|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 27, 2011 9:33:13 GMT -5
How will be handle the fourth outfield position?
We can keep all current positions and add another roster spot. There will not be an increase from our $260 cap.
We can combine the MI and CI positions to make one INF position and therefore have the same number of roster spots.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 9:45:29 GMT -5
Since the salary cap wont change my vote is to leave the roster size as is--go w/one INF spot instead of MI & CI so we can add the 4th OF spot w/out increasing the roster size and bringing down the amount we have to spend per player/roster spot........
|
|
|
Post by d**nedifino on Jan 27, 2011 21:32:20 GMT -5
My understanding of adding a 4th OF was simply to give the OF position a similar amount of player pool penetration as MI and CI currently have ie. 2 MI has a 3 player penetration, 2 CI has 3 player penetration, and now 3 OF has a 4 player penetration. There was no intent to have fewer CI or MI but rather to increase the OF player pool penetration. I expected that we would simply reduce the bench by one player and add a 4th OF. That's what I voted for.
|
|
|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 27, 2011 22:33:18 GMT -5
Just a notice that bench spots will not be changed regardless of the outcome of this poll. If we do not combine the MI/CI into INF then we will have one additional roster spot from previous year.
|
|
|
Post by d**nedifino on Jan 27, 2011 23:13:30 GMT -5
My understanding was that the 4th OF spot would replace a Bench spot. You better ask how many bench spots we want. I think that 5 is plenty. We tend to load these spots with SP pitchers and more bench spots simply dilutes the value ot the SP. 5 Bench spots is more than enough. I'll bet we all thought that the new OF position would replace a Bench position. You better ask.
|
|
|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 28, 2011 7:15:49 GMT -5
There was no talk about replacing a bench spot - it is stated in the initial posting that the vote would be to add an additional roster spot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 13:28:51 GMT -5
now you know why I voted to combine the MI/CI spots--I didnt hear anything about cutting back the bench size and I for one think our salary is stretched thin enough with 26 roster spots--but if the poll continues this way we will have 260$ to spend on 27 players instead of 26(including the FT--for semantics sake).........
|
|
|
Post by 25alive on Jan 28, 2011 14:09:53 GMT -5
Several thoughts here..........there was never any mention of dropping a bench spot in the discussion, if that was assumed.........for those concerned about 5 transactions, one less bench spot will diminish roster flexibility and hamstring you when injuries occur...............I never heard anyone request reducing the money we spend when we added that inflation driven Farm Tag?.................lastly we do NOT draft 26 players anyway b/c of the inflation driven FT, we only draft 25 players.................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 14:27:43 GMT -5
you know what I meant--my OPINION is we're stretched thin enough already, 26(INCLUDING THE FT)roster spots is a pretty sizable roster--you guys are gonna do what the majority votes for but my opinion is(even with the FT)we have to stretch our salary enough already--if we do expand to a 27 man roster so be it, but since there's a discussion I thought I mines well post my opinion on the subject......(FYI 25 Alive--the transaction poll is already done, we are going w/5 per week and 35 innings minimum no matter what happens w/the roster size)
|
|
|
Post by 25alive on Jan 28, 2011 15:27:43 GMT -5
No question everybody should post their opinion here, that's the purpose of this forum. I just don't understand how were stretched as far as money goes. We have more money per player to spend here than a traditional auction and any other auction I've been involved in. This is sole facilitated by the "FT" as every owner is able to acquire a $40 - $50 player which has no cap ramifications.
Just my two cents............
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 17:25:10 GMT -5
fair enough--my thoughts are w/the increases happening like they do it's hard enough to stretch the funds the way we've done it--now our players are more expensive then last season & we could have less money per player b/c of the new roster spot--ya know what I mean??
For instance, right now I have 98$ in keepers and that leaves me 162$ for 16 players as is--I needed to keep four 3$ players to make sure I was even in that position--if we add the 4th OF spot w/out merging the MI & CI into INF, I will have 162$ for 17 players--not the end of the world or anything, but if I have the choice, I rather go w/the same size roster......
|
|
|
Post by eulogy7 on Jan 28, 2011 20:03:33 GMT -5
I agree with Bill on this one, FWIW. I think it my be worth voting on a modest salary increase to accommodate the extra position just to get a sense for where the league stands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2011 9:36:45 GMT -5
another possibility I thought of to keep salaries from becoming a bit too restrictive is to give us 1 free keep before they start--ie the 1st time you "keep" a player(whether purchased at auction, added through waivers/FA or trade)their salary does not increase--but the SECOND time you keep a player the increases begin--and they continue each time you keep that player--this way we'd have one chance to keep a player at their auction price.........just a thought
|
|
|
Post by 25alive on Jan 30, 2011 18:24:13 GMT -5
My opinion is that an increase in cap dollars will significantly alter this league and I hope I'm not the only one in this camp. However since no one else has expressed their opinion in my camp perhaps I'm the oddball.
In a traditional auction, you draft 26 players with $260 which is $10 per player and while I hear your dilema Bill there are other teams on the opposite end of the spectrum who have major money to spend after their keepers.
Hoyas currently has his roster constructed with $179 for 10 players, Eulogy (Detroit Bailouts) is slated to draft 7 players with $167 and he wants more? Brooklyn Zoo currently has his roster setup to draft 15 players with $249. I do understand this is speculative and you will add a player to each of these rosters but these examples show there are extremes on both sides of the spectrum and while an extra $10 is nice but those teams with money will have an extra $10 too.
There needs to be more opinions shared here because I believe this is a major issue.
|
|
|
Post by chows on Feb 1, 2011 7:38:02 GMT -5
Salary cap should stay the same. Everyone is playing with the same rules and should be able to adapt to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2011 9:05:03 GMT -5
after considering other teams and not just my own situation, I feel it's probably best to keep the cap as is--HOWEVER, I still REALLY wish we didn't expand the rosters since then this wouldn't even be an issue....In my opinion the original poll should of said either we add a 4th OF spot and combine the MI & CI OR stay the same, that way we wouldnt of had to change the roster size OR salary cap as I think neither should of been changed....not to mention that's 14 more players taken from an already thin FA pool........but what's done is done.
|
|