Astros need to make some cuts

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:02 am

My roster is at 51, and I only have 5 on my draft roster. These players listed need to be cut, or dealt for a 07 or 08 player.

gregor blanco
zach daeges
waldis joaquin
Kyle winters
Jose Ortegano
wilkin ramirez

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:40 pm

Uhm, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you don't just get the opportunity to make a deal at your leisure. once you go over the roster limit, you're supposed to get under immediately.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:08 pm

I think he was legal, fwiw. He's talking about his roster postdraft, including draft picks, I think. He has several 06s that are legal in draft slots now but won't be after the draft.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:28 pm

Tigers wrote:I think he was legal, fwiw. He's talking about his roster postdraft, including draft picks, I think. He has several 06s that are legal in draft slots now but won't be after the draft.

Aren't you supposed to clear those spots before the draft or as you draft?

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:40 am

Nationals wrote:
Tigers wrote:I think he was legal, fwiw. He's talking about his roster postdraft, including draft picks, I think. He has several 06s that are legal in draft slots now but won't be after the draft.
Aren't you supposed to clear those spots before the draft or as you draft?

Someone needs to make the rules clear to me.

1. Do the draft picks count against my 50 player roster yet??
2. When do the 07-08 draft rosters take effect? Is it as soon as you make your first pick, or is it at the conclusion of the draft?

From my understanding I'm following all the rules.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:49 am

Nationals wrote:
Tigers wrote:I think he was legal, fwiw. He's talking about his roster postdraft, including draft picks, I think. He has several 06s that are legal in draft slots now but won't be after the draft.
Aren't you supposed to clear those spots before the draft or as you draft?

Yes....the draft hasn't started yet. When I make my first pick, my roster will be at 49.

Is this really that difficult?

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:23 am

No, it isn't really that difficult. Just clear the proper spot prior to selecting. There was a bit of confusion last year but I think it should go better this season. I'm not sure but I think as of draft day all 6 players must be on the regular roster therefore some teams may need to make cuts there to make room or simply cut the 6 player(s). There will likely be some clarification from the league before the draft starts.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:56 am

My recollection is that we offered some leeway on 06 players and that they did not technically roll to 0- until the conclusion of the draft. But I might be wrong, and we might want to look at it again.

That aside, yeah, you just have to stay legal as you go, as far as your roster. Unmade draft picks don't count against your 50, but before you make a selection you must make the necessary drop to keep you at or under 50.

RedSox · Post by **RedSox** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:03 pm

I agree on the 'keeping it legal as you go'. I may stop drafting after the third round. It doesn't make any sense to force someone to drop 7 players, when they may only draft 4.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:10 pm

Except "6" players should be on the regular roster prior to the draft. Giving a grace period is part of the reason we had roster problems last year. Please lets not go down that road again.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:26 pm

Ken, if we need to have exco address it, we can. Can you refresh my memory on what the big issue that allowing guys to keep "6-" players in draft slots through to the end of the draft caused? I don't recall that.

I don't have a strong opinion on that specific issue, but my biggest concern with changing it is that we're giving guys only a few hours notice, which doesn't seem very fair. At best, we would probably have to pick a date, after the first round or January 1 or something, in the middle of the draft where 06's roll. And if we decide that they need to roll prior to the draft, we can institute that next season.

Unless there were episodes that I'm forgetting (which is possible), the biggest issue that I recall is that we have to be sure that guys add their player immeidately upon their pick and that they stay legal as far as their 50 player limit. And I know that several of us are prepared to do that this year.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:36 pm

Brett, at the beginning of the season last year 7 teams had illegal rosters for most of the offseason, mostly caused by confusion about who was draft eligible.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:37 pm

It took forever to get teams in line with the restrictions after the draft last season. I don't get why it is such a big deal because the draft happens once a year and teams have a long time to prepare. We all knew that the players drafted 2 years ago would not be eligible for the draft roster this season and would need to be cut or placed on the 40 and space would need to be there to do it.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:45 pm

Athletics wrote:Brett, at the beginning of the season last year 7 teams had illegal rosters for most of the offseason, mostly caused by confusion about who was draft eligible.

As I recall, the number wasn't as high as initially suggested, and all but one corrected their rosters immediately upon my notification. As you know from ou exco conversations last spring, our plan even prior to this discussion was that we were going to be more vigilant in not allowing anyone to get more than about a day past the conclusion of the draft without having a correct roster. If we had notified guys immediately, they wouldn't have had the confusion, and they would have fixed their rosters, as they did upon notification. We won't allow that to happen this year, and another good factor is the stability that we have in the league. With no changeover and little to no change in rules in this area, we should be much more familiar with the rules overall.

I'm not against changing the 06 rollover date, though. I just think that we're too close to the start of the draft to demand that guys have them set prior to the draft this year, since it would be a rule change. Would you guys disagree with that?

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:51 pm

yes, I would disagree...it should have been dealt with when the draft was moved up.

viewtopic.php?t=1978

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:56 pm

I understand that you think that the rule should have been changed already. I'm asking for your opinion on how the league should realistically address your concern moving forward. If we vote today and change the rule, do you think that it is realistic to require guys to have their rosters changed within hours of that vote, and if not, again assuming that we would vote to change the rule, what would you suggest as a requirement date for this year?

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:58 pm

I'll try and stick to replying in the other thread.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:22 pm

If the draft hadn't ben unnecessarily moved up there would have been time to address all this...
the way it's worked in the past, is that during the draft, essentially you have 3 years of draft players who are eligible for the draftee slots (in this case 6, 7,

. Once the draft is over, it is just the two latest (7,8). Changing the rule at this point, just a few hours before the draft, would seem to be pretty silly.