UT for National League teams

[Dan Wood]

Why do the national league teams have a UT spot? In a 30 team league there aren't enough guys to go around to have a starter for the UT spot. If we are to be like our MLB counterparts, then I feel that NL teams should not have a UT spot. This is of course IMO.

[Colby]

With how a fantasy league is setup, the AL and NL teams have to play each other, and the only way to keep it balanced is to have the Utility spot.

[Dan Wood]

Would it be reasonable to get rid of the UT spot in general? It would make it easier to gets deals complete and make the waiver wire a little better. Kind of gives an extra 15 players to move around. Just a thought. It'll be like the old days before the atrocity of the DH was started and elongated the careers of relatively useless baseball players. IMHO.

[Canada8999]

Would it be reasonable to get rid of the UT spot in general? It would make it easier to gets deals complete and make the waiver wire a little better. Kind of gives an extra 15 players to move around. Just a thought. It'll be like the old days before the atrocity of the DH was started and elongated the careers of relatively useless baseball players. IMHO.

Teams would need 1 fewer starter, but as long as we don't contract rosters to 39 the waiver wire wouldn't be affected.  I'm in favor of keeping the UT, as in reality even NL teams often have more than just the starting 8 bat (pinch hitters, etc.).

[Dan Wood]

I feel that some owners might not keep an expensive bat just to fill the UT spot, therefor releasing them. I think it might make the league more competitive, and make starting line ups stronger overall. For instance let's say I offered Brandon Phillips to a team who had 4 starting CI's - this is all hypothetical - and that owner can't do a proposed 2 for 1 trade because they needed to fill that final UT spot. If that spot did not exist and the trade went through then it would make two teams better.

[Colby]

With all of the moves made so far, eliminating an active playing spot would do more harm than good.  I thought of bringing this up myself too, but I want to wait and see what Fantrax says about my enhancement idea of prorating the stats per AB and IP (as long as you hit the minimum for that period).  We'll know more in the spring.

[bridgestone]

I know I am not on the RC, but I support the elimination of the Utility spot by 2011.

[lp815]

I have no problem bringing the discussion up for the 2011 season.  While it might be hard to see any one team really traded and signed to fill the utility spot so early in the offseason, I'll agree with Colby that eliminating the spot now would probably not be in the best interest of the league.

[Colby]

What would be nice is if we could make it so that for AL home games, the Utility is worth 100% and NL home games, the Utility is worth 25-35% (makes up for pinch hitters).

[clidwin]

What would be nice is if we could make it so that for AL home games, the Utility is worth 100% and NL home games, the Utility is worth 25-35% (makes up for pinch hitters).

That would be something to think about! But if you get rid of Utlity spot, that would be a no... no!