Maximum minor leaguers on roster discussion.

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

Since this has caused some problems, I thought we could discuss it and get opinions on the matter.

Before the latest revision the rules stated the following:

For the purpose of PB's Fantasy Baseball, there are three types of players:


Minor Leaguers - A player who has not appeared in a MLB game.
Prospects - A player that is under control through the 5-year prospect system.
Major Leaguers - A player that has exceeded the 5-year prospect system.
Roster Restrictions


In order to prevent teams from either stacking their team completely with major league talent or exclusively with minor league talent, there are restrictions for your roster at all times. Your team cannot have less than 10 minor leaguers or more than 35 minor leaguers at all times. However, if one of your minor leaguers on your roster becomes a prospect mid-season, you do not need to adjust your roster. You can choose to have fewer than 10 players on your minor league roster, but may not exceed 40 on your active MLB roster.

When PB first wrote the rules, the idea was to try and make all teams field a competitive lineup.  If two teams in one division would happen to be rebuilding and had no players in the lineup, it would give an unfair advantage (four easy wins) to the other teams.  When anyone violated this rule, they were punished by being moved down in next seasons draft order. 

When the rule was revised (12/05/2014), I tried to make it a little easier to follow and interpret.

There are two rules that applies now:

- During the season, out of a teams 40 man active roster, a team must have at least 8 pitchers and 8 position players who are not minor leaguers.

- During the season, out of a teams 50 players, a team cannot have more than 34 minor leaguers.

The definitions of the 3 types of players according to the rules:

Minor Leaguers - A player who has not yet appeared in the major leagues and was drafted or is signed as a free agent to a MiLB Average Annual Salary contract. (See definition of average annual salary contract in the rules under Free Agency & Player Contracts)

Prospects - A player that is under control through the 5-year prospect system. The only way for a player to become a prospect is if a player is drafted or signed before that player uses his first qualifying season. In order to remain a prospect after his first qualifying season, a player must not be released to free agency. Once a player has played a qualifying season and is a free agent, that player is no longer eligible for prospect status and is considered a major leaguer.Major Leaguers - A player that has exceeded the 5-year prospect protection system, or any player who has lost prospect status due to contractual arrangements.

We do not list punishments for breaking rules.  So far, we have used the previous precedent of dropping teams in the next years draft, and reversing acquisitions until rosters are compliant.

If you have any questions, ideas, or comments; please reply to this thread. 

[Red Sox GM (John)]

I like this simplification that you came up with-
- During the season, out of a teams 40 man active roster, a team must have at least 8 pitchers and 8 position players who are not minor leaguers.

- During the season, out of a teams 50 players, a team cannot have more than 34 minor leaguers.

So now the question is how do we track and or punish for breaking the rule. Just throwing out an idea but what about a board where if someone is in violation they can be added to the board (by any owner). If they are shown to be in violation of the rules and depending on how many weeks it takes them to become compliant the penalties increase.

Just spitballing there.

[Nationals GM (Preston)]

I think the draft penalty is best because it directly relates to the objective for breaking the rule (assuming bad faith) and is also not terribly penalizing should it be more of an accident. However, I wouldn’t mind this penalty being worse than just dropping out of the lottery, perhaps pushing back out of the top half and/or losing second and third round picks (maybe for repeat offenders).

I don’t see bans on signings and trades at large being fair since these would be means for getting back into compliance. If it’s ultimately a means for tanking, then I think the punishment should relate to the crime.

[Padres GM (Amy)]

in All Star, we go by minimums and have a penalty of 5 spots. the All Star approach seems easier to manage.

[Astros GM (Dave)]

Thanks for throwing this out there, appreciate it, and the responses.  I am thinking maybe a combination of Amy and Preston, first time you drop 5 spots, if you repeat the offense, drop the 5 spots again but also lose either a 2nd or 3rd round draft pick.  If you do it a third time, or more, the penalty gets worse, maybe drop 10 spots and lose your 2nd and 3rd round picks.  Just throwing it out there, again, thank you for getting this out to everyone so we can all be on the same page going forward.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

the penalty should be roster is frozen until the roster is legal, we used this many times in different leagues, it works, for any rule violation, non payment of fees, deadlines, etc.  Nobody should have to run around checking everyone's stuff creating more work for someone who isn't the offending party, put that on the individual owners.

the penalty of dropping 5 spots in a draft can be over come by acquiring FA minor leaguers who are almost MLB ready that are available and gives the offending team the extra cap space/money to acquire other players.  If you want to see actual results using a draft penalty, drop the 1 round pick, all together, to a pick after the 2nd round or 3rd round pick.  I know I wouldn't care at all if I dropped 5 spots in a draft, and might be worth it to break whatever rule, but would if I dropped 1 or 2 rounds, that would most likely deter me.

[Cardinals GM (John C)]

First and foremost, I acknowledge that I am "the new guy," so here's what I think for what its worth.

Reasonable people ought to be able to follow simple guidance such as "It is expected that every owner will attempt to field as competitive a team as possible within the constraints of their own competitive situation," along with including the absolute minimums of MLB players that must be on the roster.  Perhaps a few examples can be included, like "If you have a minor leaguer who is 24 and is expected to be an MLB starter and that guy only plays a few games in April and then gets sent down, then it is fine to have counted him as one of your intended MLB guys.  If you have a 19-year-old who got a cup of coffee at the end of last season after a successful A+ season, then it is probably not reasonable to count that guy as one of your 8".

In other words, be reasonable.  Try to field a competitive team while rebuilding.  It will be nearly impossible to cover every situation that a competitive owner who is looking for an edge can imagine -- instead, lay out the intent of the rules, provide general guidelines, and allow the CO to apply the "reasonable owner" standard, ie, "Would a reasonable owner agree that the actions of this particular owner meet the intent of the rule?"

As far as penalties, it makes sense to me to give the CO some latitude since every situation will be different.  To my mild surprise, I am finding that there are players available in-season who can ... help.  Most of them will likely not lead you to the playoffs, at least not in the year they are signed, but one can easily find roster-fillers at most positions to allow owners to meet the intent of fielding a reasonably competitive team.  If an owner is doing that and meeting the "8-and-8" rule, then it is reasonable to say that owner is meeting the intent.  If an owner's 8th MLB batter on the team is a 19-year-old who played two MLB games, was then sent back to A+ or AA, and the owner made no effort to find another MLB bat, then maybe that owner is not meeting the intent of the rule.

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

The enforcement of the 8x8 rule cannot be a frozen roster. For example, the Cubs need to pick up players to become compliant. He would need to trade players to acquire cap room.

I thought the 34 MiLB limit would work hand in hand with the 8x8 rule; 34+16=50.

Maybe it should be drop 5 spots in the draft each week you are not compliant. (Every 6 weeks would be 30 spots which would mean you lose a pick)



The 8x8 rule could be eliminated, if no one cares about tanking.

[Cardinals GM (John C)]

New guy again ... in a league that tries to be as much like MLB as possible, it would be unfortunate to encourage tanking (or stop discouraging tanking). I think the 8-and-8 rule ought to remain in place.

Even the real-world Pirates, who can be accused of "tanking," still field a legit MLB team that wins some games. And in a league like this, if you have more than 15-18 prospects, most of the prospects over that number are true speculative dart-board throws -- just trying to accumulate a bunch of guys in the hopes that a few of them hit.

It is better to encourage owners to try to be competitive while re-building or re-tooling.

What about rewarding teams that are making every effort to rebuild while being as competitive as they can?

I'm not sure exactly how to reward them: Maybe reward them by having the CO choose X-number of sub-.500 teams to exchange their 3rd round pick for a supplemental 2nd round pick (awarded after the end of the regular second round)? That means that a team that wins 40% of it's games while rebuilding could make its "3rd round pick" before the teams that lost all of their games do (if they were deemed to be meeting the letter of the rule but not the intent)? Just a thought ... although it might create animosity if an owner thinks he deserves to be rewarded and is not.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

sorry, you are right by the way I stated it, my "frozen" definition means everything but the moves a team legal again.

The drop 5 draft spots each week is better than the original but each team will have their own acceptable threshhold in which to comply. 

In dog training, for example, we call that excessive commands, sit mean sit the first time, if you emphasis sit the 10th time thats when a dog learns that he actually has to sit before an actual consequence happens.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Jul 7, 2021 7:13:33 GMT -8 Cardinals GM (John C) said:

New guy again ... in a league that tries to be as much like MLB as possible, it would be unfortunate to encourage tanking (or stop discouraging tanking). I think the 8-and-8 rule ought to remain in place.

Even the real-world Pirates, who can be accused of "tanking," still field a legit MLB team that wins some games. And in a league like this, if you have more than 15-18 prospects, most of the prospects over that number are true speculative dart-board throws -- just trying to accumulate a bunch of guys in the hopes that a few of them hit.

It is better to encourage owners to try to be competitive while re-building or re-tooling.

What about rewarding teams that are making every effort to rebuild while being as competitive as they can?

I'm not sure exactly how to reward them: Maybe reward them by having the CO choose X-number of sub-.500 teams to exchange their 3rd round pick for a supplemental 2nd round pick (awarded after the end of the regular second round)? That means that a team that wins 40% of it's games while rebuilding could make its "3rd round pick" before the teams that lost all of their games do (if they were deemed to be meeting the letter of the rule but not the intent)? Just a thought ... although it might create animosity if an owner thinks he deserves to be rewarded and is not.

ok, john, You nailed it with the Pirates example and could have really used the Tigers right now since they can afford to field a much better team and I am really liking the outside of the box thinking here, sorta like a treat for a dog, lol. maybe even allow sub .500 teams that field a full lineup a 4th round pick since many teams have asked for the draft to expand.

By "competitive team in PB" they should have to meet the min innings and abs in every game of the season to qualify.