Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Feb 27, 2020 16:15:44 GMT -5
I know we've been upset about tanking teams for a long time, but I think a big reason tanking exists is because we don't have roster limits. I know we have starts limits, but not total MLB roster limits. Heck, we laugh when guys "call someone up".
Rather than expecting guys to use valuable resources to field a team of bench players that'll make them score 100 points instead of 15 per week, putting roster limits (which....real teams have) would open up the pool of available players out there that quite literally have to be on teams other than the top few. It would cut down on the rate of teams fielding $250-300M payrolls with tons of cap coverage, further cut down on the sign-and-trade free agents, create more league parity, and cut down on the amount of teams that bow out of playoff contention and clear house at the trade deadline. And when one team can't have 40 or 50 players, it naturally makes more players available to middle and bottom teams. Having some sort of roster cap could also help make our trade voting system see less vetoes as player values become more structured and there is more of a consensus on what values should be.
What I've always enjoyed most about our league is all the ways it simulates running a real team (in ways that most types of leagues don't). The most significant way I think it differs though is the way our current structure so heavily rewards a team's ability to "throw crap at the wall," to the point that having a bunch of crap players is in some ways equivalent to having a few stars. As a team that recently did a rebuild, I can speak to the fact that part of my hesitancy to "stick it out" was that, while my pre-rebuild roster had talent, I lacked the resources it would take to add the several terrible players/absurd depth it would take to make me a bonafide contender. I know that sounds like whining, and it's honestly not (I ended up rebuilding and was fine with that), but my point is that the caliber of prospect it often takes to add objectively blah players (because of the value they hold in the depth-over-talent setup) incentives teams to keep solid prospects for the long haul rather than go add some depth guys on short deals.
IF what we want is to cut down on tanking, I think moving towards a roster rule that puts a hard cap (and one that is relatively close to real MLB rules) on roster size is the most effective way we can cut tanking. Making it more plausible to put forth a legitimately competitive roster is a better way to cut down tanking than making the worst team pick one spot behind the second worst team in the draft haha.
If we want to do this, we could put out a 2 year "scale down" (or however long), so that teams that currently have a boatload of guys don't just have to scramble to trade them all away/cut them to be in compliance, where Year 1 is a higher number than the ultimate number (40 or something like that).
I put a poll out with a few options, but am open to suggestions on a number.
Thoughts?
Rather than expecting guys to use valuable resources to field a team of bench players that'll make them score 100 points instead of 15 per week, putting roster limits (which....real teams have) would open up the pool of available players out there that quite literally have to be on teams other than the top few. It would cut down on the rate of teams fielding $250-300M payrolls with tons of cap coverage, further cut down on the sign-and-trade free agents, create more league parity, and cut down on the amount of teams that bow out of playoff contention and clear house at the trade deadline. And when one team can't have 40 or 50 players, it naturally makes more players available to middle and bottom teams. Having some sort of roster cap could also help make our trade voting system see less vetoes as player values become more structured and there is more of a consensus on what values should be.
What I've always enjoyed most about our league is all the ways it simulates running a real team (in ways that most types of leagues don't). The most significant way I think it differs though is the way our current structure so heavily rewards a team's ability to "throw crap at the wall," to the point that having a bunch of crap players is in some ways equivalent to having a few stars. As a team that recently did a rebuild, I can speak to the fact that part of my hesitancy to "stick it out" was that, while my pre-rebuild roster had talent, I lacked the resources it would take to add the several terrible players/absurd depth it would take to make me a bonafide contender. I know that sounds like whining, and it's honestly not (I ended up rebuilding and was fine with that), but my point is that the caliber of prospect it often takes to add objectively blah players (because of the value they hold in the depth-over-talent setup) incentives teams to keep solid prospects for the long haul rather than go add some depth guys on short deals.
IF what we want is to cut down on tanking, I think moving towards a roster rule that puts a hard cap (and one that is relatively close to real MLB rules) on roster size is the most effective way we can cut tanking. Making it more plausible to put forth a legitimately competitive roster is a better way to cut down tanking than making the worst team pick one spot behind the second worst team in the draft haha.
If we want to do this, we could put out a 2 year "scale down" (or however long), so that teams that currently have a boatload of guys don't just have to scramble to trade them all away/cut them to be in compliance, where Year 1 is a higher number than the ultimate number (40 or something like that).
I put a poll out with a few options, but am open to suggestions on a number.
Thoughts?
