Week 2

[BigbadB]

I don't see the issue with NC's moves.

 

I'd actually like to see more flexibility with rosters.

[abuck1220]

I released Heilman to make room on my active roster to promote Owings for tomorrow's start (he was on my minor league roster). Accordingly, I moved Guzman into the vacant relief pitcher slot Heilman was filling.

 

i'm confused...

I had Heilman in one of my RP positions, Guzman on my reserve list, and Owings on my minor league roster. To activate Owings I had to drop somebody, since my major league roster was full, and it was Heilman that I dropped. That in turn left the RP position empty, so I moved Guzman into that position.

 

so we can make mid-week roster changes?

In the event of a trade, promotion to majors or injury - sure.

 

was owings promoted?

[NCCubFan]

I released Heilman to make room on my active roster to promote Owings for tomorrow's start (he was on my minor league roster). Accordingly, I moved Guzman into the vacant relief pitcher slot Heilman was filling.

 

i'm confused...

I had Heilman in one of my RP positions, Guzman on my reserve list, and Owings on my minor league roster. To activate Owings I had to drop somebody, since my major league roster was full, and it was Heilman that I dropped. That in turn left the RP position empty, so I moved Guzman into that position.

 

so we can make mid-week roster changes?

In the event of a trade, promotion to majors or injury - sure.

 

was owings promoted?

He started the season on the minor league roster of Arizona (even though he didn't actually pitch a game in the minors) because he wasn't on their 40-man roster. He was then added to the 40-man and 25-man rosters before his first major league start (his contract was purchased from their AAA team) and Durbin was DFA'd to make room for Owings on both the 25-man and 40-man rosters. Durbin made one start for Arizona before Owings was promoted.

[abuck1220]

but yesterday wasn't his first major league start...it wasn't like he got promoted wednesday morning.

 

so you just made what amounts to a mid-week roster change...which is fine, if it's allowed now. i know that last year such a move wouldn't be allowed, but some of the pitching stuff changed for this year.

[NCCubFan]

but yesterday wasn't his first major league start...it wasn't like he got promoted wednesday morning.

 

so you just made what amounts to a mid-week roster change...which is fine, if it's allowed now. i know that last year such a move wouldn't be allowed, but some of the pitching stuff changed for this year.

That's the whole issue, and it's a matter of interpretation since this specific issue hadn't come up before. It has been clearly stated that we can freely move starting pitchers between the active roster and the reserve list to get the allowed 7 starts, and it just seemed to me that moving a pitcher from the minor league roster to the active list is in the same spirit (it's not like I picked up a free agent during the week and placed him on the active list; I already had Owings). If my interpretation on this is wrong I'm sure Juan can adjust the scoring, as long as I have enough notice to know that I'd need to start someone else other than Owings to get my 7 starts in. I don't believe either one of us is trying to screw over the other; this is just an issue that hasn't been addressed before in light of the 7 start rule.

 

BTW, in one way you're actually benefitting from this. Had I made this move before the week began, Guzman would have been on my active list all week and I would have gotten 10.25 points for his relief outing on Tuesday, but because I didn't make the move until later he was on my reserve list at the time and I don't get those points.

[Chris]

Woo!!! I am in the lead. Amazing how things can look up when you get some quality starts.

 

:(

[BigbadB]

My feelings on the subject are that we should be able to make any roster move we want as long as it doesn't involve adding a free agent that then gets into a line up that same week.

 

In other words, if I want to bench Rolen because he's nursing a sore back and replace him temporarily with a different 3b on my roster, I should be able to do that. If I want to promote someone mid week from my minors or activate someone from the DL, I should be able to do that. All of these options would preclude that my team stays legal for any roster changes I make, of course.

 

If someone has 7 different pitchers they want to use in a different week to get their 7 starts, I don't see a problem with that. Why not allow any roster moves that pertain to your own roster at any time of the week?

 

I really got abused last week not having a 1b, an OF and a RP for a whole series due to snow outs. Couple that with another guy who got relegated to bench duty, and I had 4 players in my starting line up that didn't play Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

 

With only 3 reserves and limits on pitching starts, it's not like anyone gets any significant advantage by switching out players daily, especially if they aren't allowed to add a free agent and insert them in the line up. But, if I was able to make a change, I could have put Ryan Shealy in for Richie Sexson and Rocco Baldelli in for Jose Guillen while Seattle sat out a whole series over last weekend.

 

And as I bring this up for debate, it just occured to me that my opponent from last week added a free agent and stuck him in the line up against me last week, even though he already had 6 starters on his roster. And the added player did not replace a SP, but rather a reserve 1b. I don't really care about it since my team won, but had I lost because of it, I might have pitched a whiny baby fit. :D

 

How about either clarifying the rules in a sticky thread or consider simplifying the rules and allowing more roster flexibility? To me, limiting starts to just 7 for every team puts teams that have guys sitting on the bench offensively at a disadvantage. Does that make sense? Last year, I didn't care if I had guys in my line up that didn't play if I was getting 10 starts out of my pitchers. This year, limited starts could have cost me the first week because half of my offensive players weren't playing.

[BigbadB]

Hey. What happened to all my Uggla points? Talk about a kick in the crotch.

 

Cool. Another Seattle postponement. ](*,)

[abuck1220]

yeah, i've missed out on five games this week.

 

the champs may be starting out 0-2.

[BigbadB]

Between an off day for several teams, a postponement of another game and apparently a day off for another couple of guys, Jimmy Rollins is my only offensive player playing today.

 

So far: 2-2, 2 HR's

 

Go Jimmy, you fantasy stud! Only 13 more home runs today and we'll catch NSBB.

[abuck1220]

take smoltz out any time now.

 

nevermind...leave him if he's going to k two guys in a row.

[NCCubFan]

the champs may be starting out 0-2.

I could live with that. :D

[Guest]

because this is not a competition to see who can make the most moves each week.

[abuck1220]

huh?

[Guest]

but yesterday wasn't his first major league start...it wasn't like he got promoted wednesday morning.

 

so you just made what amounts to a mid-week roster change...which is fine, if it's allowed now. i know that last year such a move wouldn't be allowed, but some of the pitching stuff changed for this year.

 

roster moves have always been allowed midweek.

 

look, all we are avoiding is making this a competition to see who can get the most players in and out of the lineup each week based on offdays or matchups or whatever. very few roster moves have ever been rejected.

[Guest]

huh?

 

what do you not understand?

[NCCubFan]

huh?

I'm quite sure his comment was in response to BigbadB's earlier comment, even though there were a number of posts in between the two.

[abuck1220]

huh?

 

what do you not understand?

 

this post...

 

because this is not a competition to see who can make the most moves each week.

 

it seemed like half a sentence or something.

 

roster moves have always been allowed midweek.

 

look, all we are avoiding is making this a competition to see who can get the most players in and out of the lineup each week based on offdays or matchups or whatever. very few roster moves have ever been rejected.

 

roster moves have always been allowed midweek? i understand it if injuries are involved, but i was always under the impression that you set your roster for the week and were to leave it alone. now, with the seven start limit and new pitching rules, if we're allowed to swap pitchers in and out in an effort to reach those seven starts, that's fine.

 

so i could pick someone up off waivers right now and put him in my lineup to get an extra start this week?

[BigbadB]

roster moves have always been allowed midweek.

 

look, all we are avoiding is making this a competition to see who can get the most players in and out of the lineup each week based on offdays or matchups or whatever. very few roster moves have ever been rejected.

 

Team A: has 7 starters each scheduled to pitch once during the week and the limit happens to be 7.

 

Team B: only has 5 starters and only has 5 starts scheduled for the week.

 

Team A can switch out their starters to get their 7 starts, but Team B with only 5 starters can't make any offensive roster moves to offset the extra players Team A is running out there?

 

I'm just asking why we can make pitching roster moves, but not offensive roster moves. I think it's a valid question.

 

More than anything, it's apparent to me that the rules need clarification. My opponent last week added a pitcher mid week and inserted him into his rotation and got points when he already had 6 starters on his roster. Yet, I can't switch out a player for a postponed game because we don't want this to turn into a competition of who makes the most roster moves each week?

 

I think teams either need to go with 5 set starters and a set line up, or allow internal roster changes daily.

 

When you introduced a limit on pitching starts, I think you changed the dynamic. If one team is using their reserves to get an extra start or two for the week and the other can't use their reserves because they are offensive players, it gives a clear advantage to a team with extra pitchers.

[abuck1220]

right...if you don't want it to be a competition as to who can make the most mid-week roster changes, then why allow people to make mid-week pitching roster changes?

 

it was my understanding that you start the week with 5 SP's. if you were going to get more than 7 starts from those 5, you would reserve some pitchers to make sure you came in under 7. i didn't understand the rules to mean you could start with 5 pitchers and continue subbing in pitchers to make sure you reached the 7 start limit.

 

if you can, in fact, do that, let me know now so i can pick up a FA pitcher who is making a start this weekend.

[tadowdaddy]

Without my Wang, I am nothing.....

[abuck1220]

i subbed theriot in for an injured derosa.

[BigbadB]

What's wrong with DeRosa?

[abuck1220]

What's wrong with DeRosa?

 

sore back or something. reportedly not playing today.

[NCCubFan]

i subbed theriot in for an injured derosa.

That type of substitution has already been allowed; I have no problem with that.

 

As far as the pitching issue is concerned, one week, as you mentioned, you might have five starters scheduled for a total of 8 or 9 starts, meaning with the new limit you'd have to give up the last couple of starts. The next week you may have 5 starters only making 5 starts. If you have to stick with the same 5 starters all week that seems inequitable to me because you'd lose excess starts one week without being able to offset that by making up for a deficiency the next week. It's just the luck of the draw when pitchers have one vs. two starts in a week. So my opinion is we need to either go back to the old policy of requiring the same starters for the entire week regardless of how many starts those five pitchers have, or else allow substitutions as needed to ensure that you get the seven starts.

 

As far as BigbadB's point is concerned, I think what may be needed is a bit of clarification on certain circumstances where substitutions are allowed. I know the gereral rule is no offensive substitutions, and that would mean that you can't make changes for off-days or based on who seems hot that week. I think it's also understood that you can make changes if a player goes on or comes off the DL during the week, or if a player is sent down to or called up from the minor leagues. I believe, but am not as sure, that you can make a change if it is announced that a player is being benched by his major league team for an extended period (as opposed to being given one day off). Where I think more flexibility should be allowed, and I think BigbadB raised this issue too, is for unscheduled days off due to weather postponements. Scheduled days off are one thing; you know about them in advance, and if it's important to you you can take that into account when setting your roster for the week. However, if a team has several postponements (such as Seattle at Cleveland last week) it can really hurt you. I think it was widely known that the entire series would probably be lost even though it was announced officially one day at a time, and losing key players for that many days with no recourse can make the difference between winning or losing. In some cases it may be impractical to make a substitution for a rainout (if it's a late night game that's rained out it may just be too late to make a change because the other games have already started). However, if a rainout is announced in time, I think someone should be able to make a change.

 

One thought I've come up with I'd like to bring up for debate. How about a policy where you can make one substitution at each position each week, with the stipulation that, once you make a change, you need to keep the replacement in your lineup the rest of the week for better or worse? It seems to me that it would be a clearly understood rule that's easy to follow, allows some flexibility, yet avoids the potential abuse of continuously substituting throughout the week that Juan's concerned with (and legitimately so, in my opinion). It just seems to me that's a possible compromise that addresses legitimate concerns on both sides. Just my :twocents: .