So few things

TheKing · Post by **TheKing** » Fri May 06, 2005 11:21 am

can be completely agreed upon by board members. As a matter of fact I'm not sure I've seen any post where the members have been in complete agreement, except for maybe a post or two where some non-NFBC legionnaire dared to cricise Greg in the early going.

However, I'd be willing to place a wager that everyone would be willing to agree that if Greg were to amend any rule regarding roster size, he'd be best served to allow each team to stash away one person on an injured reserve list. Well, at least anyone who drafted one of the torn groin boys or Magglio would agree. Shucks, maybe even those who drafted Bengi Molina or Bobby Madritsch would agree too? C'mon gents lets hear your thoughts...

Balticsquids · Post by **Balticsquids** » Fri May 06, 2005 12:59 pm

I have to agree with you on the fact that NOBODY would dare have a different opinion , then that of the NFBC , its a complete suck fest

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Fri May 06, 2005 6:26 pm

Originally posted by TheKing:

can be completely agreed upon by board members. As a matter of fact I'm not sure I've seen any post where the members have been in complete agreement, except for maybe a post or two where some non-NFBC legionnaire dared to cricise Greg in the early going.

However, I'd be willing to place a wager that everyone would be willing to agree that if Greg were to amend any rule regarding roster size, he'd be best served to allow each team to stash away one person on an injured reserve list. Well, at least anyone who drafted one of the torn groin boys or Magglio would agree. Shucks, maybe even those who drafted Bengi Molina or Bobby Madritsch would agree too? C'mon gents lets hear your thoughts... I could care less either way. IR or not IR... as long as it's even I have no pent up emotion on the issue. Expand the benches by 3 and call it a good day?

Dave

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Sat May 07, 2005 4:33 am

The benches are way too big as it is. There is no tension. It's too easy to take a flyer on a player and drop him for another a week later.

Benches should be small enough to make add/drop decisions difficult and allow players with some value to remain on the WW.

As for IR, I'm opposed. Too many owners went for the known injury prone players. They should not be bailed out with an extra player.

[ May 07, 2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: JerseyPaul ]

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Sat May 07, 2005 5:11 am

Have to agree with Paul on this, as seven reserves easily handles a DL player or two.

The other side is the administration nightmare to keep rosters correct if people are allowed to DL a player - what happens when he comes back, how long do they have etc - and if that is not the problem, you are really just adding an eighth reserve slot.

I vote NO

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Sat May 07, 2005 5:24 am

Originally posted by Captain Hook:

Have to agree with Paul on this, as seven reserves easily handles a DL player or two.

The other side is the administration nightmare to keep rosters correct if people are allowed to DL a player - what happens when he comes back, how long do they have etc - and if that is not the problem, you are really just adding an eighth reserve slot.

I vote NO With 7, I'm against a DL too.

The coming off DL is very easy.

The moment they appear in a game, they are moved to your bench unless you already have them in the lineup.

If that causes a team to go over the limit, they can't set a lineup/make a FA move until at the limit. I've done this in my service since we went onto the net in '97. Works perfect. No debates, no arguments, many tough, skilled decisions to make.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sat May 07, 2005 7:52 am

no dl. thanks.

dlongood · Post by **dlongood** » Sun May 08, 2005 4:35 am

I'm against any expansion of rosters. Go to the FA board subtract the 15 "best" players (in your opinion of course) Inventory what's left. FA would become Chernobyl type wasteland. If anything I would opt for 1 fewer players. Roster decisions would become more difficult-FA pool would contain plausible (as opposed to desperate) options.JMHO :rolleyes:

Kevin D · Post by **Kevin D** » Sun May 08, 2005 4:48 am

This one's for you Dave. We have Magglio and Nomar on a team. But would vote No DL expansion.

PittIsIt95 · Post by **PittIsIt95** » Mon May 09, 2005 1:21 am

Roster size is perfect right now. It leaves you with dificult decisions and leaves Free Agency bidding fun since there are always a few decent players to bid on.

Go join an AL/NL only auction league and see how boring Free Agency is (with a thin Free Agency pool). Mike Edwards went for 200 this week

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon May 09, 2005 2:25 am

Seven is the right number for me. Yes, the FA pool is thin after the first few weeks when people cull their late round draft foul ups, but seven allows a little space for a DL and/or a project (ML) or two.

One more roster spot will not alleviate serious DL problems. There will always be someone wanting more.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon May 09, 2005 2:53 am

Originally posted by TheKing:

can be completely agreed upon by board members. As a matter of fact I'm not sure I've seen any post where the members have been in complete agreement, except for maybe a post or two where some non-NFBC legionnaire dared to cricise Greg in the early going.

However, I'd be willing to place a wager that everyone would be willing to agree that if Greg were to amend any rule regarding roster size, he'd be best served to allow each team to stash away one person on an injured reserve list. Well, at least anyone who drafted one of the torn groin boys or Magglio would agree. Shucks, maybe even those who drafted Bengi Molina or Bobby Madritsch would agree too? C'mon gents lets hear your thoughts... Hah, good post King. Trust me, I've been criticized (correct spelling

) many times in the past two years as this isn't all one big lovefest. But the key is being firm in all decisions and sticking to what you think is best for the entire competition. I also listen to a lot of opinions on a certain subject before making a ruling. Everyone here understands that I'm a fantasy player myself and that I know what it's like to play under these rules.

Your idea for one DL spot is an understandable one as it's easy to accumulate several injuries during the season. That being said, last year we had 6 reserve spots and there was a request for one more additional reserve spot as the feeling was that it was just too tough to manage with so many injuries. We had good players on the DL being cut because teams needed live bodies rather than players who would return in a few weeks. I listened to the majority and added one more reserve spot this year, which left us at 30 players per team, which I think is perfect.

Adding one more reserve spot beyond 30 would thin out the free agent lists each week. The way we have it now does two things: 1) Keeps the free agent pool meaningful and helpful; and 2) Makes your weekly job of roster management more meaningful. Hey, I'm in a league where we have 40-man rosters and it's nice to have live bodies each week, but it takes me about 5 minutes each week to manage that roster. I like that setup, but it's not the type of setup we want for this high-stakes league.

But if there's enough sentiment for another reserve roster spot, I'll certainly listen. Even lovefests can have differing opinions. You are right, I can't think of a single subject where all 300 owners and one commissioner are in total agreement. That doesn't mean there's a major problem with that situation, it just means we have differing opinions. But in the end, final rules are made with the vast majority in mind and I think that's how our rules were devised. So far, things have run pretty smoothly, which I guess can be frustrating to some owners.

Plymouth · Post by **Plymouth** » Mon May 09, 2005 5:14 am

I would vote NO on a DL.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon May 09, 2005 6:10 am

Can't we all agree on beer...beer is good! Very good!

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon May 09, 2005 7:08 am

Suck it up, ya'll.

I'd vote no.