Want to be able to edit 60-day DL Length

mrmabry · 04-20-2019, 11:18 AM

We can change the 10-day DL length, but not the 60-day DL length that takes the player off the "40-man" roster

Reason being... I am trying the proposed MLB roster rule changes of 25 to 26 active player roster and the expanded roster size of 40 to 28(I'm doing 30, but still)

The problem I am running into is that injuries make this impossible without having to go with 24 players if I have 4 injuries simultaneously. It requires either waving a player, which I don't want to do or putting them on the 60-day DL, which is nuts if the injury is less than 5 weeks

Please help if I am thinking about this wrong, thanks!

Matt Arnold · 04-20-2019, 11:32 AM

The expanded roster size is different from the "40-man" (secondary) roster size. They are actually separate settings in the game.

mrmabry · 04-20-2019, 11:41 AM

But isn't the whole rule change supposed to change the "40-man" roster size so that players can move more freely and team's have less control over players in minor leagues?

jimmysthebestcop · 04-20-2019, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmabry

But isn't the whole rule change supposed to change the "40-man" roster size so that players can move more freely and team's have less control over players in minor leagues?

No. 40 man roster is still in existence. It's just the secondary roster will be 28 man now on Sept 1st instead of the full 40 man.

Owners wanted it because they are changing active to 26 and stated they wanted to save salary.

It's also about competing MLB doesn't want done trans fighting for playoff spots while other teams bring up 15 guys on Sept and play them and tank the last month+ of season.

endgame · 04-20-2019, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

The expanded roster size is different from the "40-man" (secondary) roster size. They are actually separate settings in the game.

@Matt

Are there any other terms we can utilize for the 40-man when we've customized the size? If I run a 45-man 40-man, the references remain 40-man. Could we at least have it match our designation? Default, of course, remains 40. That's what it is.

RchW · 04-20-2019, 12:42 PM

See this

mrmabry · 04-20-2019, 01:31 PM

I thought the players were about to go on strike and that was the impetus for the rule changes. If the 40-man roster stays in effect, then this doesn't seem to help the players much at all

RchW · 04-20-2019, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmabry

I thought the players were about to go on strike and that was the impetus for the rule changes. If the 40-man roster stays in effect, then this doesn't seem to help the players much at all

The players cannot strike or be locked out until December 2021, and that could only happen if MLB refused to negotiate a new CBA in the year before expiry. Not sure where you're getting this idea from. Any rule changes that MLB wants to make that are covered by the CBA must be agreed upon by both parties while the CBA is in force.

In what way is the 40-man roster bad for players? It's been around for a long time. The MLBPA are notably weak but they've had ample opportunity to fix it if it is demonstrably bad.

mrmabry · 04-20-2019, 02:54 PM

"40-man" roster effectively allows the owner of any team to "own" 15-14 player's careers for up to 6-years depending on 25-26-man active roster, respectively. I see instances where across the league, a handful (at least 2) of these 14-15 players on EACH team is good enough to play at the Major League Level at his position on a DIFFERENT team, but his current Major League System has too much competition to play at his position on his current Major League level team. The owner knows this and can just add these players to the 40-man roster and effectively own their career for 6 years on top of the 4/5 years they get from initial protections. Am I understanding this correctly? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

olivertheorem · 04-20-2019, 05:18 PM

If you're on the 40-man, you can only spend 3 years in the minors (i.e., 3 option years) or else you have to clear waivers to go back to the minors. But if a guy is in that situation and as good as the big league team has at his position, then he's probably cheaper too and likely to be up sooner rather than later.

What I think you have in mind is the years of team control at league minimum, maybe?

mrmabry · 04-20-2019, 05:43 PM

Thanks Oliver!
So an owner only has 7-8 years of COMPLETE CONTROL over a Player's Career if the owner chooses to use the Player's Cheap Labor in the Major Leagues. But it still sounds like there is nothing stopping an owner from preventing a Player from ever reaching the Majors for 10-11 years if he wants to hold on to that Player for leverage.
To be clear the owner gets 4-5 years of Draft Protection for every player in the Minor Leagues. Then the owner gets anywhere from 3 to 6 years to do what he sees fit with any Player in their organization. That's not near as bad as I thought initially, but it still sickens me to think that an owner has that much control over EVERY SINGLE PLAYER in their organization.
I think the only way forward is to get rid of the 40-man roster in favor of a 28-man roster (at most 30), get rid of option years entirely, keep draft protections, change the Injury-List and Injury-related call-up rules, and prevent teams from signing more than 28 Major League Contracts at any one-time (minus injury-related contracts). A player that has been in the Minors for 4-5 years and is good enough to play in Major Leagues should be able to play on a different team no questions asked.

PS F*** Bryce Harper

RchW · 04-20-2019, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmabry

Thanks Oliver!
So an owner only has 7-8 years of COMPLETE CONTROL over a Player's Career if the owner chooses to use the Player's Cheap Labor in the Major Leagues. But it still sounds like there is nothing stopping an owner from preventing a Player from ever reaching the Majors for 10-11 years if he wants to hold on to that Player for leverage.
To be clear the owner gets 4-5 years of Draft Protection for every player in the Minor Leagues. Then the owner gets anywhere from 3 to 6 years to do what he sees fit with any Player in their organization. That's not near as bad as I thought initially, but it still sickens me to think that an owner has that much control over EVERY SINGLE PLAYER in their organization.
I think the only way forward is to get rid of the 40-man roster in favor of a 28-man roster (at most 30), get rid of option years entirely, keep draft protections, change the Injury-List and Injury-related call-up rules, and prevent teams from signing more than 28 Major League Contracts at any one-time (minus injury-related contracts). A player that has been in the Minors for 4-5 years and is good enough to play in Major Leagues should be able to play on a different team no questions asked.

PS F*** Bryce Harper

Complete nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. Show me the 7-8 years of control in Josh Donaldson's 6 year career below. I do agree that 6-years to FA is bad but that is 100% the fault of the MLBPA and if they don't have the balls (or care) to fight for it then screw 'em.

mrmabry · 04-20-2019, 09:26 PM

Complete nonsense? Debateable for sure

Donaldson spent 6 years (not even seen on your picture as if it never existed?? drafted in 2007) having no control over what team he played for or at what level. Granted in 2010 he was called up and struggled. By 2011 he was probably ready to play at Major league level, but the A's chose to retain his output at a low rate for 2012-2013? By 2013 he was a MVP-caliber player and had no control over where he could play for the next 6 years.

So 2010, 2011, 2012 he was used a pawn with option years. 2013 he was a MVP-caliber player making $500k in the big leagues. You'd have to not have a conscience to not notice something wrong here.

The current system is set up for the owners and the big-name players ONLY, and I think this is a mistake and not healthy for the long-term health of the sport! I get why the owners want to protect themselves, but why are big-names profiting so well... I'm assuming it's because owners can count on a steady stream of cheap labor that is predictable enough to sign long/expensive contracts on few big-names without getting burned too hard if something goes wrong). Open up the market for young players, and I think you will see a league where young players move around constantly, and the overall level of play will be much better!

Let's stop paying guys like Albert Pujols $25 million to hit .200 when they should be sitting in the press box watching the game

With all that being said perhaps the whole league should shift to full salary arbitration process... but that is a much bigger change than what I've originally proposed

RchW · 04-20-2019, 09:48 PM

You do realize that the MLBPA cares nothing about non-MLB players. They are not members. Your concern if it is real, is with the PA. His 2012-14 seasons are part of the CBA. What 6 seasons do you mean?

mrmabry · 04-21-2019, 07:11 PM

Josh Donaldson didn't start playing baseball in 2012 like the picture suggests. He was drafted in 2007 and played for the A's organization starting 2008
Seasons between 2007 and 2012
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
-5 seasons, not 6 seasons, my bad. Donaldson was property of the A's organization during that time and for the next 6 years due to Service Time Rules, though he was eligible for Arbitration based on his level of play, which CAN be a good system that could use some small adjustments. But can also be abused if the owner foresees an opportunity to save money in the future where a current position is filled but will be open later, there's nothing stopping the owner from preventing a player in their organization from reaching the Majors for UP TO 10 YEARS!!!!

If the argument is that the Minor Leagues is a money-suck and the player's pay it forward by "serving" for anywhere between 4 and 10 years, then fix the damn Minor League System in addition to Player Service and Roster rules. As it stands now I can't watch Baseball knowing how this **** works.

BoomerSoonerAMH · 04-21-2019, 11:00 PM

I’m not sure if you are arguing for more mobility for players or for more opportunities to get paid, but either way your argument is flawed. Either way, if you eliminate spots on the 40-man roster, the result would be a reduced willingness by teams to give fringe players a spot on the roster and the ML contract that goes with it. You also seem to have overlooked the Rule 5 draft which creates opportunities for mobility.

If anything, I think the argument you should be making based on what you’ve said is for shorter periods before minor league free agency. The issue there, however, is that the current system was negotiated as part of the CBA. The players agreed to the system in exchange for something else they wanted. You can argue that they got ripped off (and maybe they did), but they do have guaranteed contracts, an amazing pension plan, good healthcare benefits and a variety of other things they negotiated. The ultimate point is that they agreed to the existing system regardless of whether it seems fair to anyone else.

04-20-2019, 11:18 AM	#1
mrmabry Bat Boy Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 7	Want to be able to edit 60-day DL Length We can change the 10-day DL length, but not the 60-day DL length that takes the player off the "40-man" roster Reason being... I am trying the proposed MLB roster rule changes of 25 to 26 active player roster and the expanded roster size of 40 to 28(I'm doing 30, but still) The problem I am running into is that injuries make this impossible without having to go with 24 players if I have 4 injuries simultaneously. It requires either waving a player, which I don't want to do or putting them on the 60-day DL, which is nuts if the injury is less than 5 weeks Please help if I am thinking about this wrong, thanks!

04-20-2019, 12:42 PM	#6
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: The big smoke Posts: 15,628	See this Attached Images __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

04-20-2019, 09:48 PM	#14
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: The big smoke Posts: 15,628	You do realize that the MLBPA cares nothing about non-MLB players. They are not members. Your concern if it is real, is with the PA. His 2012-14 seasons are part of the CBA. What 6 seasons do you mean? __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

04-20-2019, 11:32 AM	#2
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 14,127	The expanded roster size is different from the "40-man" (secondary) roster size. They are actually separate settings in the game.

04-20-2019, 11:41 AM	#3
mrmabry Bat Boy Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 7	But isn't the whole rule change supposed to change the "40-man" roster size so that players can move more freely and team's have less control over players in minor leagues?

04-20-2019, 01:31 PM	#7
mrmabry Bat Boy Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 7	I thought the players were about to go on strike and that was the impetus for the rule changes. If the 40-man roster stays in effect, then this doesn't seem to help the players much at all

04-20-2019, 02:54 PM	#9
mrmabry Bat Boy Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 7	"40-man" roster effectively allows the owner of any team to "own" 15-14 player's careers for up to 6-years depending on 25-26-man active roster, respectively. I see instances where across the league, a handful (at least 2) of these 14-15 players on EACH team is good enough to play at the Major League Level at his position on a DIFFERENT team, but his current Major League System has too much competition to play at his position on his current Major League level team. The owner knows this and can just add these players to the 40-man roster and effectively own their career for 6 years on top of the 4/5 years they get from initial protections. Am I understanding this correctly? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

04-20-2019, 05:18 PM	#10
olivertheorem All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,919	If you're on the 40-man, you can only spend 3 years in the minors (i.e., 3 option years) or else you have to clear waivers to go back to the minors. But if a guy is in that situation and as good as the big league team has at his position, then he's probably cheaper too and likely to be up sooner rather than later. What I think you have in mind is the years of team control at league minimum, maybe?

04-20-2019, 05:43 PM	#11
mrmabry Bat Boy Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 7	Thanks Oliver! So an owner only has 7-8 years of COMPLETE CONTROL over a Player's Career if the owner chooses to use the Player's Cheap Labor in the Major Leagues. But it still sounds like there is nothing stopping an owner from preventing a Player from ever reaching the Majors for 10-11 years if he wants to hold on to that Player for leverage. To be clear the owner gets 4-5 years of Draft Protection for every player in the Minor Leagues. Then the owner gets anywhere from 3 to 6 years to do what he sees fit with any Player in their organization. That's not near as bad as I thought initially, but it still sickens me to think that an owner has that much control over EVERY SINGLE PLAYER in their organization. I think the only way forward is to get rid of the 40-man roster in favor of a 28-man roster (at most 30), get rid of option years entirely, keep draft protections, change the Injury-List and Injury-related call-up rules, and prevent teams from signing more than 28 Major League Contracts at any one-time (minus injury-related contracts). A player that has been in the Minors for 4-5 years and is good enough to play in Major Leagues should be able to play on a different team no questions asked. PS F*** Bryce Harper

04-20-2019, 09:26 PM	#13
mrmabry Bat Boy Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 7	Complete nonsense? Debateable for sure Donaldson spent 6 years (not even seen on your picture as if it never existed?? drafted in 2007) having no control over what team he played for or at what level. Granted in 2010 he was called up and struggled. By 2011 he was probably ready to play at Major league level, but the A's chose to retain his output at a low rate for 2012-2013? By 2013 he was a MVP-caliber player and had no control over where he could play for the next 6 years. So 2010, 2011, 2012 he was used a pawn with option years. 2013 he was a MVP-caliber player making $500k in the big leagues. You'd have to not have a conscience to not notice something wrong here. The current system is set up for the owners and the big-name players ONLY, and I think this is a mistake and not healthy for the long-term health of the sport! I get why the owners want to protect themselves, but why are big-names profiting so well... I'm assuming it's because owners can count on a steady stream of cheap labor that is predictable enough to sign long/expensive contracts on few big-names without getting burned too hard if something goes wrong). Open up the market for young players, and I think you will see a league where young players move around constantly, and the overall level of play will be much better! Let's stop paying guys like Albert Pujols $25 million to hit .200 when they should be sitting in the press box watching the game With all that being said perhaps the whole league should shift to full salary arbitration process... but that is a much bigger change than what I've originally proposed

04-21-2019, 07:11 PM	#15
mrmabry Bat Boy Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 7	Josh Donaldson didn't start playing baseball in 2012 like the picture suggests. He was drafted in 2007 and played for the A's organization starting 2008 Seasons between 2007 and 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -5 seasons, not 6 seasons, my bad. Donaldson was property of the A's organization during that time and for the next 6 years due to Service Time Rules, though he was eligible for Arbitration based on his level of play, which CAN be a good system that could use some small adjustments. But can also be abused if the owner foresees an opportunity to save money in the future where a current position is filled but will be open later, there's nothing stopping the owner from preventing a player in their organization from reaching the Majors for UP TO 10 YEARS!!!! If the argument is that the Minor Leagues is a money-suck and the player's pay it forward by "serving" for anywhere between 4 and 10 years, then fix the damn Minor League System in addition to Player Service and Roster rules. As it stands now I can't watch Baseball knowing how this **** works.

04-21-2019, 11:00 PM	#16
BoomerSoonerAMH Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 111	I’m not sure if you are arguing for more mobility for players or for more opportunities to get paid, but either way your argument is flawed. Either way, if you eliminate spots on the 40-man roster, the result would be a reduced willingness by teams to give fringe players a spot on the roster and the ML contract that goes with it. You also seem to have overlooked the Rule 5 draft which creates opportunities for mobility. If anything, I think the argument you should be making based on what you’ve said is for shorter periods before minor league free agency. The issue there, however, is that the current system was negotiated as part of the CBA. The players agreed to the system in exchange for something else they wanted. You can argue that they got ripped off (and maybe they did), but they do have guaranteed contracts, an amazing pension plan, good healthcare benefits and a variety of other things they negotiated. The ultimate point is that they agreed to the existing system regardless of whether it seems fair to anyone else.