Limiting the size of the Reserve Roster

[CharlesC]

Quick question...I have read the OOTP manual and there does not seem to be a way to limit a team's reserve roster to, say, 10 players. Hopefully, I overlooked something and this can be done. Has anybody figured out a way to do this?

[Jaxxvain]

Originally Posted by CharlesC

Has anybody figured out a way to do this?

nope

[DreamTeams]

Best you can do is set your own limit and release players. You can then delete them if you want from the FA pool.

[Le Grande Orange]

A way to limit the reserve roster has been requested several times, but if I recall correctly, Markus said coding that is not as easy as it would seem due to how things work inside the game. Still, it's something that really ought to be there (or perhaps the way rosters and roster limits work in general needs to be reworked).

[CobaltJays]

The easiest thing to do right now is to give each team a minor league affiliate. The current reserve roster limit is 150 or 175 (I forget which), so an affiliate would at least cut that down to 25-30.

[PhillieFever]

IMO,I don't think that limiting the reserve roster is a good idea,considering that the team is without minors,there has to be plenty of room on the reserve the roster for developing players(yes,players do still develop on the reserve roster) as well as for replacements.Not to mention the fact that limiting the reserve roster could cause all sort of problems with the AI unnessecarily dumping players just to get under a number.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

IMO,I don't think that limiting the reserve roster is a good idea,considering that the team is without minors,there has to be plenty of room on the reserve the roster for developing players(yes,players do still develop on the reserve roster) as well as for replacements.

I'd say the problem really goes to the fact that leagues in OOTP are essentially separate entities when it comes to the player pool. In the real world, of course, there is only ONE player pool from which ALL leagues, major or minor, affiliated or independent, draw their players. Players who are not drafted or signed by one league would move to the next league looking for work and opportunities. OOTP doesn't recreate that particular well at the moment.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

IMO,I don't think that limiting the reserve roster is a good idea,considering that the team is without minors,there has to be plenty of room on the reserve the roster for developing players(yes,players do still develop on the reserve roster) as well as for replacements.Not to mention the fact that limiting the reserve roster could cause all sort of problems with the AI unnessecarily dumping players just to get under a number.

Yep, that's the reason why it isn't an option.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by CobaltJays

The easiest thing to do right now is to give each team a minor league affiliate. The current reserve roster limit is 150 or 175 (I forget which), so an affiliate would at least cut that down to 25-30.

You could make the minor league affiliate have a small roster size, too. This keeps total players in the organization down, and is a better (if still imperfect) way to model independent leagues.

Right now indy leagues are basically broken. You have teams with tiny budgets that will collect 50, 60, 80 or more players and stash them on the reserve roster. They'll recall and demote similar players on a daily basis, rendering rotations and fatigue meaningless. In low-talent leagues where most players are of a similar talent level you'll see guys leading the league in batting take a very minor talent hit and be exiled to the reserve roster for the rest of the year. You'll see guys sign 3-year deals and never play a single game over the course of the contract because they're buried on the reserve roster.

I think a fundamental flaw with the game is the inability to get an AI GM to run an independent league with a "reserve roster" essentially being the pool of everyone not under contract in the world. I mean, the game does that now, just with starting with a roster size three or four times what's realistic.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

IMO,I don't think that limiting the reserve roster is a good idea,considering that the team is without minors,there has to be plenty of room on the reserve the roster for developing players(yes,players do still develop on the reserve roster) as well as for replacements.Not to mention the fact that limiting the reserve roster could cause all sort of problems with the AI unnessecarily dumping players just to get under a number.

Dola, in real life independent teams have to necessarily dump players just to get under a number because that's the way those kind of leagues work. The Northern League, the AA, the Can-Am League... they all have no minor league systems and roster limits in the low 20s. OOTP currently can't model that without some crude workarounds, even though we have the option to make a universe that has those leagues.

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Dola, in real life independent teams have to necessarily dump players just to get under a number because that's the way those kind of leagues work. The Northern League, the AA, the Can-Am League... they all have no minor league systems and roster limits in the low 20s. OOTP currently can't model that without some crude workarounds, even though we have the option to make a universe that has those leagues.

I guess you do learn something new every day In all honesty,I made this comment with the Major Leagues only in mind,a bit short sighted on my part I will admit.

[Ktulu]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Yep, that's the reason why it isn't an option.

Right now indy leagues are basically broken. You have teams with tiny budgets that will collect 50, 60, 80 or more players and stash them on the reserve roster. They'll recall and demote similar players on a daily basis, rendering rotations and fatigue meaningless. In low-talent leagues where most players are of a similar talent level you'll see guys leading the league in batting take a very minor talent hit and be exiled to the reserve roster for the rest of the year. You'll see guys sign 3-year deals and never play a single game over the course of the contract because they're buried on the reserve roster.

Dola, in real life independent teams have to necessarily dump players just to get under a number because that's the way those kind of leagues work. The Northern League, the AA, the Can-Am League... they all have no minor league systems and roster limits in the low 20s. OOTP currently can't model that without some crude workarounds, even though we have the option to make a universe that has those leagues.

And that's why it needs to be an option.

It is currently not possible to have a league without a minor league... unless you enjoy dozens and dozens of players sitting in the reserve roster doing nothing.

Independent leagues, or leagues without minors simply do not work in OOTP.

If the AI can't manage a single roster without the need for an unlimited reserve roster... well, then there are probably some fundamental issues with the AI (both in player evaluation and assessing roster needs).

This issue severely restricts the flexibility of league creation and it forces users to add unwanted minor league systems (and their required bloat) to an already bloated universe (hidden teams and players that are still in the db).

[Scott55]

How about having one level of minors with a low roster size (15). Then set the number of games for the season to "0". Essentially there would be no minor league season and you could still limit the roster size. Would players on the minor league roster still develop like they would on a reserve roster? This could be a possible workaround for limiting a secondary roster for an independent league without there being an actual minor league season. Let me know your thoughts on this because I am getting ready to start a fictional independent league and I don't want the reserve roster size to create hoarding issues.

[CBL-Commish]

That is the crude workaround that you almost have to implement if you want to avoid hoarding players. I have a large universe, and most of the leagues with money have minor league systems. The indy leagues are mostly small, and relatively poor so that the players they hoard are guys who'd never make the upper-level leagues. That lowers the impact of the problem to something I can accept, if not be happy with.

But if you had a universe with one league, or some high-level indy leagues, you could run into some serious problems with rich teams buying up players and not even using them, leaving the poorer teams to field really crappy lineups.

I have to belive Markus' problem is that without a reserve roster a team could find itself unable to fill out a lineup because of injuries or trades. The way the free agent signing system works you don't get a response for several days, so a team might go two, three or more games without enough players to play.

There have to be simplified, if not entirely realistic, workarounds for this. There could be an emergency, cheap "local guy" signing that could bypass the contract negotiations. Or you could just allow AI teams to sign really low-level players out of the free agent pool immediately if, and only if, the roster is short.

There could be a limit to reserve rosters, in both players and salary. Force a team to have, say, three pitchers and three position players on the reserve squad at league minimum salary. At least this would keep the hoarding to a minimum.

You could have some kind of link to the shortlist, and force teams to have at least several free agents shortlisted. You could assume some kind of handshake deal where they'd sign immediately if the need arose.

You could just have teams forfeit any games where they don't have enough players to play. That might be the simplest solution, although I'm sure with OOTP's infinite variations someone would have a situation where a team went 0-162 because of a bug or a crazy setup or something.

Those are just off the top of my head, and I'm sure someone will come up with something better. But there has to be some solution more elegant than allowing a team with a $10,000 annual budget and an 18-man roster to have 76 players under contract for the entire year, and any of the 76 are available to be activated prior to any game.