Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roster Expansions?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    management has long been on the record that they will agree to expand to 26so long as the designated hitter is eliminated, something that the players union strongly opposes.

    in the end, it comes down to budget.

    Leave a comment:


  • Williamsburg2599
    replied
    IMO you shouldn't really bend the rules to adjust for the game. Should we have moved all the walls out in the 90's? Things will level themselves out soon enough. They always seem to. In 20 years people may be campaigning for less roster spots. Not to mention the strategy it adds to the game, especially the AL, and the fact it allows for defensively talented utility players to play.

    Leave a comment:


  • milladrive
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgerBlue8188 View Post
    I wouldn't want to see it expanded. There is already a big lack in talent in the majors since the Marlins and Rockies came along. That put another 25 players in the majors that otherwise would be in AAA. Then after the Rays and Diamondbacks it added another 50 players. That's 100 players that should still be in AAA if it was still 1991. You had 2 more players a roster you'll just see teams add more pitchers. Instead of adding more roster spots why not just make the managers be smart about there decisions.
    You make a valid argument DodgerBlue8188, and I respect your thoughts, but quite frankly, if teams still carried only ten pitchers, then your argument would still be valid, but this thread would not have been started.

    The fact remains that teams now carry more pitchers than they did 20 years ago -- regardless of how many teams are a part of the majors nor the amount of talent contained therein -- thus there are fewer position players. It's not about talent. It's about balance. For the first time in an extremely long time, managers need to think in terms of economics.

    Being a smart manager has changed.

    I won't mention that the precedent has already been set. Well, I guess I just did. If I'm not mistaken, teams for whatever reason decided to carry only 24-man rosters from 1986 to 1989. I distinctly recall the Mets forced into the decision of cutting Rusty Staub from their '86 team due to the reduction in roster. They just didn't have the luxury of carrying this still-welcome professional pinch hitter. The players union eventually fought it and it was repealed four years later for the '90 season. So, roster alterations are not unheard of.

    I think steve rogers hit the nail on the noggin. I would like to think that it's on the players' upcoming agenda, with managerial support. The clubs shouldn't have too much of a problem with it, since two or three more low-paying spots on their payroll won't bankrupt them.

    I'd like to see it happen. That is, unless we do away with counting pitches and allow the art of pitching to be what it was for almost 100 years. Then the balance could be restored. But that doesn't seem to be the trend.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgerBlue8188
    replied
    I wouldn't want to see it expanded. There is already a big lack in talent in the majors since the Marlins and Rockies came along. That put another 25 players in the majors that otherwise would be in AAA. Then after the Rays and Diamondbacks it added another 50 players. That's 100 players that should still be in AAA if it was still 1991. You had 2 more players a roster you'll just see teams add more pitchers. Instead of adding more roster spots why not just make the managers be smart about there decisions.

    Leave a comment:


  • steve rogers
    replied
    Originally posted by milladrive View Post
    I recall the days when carrying three catchers on a roster was not unheard of. After all, teams were usually carrying about ten pitchers and had room for the depth on the bench.

    Now that teams routinely carry twelve (sometimes 13) pitchers -- with the complete game now a rarity -- does anyone else feel that team rosters should be expanded to something like 28, 29, or even 30 players? I think it would be appropriate for the times, and would allow for more position-player depth.
    I think something like this is coming down the road within the next 5 years or so. It's guaranteed that the players union will be all for it. I personally think the change will be subtle, maybe an expansion to 27 guys. I'd be in favor of it.

    Scott

    Leave a comment:


  • milladrive
    started a topic Roster Expansions?

    Roster Expansions?

    I recall the days when carrying three catchers on a roster was not unheard of. After all, teams were usually carrying about ten pitchers and had room for the depth on the bench.

    Now that teams routinely carry twelve (sometimes 13) pitchers -- with the complete game now a rarity -- does anyone else feel that team rosters should be expanded to something like 28, 29, or even 30 players? I think it would be appropriate for the times, and would allow for more position-player depth.

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X