[USML Announce] Roster Question

Sun Aug 15 21:39:12 EDT 2010

Your first point would be a good one if you were correct; however, MLB has in fact played with short rosters (although they can no longer do so):

The normal roster limit has been 25 for most of the past decades with a few exceptions. In April 1990, because spring training had been shortened by a labor conflict, teams were allowed two additional roster spots until April 25. This precedent was repeated after the settlement of the 1994 strike, when teams were allowed three additional roster spots at the start of the 1995 season until May 15. Conversely, Major League teams decided to play with 24-man rosters during the first half of the 1978 season (i.e. until July 1) and during the entire season - except for the period of expanded rosters - from 1986 to 1989, as a cost-cutting measure in the face of escalating player salaries. The settlement of the 1990 strike made the 25-man roster a part of the basic collective bargaining agreement and it has not been touched since.

As for your second point, we already do that by using DL'd players and minor leaguers to fill slots when we don't like the alternatives.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Barrett <chicagojab at gmail.com>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Sun, Aug 15, 2010 9:16 pm
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Roster Question

There's no empty slots in real baseball.  The union would have a major fit.  I don't see a legitimate reason to depart.

    The proposal is also a slippery slope towards owners deciding that there are no good catchers ( or 2b) and they they will drag the BA down so "I won't have any and just spend more money on OFs or CIs, etc." To play this game, you need to manage players at all positions within the cap.  

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:49 PM, "Jeffrey H. Winick" <JHW at steinrayharris.com> wrote:

Mark,

I honestly don't think I"ve ever used empty slots.  I do remember arguing pretty strenuously against the use of empty slots some years ago and I'd like to think that I acted consistent with my stated opinion.

Jeff

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of springkerb at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 8:35 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Roster Question

Didn't you use some empty slots one year since we changed the rules?  Or am I remembering wrong? 

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard E. Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Sun, Aug 15, 2010 6:55 pm
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Roster Question

That's what I remember as well.  Moreover, there are a number of situations that could, in theory, result in a shortage of players at a given position.  We allow DL'd players, minor leaguers, and perhaps players traded out of the league to sit on a roster, sometimes where they are there just to allow teams to get above the floor.  Should we disallow those situations too?

I thought that we decided to tolerate empty slots because we had the minimum IP and AB requirements.

-- Rich

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of springkerb at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 4:56 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Roster Question

Actually, to the best of my recollection, the exact reason that we removed the language change that temporarily banned the practice was the belief that the salary floor and cap set the minimum and maximum roster requirements, so there was no longer any reason to impose a ban on empty roster slots, as long as the salary requirements were met. 

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Klein <anrklein at gmail.com>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Sun, Aug 15, 2010 3:06 pm
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Roster Question

I'm with Jim B.  The argument based on the rules is questionable at best.  If there was prior "custom," it we had a salary cap.  I don't think teams should be able to duck the cap by having empty slots on active rosters unless the rules clearly permit it.

-Andy

On 8/15/10 1:10 PM, Jim Barrett wrote: 

If there is no evidence of it being permitted, the Constitutional   argument is questionable, and the whole point is to dodge the salary cap then   the answer should be no.  He should have to juggle his roster to fit   within the salary cap and positional requirements.

Sent from my   iPhone

On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:59 AM, springkerb at aol.com wrote:

I haven't seen a decision on my     question.  If permitted, please activate Saltalamachia, reserve Fox,     and reserve Mijares.  Mijares is out for the season, so this could     effectively be accomplished by assigning him a salary of zero.     

Mark

_______________________________________________
announce     mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20100815/09a127a6/attachment.htm