Mets & Angels GMs canned

[rcankosy]

Corey,

You have described the problem precisely.  For YOU to have 3 starting MIs means that another team would only have ONE, since there are only a fixed number of starters in major league baseball if you exclude platoons.  Many teams can't even field a full roster, because they have traded away starters for prospects.

Jake,

I would support your idea of expanding the rosters.  I believe that would be beneficial to the small market teams.

[joeshmoe]

Maybe we should consider making it mandatory for all teams to fill certain starting positions on a daily basis and allow salary exemptions for replacements of injured players.  In real life, you are require to field an entire team. 

This idea keeps bad teams bad.  If I HAD to field a full team I'd be starting (-) points players every day.  I do already but still.  I dont like the idea of forcing teams into starting players.

[joeshmoe]

Corey,

You have described the problem precisely.  For YOU to have 3 starting MIs means that another team would only have ONE, since there are only a fixed number of starters in major league baseball if you exclude platoons.  Many teams can't even field a full roster, because they have traded away starters for prospects.

Jake,

I would support your idea of expanding the rosters.  I believe that would be beneficial to the small market teams.

I think that its fine if every team does not have a starter.  Fact of the matter is; this sis a realistic simulation.  Baseball doesn't even have a Trade Committte IRL. 

Expanding roster size is ok; but really it doesnt solve issues.  Large Markt Teams (LMTs) can then stash even more prospects and hold them away from the Small Market Teams (SMTs).  The 40 man roster makes managers decide between MLB talent and prospects. 

[rcankosy]

I think you are confusing one element of realism with another.  The TC and the caps themselves are necessary things even though there may not be counter-parts to them in real life.  The truth is that most teams definitely have very specific spending patterns, and the salary cap forces us all to react according to our real life team's market.  The TC is needed because in real life a GM has to weigh in on factors such as attendance and ticket sales even though we do not have to here.  The Mets would never have acted in that manner in real life (even though some people might say that they already did to some extent), because they would never be able to sell one season ticket in Citifield. 

Asking every team to field a full starting lineup strikes at the core of baseball and legitimate competition itself, imo, but not everyone may share that belief.  I respect that viewpoint even though I clearly do not share it.  It's one thing to have 1 or 2 spots open.  I am guilty of that myself. 

[Colby]

Great ideas people... I like them all.  Having a new GM state their plan in detail is key.  It is my fault that I hired incapacity GMs just to fill sptits.  Roy and Jake bring a good point about roster filling.  Realistically, we should be fielding rosters with a legitimate amount of position players and pitchers at the major league level.  Is horsing minor leaguers good for the future?  Probably, but it is unrealistic.  One thing I thought about doing when I set up this league was have a 25 man major league roster.  You could control it through eligibility in the official roster but it gets messy in Fantrax.  We have total rosters at 50 going to 55 by the draft this year and then 60.  This leaves room for 25 to 35 minor leaguers....

[bravesfan4]

Making teams field full rosters in a 30 team league is not a good idea. How are the Padres and the Nats and Marlins and teams like that suppose to spend money on specs, if they have to compete with the Yanks Bosox Mets Dodgers and Phils on mlb starters. There gona way overpay, get bad contracts and be stuck. Or they can spend .5m on 4 mlb bench warmers to sit in the starting lineup and not play. If we are trying to improve the league, then wouldnt it better to let the Padres spend that .5 on a spec..... Like it was stated before, too much control is not a good thing. We are starting to border that line with this change.

[h4cheng]

I dont like any of these proposed changes. The league is not broken, it's very very easy to rebuild and contend. The entire issue lies with the fact that incompetent owners took control of teams.

Here is one idea: make any incoming new owner pay a deposit. They get the money back after a certain number of days of continuing activities.

[BHows]

This has been way over analyzed. I have to say that I feel more sorry for Dave (Angels) than I do the Mets. They have a good farm, $47m in their pocket and the high dollar contracts expiring this year. In fact if I hadn't invested as much time building ChiSox I would seriously consider throwing my name in the hat.
We just need to ensure that the new owner understands the entire scope of running a FGM franchise. Doesn't matter if he's new to the site or not, he needs to understand that the propose is to simulate a MLB franchise-From farm system to contracts and everything in between.

[Colby]

I dont like any of these proposed changes. The league is not broken, it's very very easy to rebuild and contend. The entire issue lies with the fact that incompetent owners took control of teams.

Here is one idea: make any incoming new owner pay a deposit. They get the money back after a certain number of days of continuing activities.

The deposit idea is a good one as it keeps the league but requires collateral.  I assume the deposit is returned no matter what?

[h4cheng]

The deposit idea is a good one as it keeps the league but requires collateral.  I assume the deposit is returned no matter what?

Yes, I think getting the prospective owner to put down some $ is a good sign of commitment.