The EDR is fundamentally setup as a place to stash draft picks. That is why it is not for a player signed to a prospect contract through free agency. Signing a player to a contract costs salary. Placing a player on the EDR is free. Allowing players to be placed onto the EDR is a way to circumvent the salary, as it would clear that cap from your roster.
Furthermore, an MLB roster is setup for 25 players. With 40 man rosters we have already built 15 spots extra to begin with. If you choose to fill the 15 slots up with veterans the league shouldn't grant you another 5 slots, you may fill those up and need 5 more, and what then...
Finally, adding a separate 5 slots of Minor leaguers would be detrimental to the parity of the league. If another 5x30 players are added to rosters (150) then parity would severely drop off.
I think this rule change sounds attractive. If everyone got the five roster spots everyone wins. But we as GMs will always want more roster spots. We cannot just change rules because of this natural tendency; or 65 will become 70 and then 80. The reason is that it will create too many loopholes salary wise, I can think of plenty just in a few moments. Also, the parity of the league is at stake. We don't need to lock teams into place more so, by removing an additional 150 players from the pool.
I had to think long and hard about this response as I wasn't sure of my opinion before. Now I am dead set that the consequences of this change outweigh the temorary benefit.
Although this proposal has gotten some very favorable reviews by most of the members of the Rules Committee, as the originator of the proposal, it seems only right I should address the concerns that have been put forward regarding its negative impact on the league.
I will begin by saying I do not concur with the analysis that this proposal will diminish the value of our EDR component. I know I was a little apprehensive to even put forth such a proposal because of the EDR Rosters sacred place in the confines of FGM. I recall debating the issue with a former GM, a GM who professed to be one of the originators of the rule, and never really convincing him that EDRs received in trades should be able to be added to our EDR rosters because they were EDRs. This current proposal does not have a provision for such an action, but it does provide GMs with the opportunity to strengthen their 40 man rosters by having five specific types of players added to a MiLB roster.
I do not believe that the parity of our league will be hurt by such a rule change. Granted, the EDR concept is unique to FGM and will continue to be a part of who we are, but the addition of 5 MiLB spots does nothing to diminish the EDR concept. We will still have 20 EDR roster spots, and those roster spots will continue to be dedicated to our EDRs. If we promote, release, or trade away some of those EDRs, their roster spots will left empty until the next Amateur Draft.
As we currently operate, as soon as an EDR sees any MLB action, they must immediately be promoted to our 40 man roster. The proposed rule would allow GMs to keep such EDRs on the EDR roster without having to make an immediate roster change by promoting an EDR and dropping a contributing player on their 40 man roster. From my perspective, this would promote the competitive balance in the league and would not be detrimental in any way.
Further, the five MiLB slots could be used for players who are received in trade who are under the rookie threshold. These are players who will, hopefully, contribute in the future, but are of no competitive value in the present. The proposed rule clearly states that it is only for players under the threshold, and yes, it could theoretically take 150 players out of the player pool, but does that hurt parity or is it a more realistic reflection of what MLB teams do in real life? Do MLB teams keep prospects on their 40 man rosters? Yes they do, but they also have a multitude of minor league teams to "stash" players and those players are governed by option rules. Each MLB franchise has minor league teams at a multitude of levels (Rookie, Class A, A+, AA and AAA)—FGM has none.
Our "minor league teams" are manifested in our EDR rosters, and even with that, we have a prohibitive rule that says we have to promote an EDR to our 40 man roster if he has a single AB or IP. Adding five MiLB roster spots is our answer to the MLB options rule. We have a built in protection against misuse by requiring a player to be on a (P-n/a) contract and under the threshold. Players on a regular contracts are ineligible. Further, if an EDR has a short call up and is under the threshold, he doesn’t have to be promoted immediately.
I know that you have a fundamental belief in the evils of executive authority. You have said on more than one occasion that you believe the Commissioner has too much power. Yet, you are also asking the Commissioner(s) to provide leadership. Utilizing the Rules Committee is, by its very nature, a way to provide positive leadership. We are not always going to agree, but we can certainly come to some consensus on the best way to proceed. Dissent and disagreement does not always breed conflict, it sometimes promotes reflective thinking, but in this particular case, this proposal was presented to the Rules Committee after several years of participation in this league.
As a member of any organization, there are always those who portray the worst case scenarios. Do you really believe we are opening a door to keep adding roster spots so that there are no free agents to be had? While you refer to a “natural tendency” to do so, let me assure you, we are not a league run amok. I think you have to have a little faith in leadership and the Rules Committee. Yes, there are those that say “in this league or that league we do this”, but we’re not talking about those leagues—we’re talking about Franchise GM. We’re not looking to completely overhaul the EDR rule or get rid of it completely. We’re talking about the addition of five rosters spots for players who are not, at this time, contributing players to our weekly fantasy totals. There is no hidden agenda to circumvent the salary cap by adding five MiLB spots. What are we really talking about in terms of cap saving, $2.5m? Is that a significant enough cap savings to say no to the proposed idea?
I, like you, have given this proposal A LOT of thought. This is not a flippant proposal aimed at temporary benefit. This is a proposal that is the result my experiences in this league and is part of a vision for the future.
Finally, I will leave you with this: If you were to go through the FGM Archives, you would see an EDR proposal put forth by our former Commissioner on August 27, 2014. It had three basic changes:
1. Increase the size of the EDR to 30 players. 2. Allow International Free Agents under the age of 18 (Age when signed by FGM team) to be placed on a teams EDR.3. Allow players on one teams EDR to be placed on another teams EDR when traded.You were not part of the Rules Committee then, but you offered your vote.
You voted yes, yes, no.
I voted no, yes, yes.
Those questions were never resolved because we got stalled in the back and forth you get from endless discussion. Now, while I encourage such discussion, I believe we need to get a definitive answer to the rule changes being discussed and I think we can do that by going to a Poll Question format—where we each cast a vote of yea or nay. I will utilize such a format in the future. Everyone will get to post their comments and then vote as they see fit.
In regards to the EDR question, the two of us have changed our positions of a sort. However, I believe that what has been proposed is not a radical change, it is really a compromise of a sorts, and is something that can be managed for the good of the league. It is “an attractive rule” because, quite frankly, it is. The argument that GMs always want more is correct, but we have rules in place, and they govern how we play. My salary cap is $93m in 2015, I would like more, like say the $200m the Yankees have, but there are rules in place to govern that cap figure. One of the characteristics of FGM is the ability for GMs to evaluate talent, pick that talent, and be patient enough for it to come to fruition. There are no free drops or special concessions to anyone. At the same time, we all have to be cognizant of our success because our salary caps are directly affected by the success of our teams. The implementation of the five MiLB roster rule will not adversely affect integrity of this league. In my estimation, it will improve the league by giving GMs, under specific guidelines, a chance to improve the competitive level of their teams.
My sense is that FGM is ready to move forward with this rule change. The GMs on the Rules Committee are all veterans of FGM, with a sense of history as to what we are about, and judging by their comments, I would say we’re ready to see implementation. I hope the two remaining RC members who haven’t commented will do so by tomorrow, Friday, January 23, 2015.
