|
|
Post by The Birds (Davey Johnson) on Mar 30, 2011 15:01:30 GMT -5
Yes. That is intentional to discourage inactivity. If the bar to not be labeled "inactive' is set low enough, I don't see a problem with imposing this rule. There should be no good reason that a manager cannot remain "active" within these easy to meet requirements. It is not telling teams they can't rebuild in an extreme fashion. It is telling teams they can't be inactive.
This can be compared to real life, where the GM/manager can have a strategy to rebuild a team from the ground up, but if their on field product is not just inexperienced, but an embarrassment to the organization, they will be fired and replaced way before their rebuilding process is allowed to be completed.
As for Smoke specifically, because this will not go into effect until 2012, if his strategy is working at all, enough of his prospects should be in the majors by then so that he should have no problems meeting the activity requirements.
Anyway, the way our draft process is structured, limiting the number of keepers, especially for an extremely bad team, is not really much of a penalty. Just look at the teams constructed this year by the four managers who dropped everyone and started from scratch.
|
|
|
|
Post by SultansOfSquat (Man) on Mar 30, 2011 18:09:37 GMT -5
How 'bout requiring at least a half-way reboot, if the minimum limits aren't met?
IOW, only allow a max of 12-13 keepers?
And again, perhaps, we may not need to require that for new team owners taking over such teams, but we can always strongly encourage them to consider something like a partial reboot of some sort, if they don't realize the benefits of that already.
FWIW, these minimum activity-based ideas might work better and be easier to do than any ideas involving actual handling of MiLB (sub)rostering...
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Center for Ants (Brad) on Mar 30, 2011 20:41:34 GMT -5
I like the idea of 12-13 keepers, and making the team pick 9th in a "full round" of the draft. That seems to make things "fair" for the rest of the league to avoid complete "tanking", plus it acts as a bit of a penalty for owners that do tank like this.
But I wouldn't put the "draft penalty" if the team has a new owner; that seems unfair. and the 12-13 keepers limit isn't much of a "penalty" since i'm guessing that very few teams are going to keep more than half of their guys anyways if they are poor enough to not his the points or games-played limit...
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Gas Can Turtles (Slava) on Apr 11, 2011 17:59:06 GMT -5
So... rather than having an MiLB system or any of these point/games player requiremets, I think we should go with a simple hybrid system.
Expand 25 man rosters to 28 man rosters, with the last 3 spots only allowed to be used for player who start the year in the minors. It would be like a DL slot, but a Minors slot that we would self police (such as with the FA dropping system).
Moreover, we can place a cap onto how many players in the minors you can have at any one time. Double the minors slot, 6 seems reasonable.
With this system, each player will have some sort of farm system: 3 players and those who are rebuilding can expand their system up to 6 players. Players looking to compete this year, probably won't opt for this route as they'll be using their bench more actively for match-ups and in season acquisitions. However, the 6 player limit will prevent a team from being able to field a team at all like it was mentioned earlier.
Anyway, it's just a suggestion, but I think it's simple and reasonable.
|
|
