Holding to Minor League roster limits.

[SmittyRocks7]

Makes sense now, voted!

[kdog36]

I will votes yes on the 163 which what I have always thought it was and try to stay below or near that all the time.
HOW I choose to use those 163 is no ones business

[Roggie]

Still curious as to why AAA and AA have a 24 man limit.

[DRWebs]

Still curious as to why AAA and AA have a 24 man limit.

My guess would be that was the standard when this was started a decade or however long ago real years and no one really cared to change it since. But yes, you are correct in stating it should be 25 everywhere but R ball

[Neurotic]

Yeah you're right. I should just leave the CPU create 40 ghost players for each of my minor league teams. That seems to be the consensus on how to handle things here.

That's fine, it also is irrelevant to what I said.

You can't claim you properly run your Farm when...you don't.

My farm was as over as it was because I offered a ton of MiLC to start the year to try and fill out my roster and ended up over signing. The point I was trying to make was, you're penalizing someone for putting effort into his team. For what?

There is no logic and / or reason for this to even be a rule. The only defensible thing that was said was that you are "keeping players from being available for other teams to have". Given that most of the guys I signed were signed after Feb. 1st and generally pretty terrible, I don't feel like this is the case. A player isn't going to take a MiLC over a legit ML offer. Most of the responses are simply "this is a rule, just follow it".

Just because something was arbitrarily placed into the rules, doesn't mean it's best practice or shouldn't be changed. The fact that so many people are voting yes but there is so little discussion as to the reasoning / effects of the rule shows how much of a mob mentality there is towards this rule. Either that or the league is filled with so much ignorance / arrogance that your awful opinion couldn't possibly be wrong.

[shel311]

There is no logic and / or reason for this to even be a rule.

Look, I understand we're a little digital baseball league.


But you think it's logical to have 100 dudes on, say, 1 Minor League team?

The fact that so many people are voting yes but there is so little discussion as to the reasoning / effects of the rule shows how much of a mob mentality there is towards this rule. Either that or the league is filled with so much ignorance / arrogance that your awful opinion couldn't possibly be wrong.

Oh, ok.

So anyone who disagrees with you is essentially ignorant.

Good talks!

[Neurotic]

But you think it's logical to have 100 dudes on, say, 1 Minor League team?

Its more logical than having 5-15. Not to mention there is no harm in it. If anything it requires more effort to manage thus increasing time spent / interest in the league (for me atleast).

So anyone who disagrees with you is essentially ignorant.

Good talks!

Anyone who continues to do nothing to refute what I'm saying but refuses to change their stance is ignorant, yes. Which you just so happen to continue to do.

[DRWebs]

Major League Baseball allows for 161 but they're probably ignorant too. We don't know the overall impact of keeping players that should be retired around... Would we get a better quality talent pool if they weren't taking up roster spots? Are teams suffering because your teams are sporting overexperienced players, thus stunting player growth? Could other teams use players that are sitting unused on a roster?

It's hard to believe the I'm just filling out my roster line when you've been well over 300 for about 5 years running. It's also harder to believe when you've stated in the past you keep players around solely for the purpose of them potentially becoming something better through talent change randomness. You didn't do yourself any favours with the claim that people who are over are just putting in effort to their team either. How much effort are you putting in mass offering free agents and then not trimming the fat for an entire season?

[Neurotic]

Major League Baseball allows for 161 but they're probably ignorant too. We don't know the overall impact of keeping players that should be retired around... Would we get a better quality talent pool if they weren't taking up roster spots? Are teams suffering because your teams are sporting overexperienced players, thus stunting player growth? Could other teams use players that are sitting unused on a roster?

It's hard to believe the I'm just filling out my roster line when you've been well over 300 for about 5 years running. It's also harder to believe when you've stated in the past you keep players around solely for the purpose of them potentially becoming something better through talent change randomness. You didn't do yourself any favours with the claim that people who are over are just putting in effort to their team either. How much effort are you putting in mass offering free agents and then not trimming the fat for an entire season?

Major League Baseball allows for 161 but they're probably ignorant too.

Comparing a ML baseball environment to this is apples to oranges. This isnt ML baseball. There is a long list of rules in the ML that wouldn't translate and shouldn't apply to online video game leagues.

We don't know the overall impact of keeping players that should be retired around... Would we get a better quality talent pool if they weren't taking up roster spots? Could other teams use players that are sitting unused on a roster?

As I stated before, they're not players that "should be retired". If they're "supposed to retire", they will retire at seasons end. The talent pool argument is completely without basis. They're players that are sitting in the FA pool if not on a ML baseball team. Most of the guys in my minors I signed in February of the offseason. There is ample opportunity for players to sign FAs. I sent out a ton of MiLC to guys who took ML offers or held out for them until Spring Training in the offseason. Not to mention, I couldnt possibly protect a vast majority of players from Rule 5.

Are teams suffering because your teams are sporting overexperienced players, thus stunting player growth?

So long as you're not having ML ready players sitting in A ball, this isn't an issue (hence the suggestion to switch to an age restrictive system). I've already had this argument with Niddler about how I feel under staffed teams are more detrimental to the league than higher staffed teams.

It's hard to believe the I'm just filling out my roster line when you've been well over 300 for about 5 years running.

That is categorically false. As I stated earlier, my number is so high this year because I signed a ton of MiLC guys to fill out my ML roster.

It's also harder to believe when you've stated in the past you keep players around solely for the purpose of them potentially becoming something better through talent change randomness.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this statement is. So you voted no simply because you'd rather put in zero effort and screw the guys that do? This is the same thing everyone else in the league can do. I gain no advantage over anyone else by doing it. Should people not bid money on INT FAs who are absolute garbage? I know for a fact people sign them in hopes that they turn into something. Again, your punishing people for putting in the effort.

You didn't do yourself any favours with the claim that people who are over are just putting in effort to their team either. How much effort are you putting in mass offering free agents and then not trimming the fat for an entire season?

How is it false that signing players to your minors and monitoring stats, injuries, development, etc. requires more effort? It's vastly easier to keep your rosters sized to under the limit and put them on cruise control. Also, I trim players when I feel necessary. There are certain criteria that trigger release that I use. Generally speaking though, it serves no purpose to trim them. Like I said earlier, they'll retire out or decline a minor league extension when they're ready to.

[shel311]

We havent had a good meltdown like this in a while. Very entertaining.

Imagining expecting serious discussion while calling anyone who doesn't share your opinions names.

That self awareness though...

[cougnix]

f

[DRWebs]

[Neurotic]

We havent had a good meltdown like this in a while. Very entertaining.

Imagining expecting serious discussion while calling anyone who doesn't share your opinions names.

That self awareness though...

Imagine calling something a "discussion" when you contribute absolutely nothing besides satire and trollish comments.

I'm not "melting down", I'm attempting to get someone to explain in a logical fashion the purpose of this rule and a substantial reason not to change it. Something that has yet to happen. You on the other hand, hypocritically attempt to chastise me for "calling anyone who doesn't share your opinions names" when all you've done is attack me. Your counter argument is "you call what you do logical?". Something you've asked multiple times already (to which I've answered every time). Otherwise you continue to ignore my questions and have made absolutely zero attempt to have any sort of actual "discussion".

Good talks!

[Neurotic]

So you have no actual response to my counter of your points?

[shel311]

Imagine calling something a "discussion" when you contribute absolutely nothing besides satire and trollish comments

My first post to you in this thread was correcting something you incorrectly stated. From there, you've moved on to name calling while still pretending you want a serious discussion.

I'm not sure what kind of dealings you have in real life, but people generally stop taking others seriously when they break down to the point of saying anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant. Honest question, why would anyone try to discuss this with you after you said that?

You on the other hand, hypocritically attempt to chastise me for "calling anyone who doesn't share your opinions names" when all you've done is attack me.

Now you're just lying. I engaged in your discussion without attacking you until you melted and threw out the "anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant." After you said that, yes I've trolled because that's all that you deserve since you're not looking for a real discussion, you're looking for a yes man to agree with you and to call names to anyone who disagrees.

[Neurotic]

You're not the only person to vote on this poll nor were you the only one to respond to the thread. Despite what you think, you're not the the sole respondent of my reply. You reply to posts with aggression repeatedly (not just here, but all over the forums) like you're some god send to the league. When people match your aggression in return you get all "haha look at you all mad". Your initial reply to me was out of a place of complete disrespect, despite your attempts to play the victim.

If you dont want to have a discussion about the topic, fine. But dont sit here and pretend like I attacked poor little innocent you.

[shel311]

You reply to posts with aggression repeatedly (not just here, but all over the forums) like you're some god send to the league. When people match your aggression in return you get all "haha look at you all mad". Your initial reply to me was out of a place of complete disrespect, despite your attempts to play the victim.

If you dont want to have a discussion about the topic, fine. But dont sit here and pretend like I attacked poor little innocent you.

Bruh, you need a break, you take shit way too seriously.

[shel311]

I'd just like to point out for the guy who feels he was completely disrespected, here's your very first post in this thread:

Why? Whats the point? You dont give a fuck if I have 5 people on each of my minor teams, but you care if I have 50 players at each level? I shouldn't be penalized for properly managing my minor league teams while others skate by with zero effort. You're literally discouraging me from putting time into my team(s). Instead of fixing the rule, we're forcing a creation of some bullshit fine? It makes no sense.

I'm not being condescending, not even a little bit, I'm being 100% serious when I say you need to relax, man.

[Neurotic]

Relax? I didn't realize I wasn't relaxed. Its comforting to know you're so concerned about me though.

Bottom line, its frustrating to continually have these conversations on the topic. Its a comment that gets tossed routinely on a topic that 95% of the time the people saying it know nothing about. When questioned, they respond with "its in the rules, just follow it, its easy." Instead of actually discussing why its a rule and what the intent is.

Its hilarious to have winter topics that give credence to changing things like this. Its a shallow attempt to pretend you have hope to actually fix a broken rule. Meanwhile the NDL purist majority, that sit on their milk boxes screaming for people to get off their lawn, dictate what can or cant get changed based on whether or not it benefits them the most at that particular moment.

[GeorgesGoons]

Shel gonna Shell.....And someone fell for it. Don't feel bad, I have fallen for the Shelton trap before as well.