reserve lists. We have no restrictions in terms of the types of eligible players we can stash on the reserve list – eight corner guys, 12 minor leaguers, whatever – and I’m not proposing that we institute any restrictions. But owners playing for next year still need to strike some balance on their reserve list and in their FAAB budgets, a balance that allows them to keep active MLBers on their active rosters. If I’m down to eight active pitchers and have a reserve roster full of Mx players and cheap position players with keeper potential, I need to add a ninth pitcher by making a trade, putting in a waiver claim for Jason Marquis (god forbid), or bidding a nickel for James Russell. This doesn’t mean that I can’t build for next year. This doesn't mean that I can’t roll the dice and keep eight cheap, young corner guys or 12 minor leaguers reserved. But, if injuries should strike, I think it’s incumbent upon all of us to make the difficult decision to cut a potential keeper in order to maintain an active roster of active players. And I say this without casting any aspersions at last year, which simply serves as a point of departure for a discussion that will affect only 2012 and beyond. There are no ex post facto laws.

Practically speaking, building for next year by, in the extreme, shedding all injury insurance and loading up the reserve list with players with keeper potential who are of little or no use to the current active roster runs headlong into the Winter Waivers process, which imposes reserve list restrictions by other means. We just saw this in the last go round. Mike, your pre-waivers roster was so packed with potential and cheap talent that I couldn’t scoop up your sloppy seconds fast enough. It pains me to say this, but I’m the White Sox to your Rays. You get rid of Jonathan Singleton because you have at least 23 more valuable players; I scoop him up and he becomes the crown jewel of my "farm system." Other than having less time to evaluate Singleton versus your other players, there’s not a lot of difference between biting the bullet during the season and putting in a waiver claim on an active, albeit crappy catcher in the Mesoraco example, and cutting Singleton, or whomever, during the season.

Finally, this conversation has focused almost entirely on the responsibility of owners out of the pennant race to maintain an active roster of active players. This responsibility is required of owners in the pennant race too. Imagine a case in which my team is in a tight race for first with six weeks to go. Furthermore, let’s say my offense is comfortably ahead of my competitors in the four counting categories, however, I’m in a real OBP dogfight, one with the potential for my team to gain or lose a couple points. One of my catchers goes down, but the only catcher I have reserved truly sucks. He’s the unholy spawn of Bob Uecker and Margaret Thatcher (don’t ask, but I read something really disturbing related to this on the intertubes) AND he's playing a couple days a week, sporting a .196 OBP. Can I simply decide to activate an Mx catcher from my reserve list and play with 22 for six weeks? I think that violates the spirit of the rules in part because it seems to me that my shortsightedness in having a lousy back-up plan should cost me, while benefitting the teams with deeper rosters.

Because of the difficulty in legislating this, I'm fine with adding language to the constitution to the effect that, from 2012 forward, owners owe it to the league to maintain an active roster of active players, with the short-term exceptions that have already been mentioned.

And welcome back, Nick. Hopefully some day, if you're dedicated and eat your Wheaties, you'll be able to catch up to my total number of posts.

[Doormatts]

Kudos to Nick and Dave, I couldn't say it better myself!

[Demreb]

80% of the league chimed in? And one is the DoorMatts? Pretty dang cool. It's time to vote on the direction we should take.

Please answer the following poll on how to go forward. Not remembering how the polls are set up, here's what we'll be choosing from. A) Legislation to keep active rosters full of active players at all times. B) Wording in the Constitution (much like the wording for Anti-Dump Trades) to encourage owners to field Active Rosters with active players (understanding that activating a guy who will be activated or called up in the next few days is allowable). C) Do nothing. We trust our owners to do the right now today and in the future.

[morkertt]

Mike,
I agree completely with you in regards to the fun and uniqueness of this league being the ability to build for the future. I've found myself becoming familiar with names that I NEVER imagined I would. I've never played in a league that would have me even considering rostering a player still in single A ball. I also agree that while draft day is the single most important day of the fantasy year, the difference between winning and not is in the moves made in-season. I enjoy the challenge of finding the right mix of the now and the future. Many of our trades have been a testament to that.

That said, I really think that with 17 reserve spots, both can be done. I figure that with a few backup utility guys, an extra OF, and a few helpful pitcher options, I could leave half (or more) of my reserve picks for prospects. The backup catcher situation is pretty grim, so I probably would end up grabbing one off waivers (I had to do this last year). I don't think I'd ever drop one of my solid prospects in a move like this, but would have to drop a backup somewhere...

[Demreb]

We seem to have come to a resolution of not making any changes. As sort of a night cap (which is appropriate because that's when he sent it to me) I'm including below part of an e-mail David sent me with his perspective on managing the roster during the season. For what it's worth, I agree with his views even if he did slam one of my shortstops at the end of his analysis.

As a side note, David also noticed that some of us were having trouble with remembering our original sign in IDs, etc. so he corrected everything so that we each have one ID. As a result of his effort, your tally for posts is also correct rather than starting all over. He continues to earn his exhorbinant salary as Owner Emeritus.

Here's David -

I only had the chance to scan the posts because I've got to head out to the train or I'll be stuck here til god knows when, but I see people comparing Roto to real baseball, which is fine. But the structure in real life that corresponds to the 23-man roster in Roto isn't the 25-man roster, but the 9 guys in the LINEUP -- those are the guys who accrue stats, not the 25th man sitting on the bench (unless he gets in the lineup).

MLB teams aren't allowed to bat only 8 guys in the order because their weak hitting SS keeps hitting into double plays. Sure it would be in their best interest to skip him, but the game doesn't work that way. They can't say "Joe Schmo is our #8 hitter, but he won't bat for us because, like, he's in AA." They've got to field guys who are actually capable of participating, regardless of how damaging that participation would be.

It's manuevers like activating inelgible guys to "protect" rate stats that made the game start to lose its appeal for me.

This is meant to be a game of tough decisions and consequences. If it's your strategy to structure your reserve list in a way that leaves you short of replacement players at a postion, then yes, you should have to dip into the FAP if you need a player, even if he ends up hurting your stats and you have to cut someone that another team picks up. That's what makes the game work and what makes it great. Playing it any other way is for girl thingies who would sit out the last two games of the season to protect thier chance at a batting title.

[MGrage]

Well, it's good to see that Dave is doing well and hasn't fallen down a well-kept well which is welling water.

I think what this topic really shows is that you need a balanced approach to compete and win in this league. Balance between long term and short term, balance between studs and scrubs, starters and relievers, all offense & no pitching, winning the Draft and winning the Pennant run. Any kind of extreme is bad and not conducive to winning, I think. You might be able to make an extreme work in a different league with different rules but there are so many sharks in the water here that those strategies probably won't work without ALOT of luck. Btw, I think people got hung up Rich using the phrase "Focal Point" in reply #11. I think what he really meant was Starting Point. The Draft is naturally the focus of the off-season, but it behooves you to shift your focus to the day-to-day management of your team Day 1 of the regular season.

Even if you're in the running to win, you still need to keep an eye out for long-term assets because that's what you're most likely to deal to improve your team. I'm also in pretty much in agreement with Holian in that Mike had a bunch of keepers claimed in Winter Waivers so the end result was pretty much the same. I'd like to hear from Mike if he feels differently. I guess the only difference would be accrued 2011 stats and one fewer contract year for the waived player. That's a nice balance tho.

I also agree that you need a balance of minor leaguers and backups. I just think one set limit would be bad. If you go to extremes, you should have some sort of consequence imposed. If you have 12 minor leaguers, you should have to pay some sort of a price for being out of balance. If you have 12 middle relievers, ditto. 12 OF, ditto. Some consequences come naturally from the game and don't need to regulated. Do you need to add add to them with more penalties? I dunno.

BTW, there is at least one potential situation where mandating a move could be impossible. What if a team has no FAAB left on August 2nd? It's after the trade deadline and they can't add a player except thru a free waiver claim. How likely would that be? There would be still nearly two months left in the season at that point too.

Finally, I don't think I would have kept Mesoraco active for months before the usual September call ups. I knew he wouldn't be given at playing time while D-bag Baker draws breath. That's why I waived him in Winter Waivers. I might be in the same situation with Rizzo this year. If I keep him, at least there isn't a Ramon Hernandez in front of him, though who knows how much Baker-ness Dale has in him .... If Todd "The Rock" Helton surprisingly misses half the season with an injury, I think I'd err on the side of caution and try to pick up a replacement instead of sitting Rizzo there, even if in rebuild mode. Sorry to bring it up again Mike but you brought it up originally and it's really the only example anyone can come up with for this.

Well,well, well, I think I've pontificated long enough so I'm outta here. Mahalo

Matt

[MGrage]

I had completely forgotten about this conversation. Very interesting read. I actually used this as a tactic at the end of the season when I activated two DL'ed pitchers I acquired via FAAB in the last week to help preserve my ratios. I think it was a factor in me holding into my lead ...