Streamlining Roster Management Roles

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

I want to start by saying that this is not an attack on the people doing these roles but more an acknowledgement that they are humans with lives and there are volunteers waiting to help.

So there have been some issues with players not being added to rosters, trades not being processed quickly, and overall Fantrax roster management.

So I am proposing some ideas/roles for making sure we stick to the rules and take some pressure off the current admins.

1. Bud Selig account open to all Trade Panel members and a 48 hour trade turnaround. I don't know all of how the trade panel works but it would make sense to me that any Trade Panel member could move a trade to the review process since it doesn't add any power. A timeline would provide reasonable expectation of making emergency moves for roster and cap space.

2. Two Fantrax "Auditors"
One per league (NL/AL) who once a week make sure that trades are processed and rosters are legal. This would help the trade process work quickly with the trade review changes. They would also be responsible for making sure that FAs are picked up in accordance to the rules.

There a more I am forgetting but just like the Pirates took over the spreadsheet, we can make things better all-around by spreading the work around. Keeping to standard will make people be happier with their overall experience.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

nice, very nice proposal

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I'd be willing to volunteer time as a fantrax auditor should this come to pass.

[Deleted]

Very Well set Matt. I would only add that tanking also needs to be watched from week to week. I would be willing to help in that department if specific rules and procedures were outlined to be enforced.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Something definitely needs to happen. What's going on right now is the kind of thing that kills a league. As to tanking, how would that be defined exactly? I signed every free agent I could get my hands on, but still am unable to make the innings minimum each week. Regulating tanking seems like it could look at team's outcomes and view them as intent, which is dangerous.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Sorry for just seeing this (and other posts). Yes, this is a fine proposal. I'll share the Trade Review log-in immediately with all of those on the committee. As for auditors, I would prefer those to also be on the Trade Panel. Feel free to respond here if you're already a member there and/or have commissioner privileges already on Fantrax and wish to audit rosters there (also, PM me).

[Deleted]

May 21, 2013 14:50:33 GMT -8 @bencap said:

Very Well set Matt. I would only add that tanking also needs to be watched from week to week. I would be willing to help in that department if specific rules and procedures were outlined to be enforced.

If you miss IP more than 5 times, you lose your lottery position in the draft. Not a huge punishment but the difference between a potential #1 pick and the 6th is not inconsequential.

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

This is exactly the problem I knew was going to happen. Right now, the way the rules are, one of the best strategies to win in this league is to have 9 or 10 position players with as many pitchers on your roster as possible.

Since we can roster 40 players and in real life there are only 25 man rosters, there is a shortage of pitchers. Some teams cannot even make the league minimums, let alone compete. There have been proposals to limit starts and/or innings. I have proposed to have an active 25 man each week. We can still roster 40 MLB players, but you would only be allowed to use 25 players in any weekly matchup. Maybe only 5 starting pitchers? We need to find a solution.

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

I agree with the Reds. There is a real premium on starting pitchers above all else. The flexibility of the position player roster means you can get by with only 4-5 regulars and fill in order to hit the AB limit. The problem is with pitching there is a finite number of starters (5 per team) and in reality that last spot is fungible on my rosters. With injuries and ineffectiveness it is a real weakness of new and rebuilding teams because they were handed rosters with maybe 3-4 starting pitchers on them. If you lose pitchers to injuries and demotions you could be running on 2 starters praying for two start weeks. Normally there would be a market created but the experienced teams have hoarded pitchers over the years and are not looking to move them.

This is different then the premise of this post but it would be nice to revisit the innings limit this offseason. I personally think it would make more sense to just forfeit ERA and WHIP (AVG and OPS for hitters) if you fail to make the limit as they are the only two you could theoretically take advantage of by shortening your rotation. There should be better ways to look at tanking overall then punishing teams that are trying but can't overcome the shortage of pitchers.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I'd like to second the Red's comment. I came to the same conclusion shortly after I took over the Twins. I drafted pitchers with all my picks this year and have done virtually all my trades with the intent of acquiring starting pitching. With injuries and and young arms getting sent down, I'm almost certainly going to miss the IP limit again this week.

My problem isn't with this or with the roster size or # of pitchers on roster, however. It's with the chosen criteria and application of the penalty. This is not a penalty for tanking. Teams literally may be unable to meet the IP limit despite all reasonable efforts. I know this to be true from both observation and direct experience.

I like my team and I like the pitching I have coming around at some point. I'll be okay regardless. I have no intention of finishing in the bottom 5 teams this year, next year, or any year IP penalty losses or no. I'm just saying that the IP lottery penalty hurts the teams who need it the most, due to the scarcity of quality of pitching that the Reds pointed out.

True tanking is a function of having players on your bench that should be in your starting lineup. Nobody makes all the right calls. That said, I expect that if you tally bench points vs starting points for all teams per week, over the year this form of tanking would become obvious. Teams consistently not fielding their best lineups in order to move up in draft order is my definition of tanking.

If you've gone total rebuild and aren't making any points either way, regardless of whether it's by intent, injury, or just inheriting a bad team you shouldn't be penalized. Especially not in the one area that represents your best hope in attempting to rebuild that team.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

You guys all make good points and it's worthy of being addressed in the future. Obviously we cannot apply it to this year but we can make changes moving forward. Perhaps we can take a more subjective evaluative approach for the teams who haven't been making the innings limits but clearly have been trying and give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them for the lottery.

I also like the idea of the 25-man roster, and simply losing average stats if you fail to make minimums (for offense too). One would figure you would already be at a disadvantage with the counting stats if you're struggling to make the limits.

[Deleted]

I would agree with what the Indians said in this post; however, I am against the 25 active roster proposed by the Reds.

I would think simply lowering the IP limit rather than limiting the active number of players would be a better solution. Teams who have strong staffs shouldn't be penalized to say, only 5 SP per week just because another team may not have as many SP's or IP.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

agreed, 25 inning min would work

4 starters = 5 innings each if only 1 start a week....equals 20 inning

4 RP = 5 innings = 2 to 4 innings average per MLB RP per week

easy to make up difference if injury with one back up, 2 start week, RP getting 10 to 15 innings a week

The numbers would easily cover a 25 inning min...if someone is getting below 25 innings...then they are not giving ANY effort.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I kind of like the 25 man active roster idea. It mirrors MLB and adds more strategy. 25 active, 40 man, and then 10 in the minors. Simple.