Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, September 06, 2013

Nightengale: GM ‘baffled’ by September call-up rule

It’s up to you not to heed the September call-ups. (Melvin’s cover version)

“I’m still baffled by it,’’ Milwaukee Brewers general manager Doug Melvin says, “just from an integrity standpoint.

“There is no other competitive team sport that allows uneven rosters any time in the year. Any time in the year! And now, in the most important month , we’re doing that.

“How does that make any sense?’‘

Melvin is galled by the idea Major League Baseball is so concerned about an umpire’s missed call impacting a pennant race, they plan to implement expansive instant replay for 2014. Yet, it’s OK for a team in September to have a roster nearly 40% larger than its opponent.

“We’ve adopted rules to make sure you can’t play a game with a one-guy disadvantage,” he says, “and then we go into the most important month of the year, and we don’t care if there’s a five-player difference.’‘

...Melvin, who proposed the rule change about seven years ago, now hopes it will be adopted in November at their GM meetings. Teams still will be permitted all of their call-ups, Melvin says, but only five will be eligible to play any given game, providing every manager a 30-man roster.

“At first I thought Doug was too extreme,’’ Jocketty told USA TODAY Sports, “but I’ve come around to his way of thinking.’‘

Arizona Diamondbacks GM Kevin Towers is opposed, believing teams should be rewarded for having a deeper farm system. If any change is made, Towers has a different idea.

“I get where he is coming from,’’ Towers says, “but I’d rather expand in April than September,. That way, you won’t wear out your bullpen early, and guys won’t get injured so easily coming out of spring training.’‘

Repoz Posted: September 06, 2013 at 04:46 AM | 75 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: brewers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Bhaakon Posted: September 06, 2013 at 05:21 AM (#4535537)
I don't get the kvetching. Having an extra 10 guys is only a significant advantage if you picked the wrong 25 guys to begin with. Baseball isn't a sport where quantity trumps quality. The only place where a team might see a benefit is in excessive bullpen platooning, and even that's dubious.
   2. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 06, 2013 at 07:10 AM (#4535543)
Baseball isn't a sport where quantity trumps quality. The only place where a team might see a benefit is in excessive bullpen platooning, and even that's dubious.


Long extra-inning games would also be much easier for the team with the larger roster.
   3. flournoy Posted: September 06, 2013 at 07:25 AM (#4535545)
The rosters aren't really uneven. Every team has its full 40-man roster at its disposal. The fact that teams elect not to call up all forty guys is their lookout.
   4. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 07:26 AM (#4535546)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you allowed to have fewer than 25 players on your 25-man roster, if you want? It's just that nobody does it, because it's stupid and it puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

This would seem to be the same sort of thing. If you don't want to call up all 40 of the guys on your 40-man, that's fine, but it's you choosing to take a voluntary handicap in return for some type of off-the-field benefit (like not using up a player's service time), rather than some type of inequity inherent to the system. Melvin just wants to have his cake and eat it too, and I can't really respect that.
   5. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 07:28 AM (#4535548)
Also, given that Melvin was voluntarily using Yuniesky Betancourt as his team's everyday first baseman for a decent portion of the year, it seems like he probably finds a lot of things about baseball to be "baffling".
   6. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: September 06, 2013 at 07:41 AM (#4535551)
vlad

doug is a solid gm but that's a good line

touche
   7. TDF, situational idiot Posted: September 06, 2013 at 08:37 AM (#4535565)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you allowed to have fewer than 25 players on your 25-man roster, if you want?
You must have 24, per the CBA:

E. Active Player Limit
(1) The active Player limit set forth in Major League Rule 2(c) for the period beginning with opening day of the championship season and ending at Midnight, August 31, shall be 25, provided that the minimum number of active Players maintained by each Club throughout the championship season shall be 24.
   8. John Northey Posted: September 06, 2013 at 08:49 AM (#4535570)
The 40 man roster in September doesn't bother me a bit. If a GM doesn't like being shorthanded then guess what? Call up more guys!!! The Jays right now have an 18 man pitching staff but just 14 hitters (fewer than teams used regularly in the 80's and earlier) 3 of whom are poor hitting catchers thus find it limiting to pinch hit/run/etc. but no problems with running low on pitching.

Funny to look at the game preview on B-R and see 12 pitchers for the Jays pen, which is actually missing two pen guys (Romero and Jenkins) and has a regular starter listed (Rogers) although with the Jays it could be that Romero is going to start again (please no).

Milwaukee has 16 pitchers (plenty), just 2 catchers (odd for September), and just 14 hitters overall. That is a choice, not a limit of the rules.
   9. BDC Posted: September 06, 2013 at 08:56 AM (#4535574)
Some GM makes some version of this complaint every year, of the general form "Rules that apply equally to everybody are unfair."
   10. JJ1986 Posted: September 06, 2013 at 08:56 AM (#4535575)
Was he baffled by it before last year? This complaining is a very recent development.
   11. John Northey Posted: September 06, 2013 at 08:57 AM (#4535576)
Just thought I'd check a couple of the cheapskate teams...
Tampa Bay: 15 pitchers, 3 catchers, 16 hitters overall - nice mix
Miami: 17 pitchers, 3 catchers, 15 hitters overall

And the more money than we like to think of teams...
NYY: 16 pitchers, 3 catchers, 15 hitters overall - one less player than Miami
Bos: 13 pitchers, 3 catchers, 17 hitters overall - surprised not more pitchers
LAD: 16 pitchers, 3 catchers, 16 hitters overall

So rich or poor roughly 30-32 players per team seems to be the target. Milwaukee is the only one I've hit so far with just 2 catchers though.
   12. Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine Posted: September 06, 2013 at 08:58 AM (#4535577)
The Cubs are only a game back...pressure must be mounting.
   13. John Northey Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:00 AM (#4535578)
Houston is 14 pitchers, 3 catchers, 15 hitters - just 29 total the lowest I've found but not drastically so. The last team to really be low was the Expos at the end who were not allowed to call up anyone iirc as MLB was just being super-cheap although not Houston cheap overall.
   14. Dan Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:06 AM (#4535584)
Personally I agree with what Towers said (not something I expect I've said before or will say again). I think roster expansion makes a lot more sense in April than in September. It'd give teams a bit more time to let bullpen roles and position battles sort out and give teams extra depth in the pitching staff before starters are completely stretched out. And it would be timed so that it isn't down the stretch in pennant races.
   15. SoSH U at work Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:10 AM (#4535589)
I agree with Dan in 14, and also wouldn't have a problem with the call up as many as you want up to 40, but only have 5 eligible for a given game rule.

But yes, at the moment I don't see any disadvantage under the current system.
   16. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:16 AM (#4535592)
It bothers me a bit too. I think there should be a rule you can only have 25 players active on any certain day. Rosters would still be expanded since you'd just deactivate your 4 starting pitchers that aren't going that day, but at least it would cut down on some of the shenanigans.
   17. JE (Jason) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:29 AM (#4535597)
Personally I agree with what Towers said (not something I expect I've said before or will say again). I think roster expansion makes a lot more sense in April than in September. It'd give teams a bit more time to let bullpen roles and position battles sort out and give teams extra depth in the pitching staff before starters are completely stretched out. And it would be timed so that it isn't down the stretch in pennant races.

The minor-league regular season gets underway in April but is over by September, right? Isn't that why the rosters are able to expand now as opposed to Opening Day?
   18. SoSH U at work Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:37 AM (#4535603)

The minor-league regular season gets underway in April but is over by September, right? Isn't that why the rosters are able to expand now as opposed to Opening Day?


I assume any change in the call-up rules would be accompanied by a change in the minor league schedule.

   19. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:40 AM (#4535606)
To echo what's been said the rule may be good or bad but it is categorically not unfair.

I assume any change in the call-up rules would be accompanied by a change in the minor league schedule.

I think the bigger issue is that teams (especially those out of the race) use Sept. call ups to evaluate minor leaguers who may make the big club next year. It impacts their off-season plans and what players they add over the winter.

An April roster expansion doesn't serve that purpose. If a guy is not ready, it's too late to add a FA or make a trade. And if a guy is ready, and you've signed a veteran, it's too late to give the rookie the job.

I think the curretn rule is fine. If your team is shorthanded, stop being cheap and call up more guys.
   20. BDC Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:41 AM (#4535608)
I guess #9 was rashly snarky: there could be a legitimate complaint by a poor team that a rich team has an easier time paying the salaries of 15 extra players. (Melvin doesn't stress this point, but TFA does.)

However, I can't remember a pennant race that was affected by the ability of the Yankees or Dodgers or somebody to unleash the clone armies. Anybody who's good enough to impact a pennant race gets to the majors well before the first of September. I suppose there's the occasional Marty Bystrom, but Bystrom was an modest AAA prospect who had a good September; any team might get lucky that way. It's not like the 1980 Phillies suddenly added the entire NPB All-Star Team after August, or something.

And the way TFA addresses the issue doesn't make much sense. They cite the advantage the Rangers (36 men in uniform) have over the Angels (26). SFW? The Angels are saving some money? Good for them!
   21. SoSH U at work Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:46 AM (#4535612)
Anybody who's good enough to impact a pennant race gets to the majors well before the first of September.


Billy Hamilton is determined to prove you wrong.

   22. Bob Meta-Meusel Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:47 AM (#4535614)
From what I remembered combined with what I've been able to dig up, up through 1956 the full 40 man roster was available both from 9/1 on and from the start of the season until 5/15. Then from 1957 through 1967 the number of players allowed on the active roster before May 15 was cut down to 28 so that it wouldn't mess with the minor league teams and seasons as much. The current system of the active roster being 25 from the start of the season until September 1 has been in place since 1968.
   23. Bob Tufts Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:48 AM (#4535615)
Would Melvin's opinion be different if he had received a September call up for his only major league service during his playing days in the 70's?

Why is every baseball issue viewed as a fairness morality play? It probably isn't here - I guarantee that teams are trying to reduce service time and payroll by not calling up the 40 man roster players.

Time served can accelerate the arbitration clock and free agency. The major league minimum times a maximum of 15 call ups divided by six can save a million dollars or so.

But that savings may be counterproductive to a team that is not making the playoffs. You call up players that did well in the minors and sell some form of hope to your fans for the next season. Consider it a reward for the players, another scouting evaluation tool and a marketing program for the next year.

You're not taking away my September 1982, Melvin. Get over it!
   24. Nasty Nate Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:49 AM (#4535617)
Why are the proposed solutions always so complicated? Why not just make the number in September 27 or 28 instead of 25? That seems like a compromise between what they have now and no expansion at all.
   25. SoSH U at work Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:51 AM (#4535621)
I thought September call-ups didn't count against service time/arb clocks.

   26. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4535624)


I thought September call-ups didn't count against service time/arb clocks.


They do. I'm not sure why people constantly seem to think they don't, but they do.


I assume any change in the call-up rules would be accompanied by a change in the minor league schedule.


I would guess minor league teams would balk at this as weather is generally better in April than September, no?
   27. Bob Tufts Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:55 AM (#4535629)
To every reporter that likes this proposal, we will also apply it to your profession during the playoffs and World Series by not allowing anyone but scribes that covered the team the entire season access to post-season press boxes and locker rooms.
   28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:56 AM (#4535631)
Part of the problem here is the service time rules. In the old, old days, teams had every incentive to bring up a guy the second he could contribute b/c they controlled him forever. Now, teams are trying to time things to get maximum value out of their six years.

Maybe they should change the team control rules to be a fixed number of years, regardless of MLB service time?

If you sign a guy at 16-18 you control him until age 27, from 19-21 you control him to 28, and 22-23 you control him to 29.

If you can't get him to the majors fast enough to get 6 years of service, that's on your crappy player development skills.

   29. SoSH U at work Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:57 AM (#4535632)
I'm not sure why people constantly seem to think they don't, but they do.


Probably because people constantly seem to think they do.


I would guess minor league teams would balk at this as weather is generally better in April than September, no?


No, it isn't. Weather is better in late summer than early spring.
   30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 09:58 AM (#4535635)
To every reporter that likes this proposal, we will also apply it to your profession during the playoffs and World Series by not allowing anyone but scribes that covered the team the entire season access to post-season press boxes and locker rooms.

Awesome :-)

It is amazingly petty to try and take away the MLB experience from a bunch of minor leaguers, most of whom will never have long careers.
   31. ASmitty Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:00 AM (#4535636)
I don't like the call-up rule because it seems really weird to me to fundamentally change the size of rosters during the end of the season. Every other game was played with 25, why not September's games? It's a variation on how I feel about teams being able to go with 4-man, or even 3-man playoff rotations, when the whole season is played with 5-man rotations.

It also allows teams to employ more specialists. I guess I'd just prefer the roster rules to be uniform all season long.
   32. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:02 AM (#4535639)
It also allows teams to employ more specialists. I guess I'd just prefer the roster rules to be uniform all season long.

I'd much rather see a limit of the number of pitchers you can use in a game, or at least an inning.

Maybe limit each team to one mid-inning pitching change per game, except for injury.
   33. Bob Tufts Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:06 AM (#4535642)
I don't like the DH being used in half of the World Series games because it seems really weird to me to fundamentally change the team's regular season line up cards during the World Series.

Every other AL game was played with a DH, every other NL game was played without, why not consistency the playoffs?

I guess I'd just prefer the roster rules to be uniform all season long.
   34. ASmitty Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:08 AM (#4535647)
I don't like the (DH being used in half of the World Series games) because it seems really weird to me to fundamentally change the (team's regular season line up cards) during the (World Series.)


I see what you did there, obviously, but I think that way too.
   35. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:09 AM (#4535648)
I see what you did there, obviously, but I think that way too.

The DH should obviously be abolished.
   36. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:12 AM (#4535651)



I don't like the DH being used in half of the World Series games because it seems really weird to me to fundamentally change the team's regular season line up cards during the World Series.

Every other AL game was played with a DH, every other NL game was played without, why not consistency the playoffs?

I guess I'd just prefer the roster rules to be uniform all season long.


Haha, joke's on you, now we have interleague play all year long, so teams are used to this now.
   37. Bob Tufts Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:29 AM (#4535665)
Haha, joke's on you, now we have interleague play all year long, so teams are used to this now.


When the DH is outlawed, only outlaws will have a DH.

Elimination of the DH will save owner's money (usually a higher priced veteran position), make all games consistent and played under the same rules, reduce runs and speed up the game.

Would the Royals have a better chance to win without a DH? Compared to what other AL teams have in the position, yes....
   38. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:43 AM (#4535673)
Why are the proposed solutions always so complicated? Why not just make the number in September 27 or 28 instead of 25? That seems like a compromise between what they have now and no expansion at all.


Why should there be a compromise when things are fine the way they are right now?
   39. Rennie's Tenet Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4535674)
Every other AL game was played with a DH, every other NL game was played without, why not consistency the playoffs?


This is moot now that we have year long interleague play, but the All Star Games and World Series games should have been ten innings, with the batting orders containing both a pitcher and a DH.

I think in 1990, there was some labor standoff early in spring training, and the rosters were set at 30 through April 30. Is that right?

   40. flournoy Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4535676)
It also allows teams to employ more specialists.


I enjoy this part. In the era of twelve-man pitching staffs, benches have gotten too thin. Most teams can't afford to carry a pinch running specialist, or a positionless slugger, or many of the other one-dimensional players. I like seeing those guys. (And I understand why some people wouldn't.) I'd much rather see season-long 28-man rosters than 25-man September rosters.

I think in 1990, there was some labor standoff early in spring training, and the rosters were set at 30 through April 30. Is that right?


I don't know about 1990, but in 1995, coming back from the strike and an abbreviated Spring Training, teams were allowed to carry 28 men on their roster for a few weeks into the season.
   41. Nasty Nate Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4535677)
Elimination of the DH will save owner's money (usually a higher priced veteran position)


Wouldn't they just spread out the money that they would have spent on the DH on other players? I.E., if they didn't have to spend money on a veteran player for DH, they would be able to bid otherwise larger amounts on free agents (if they behaved logically).
   42. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:47 AM (#4535681)
Was he baffled by it before last year? This complaining is a very recent development.

doug is on record as disliking the callup situation for many years. he has been working his peers for the last 2-3 years to get the rule changed.

i would prefer he focus on little things like a replacement for rickie weeks but hey, that's me
   43. Nasty Nate Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:48 AM (#4535682)
Why should there be a compromise when things are fine the way they are right now?


There shouldn't, if things are fine. My idea was for those who think things aren't fine. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion either way.
   44. Tricky Dick Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:51 AM (#4535687)
Houston is 14 pitchers, 3 catchers, 15 hitters - just 29 total the lowest I've found but not drastically so. The last team to really be low was the Expos at the end who were not allowed to call up anyone iirc as MLB was just being super-cheap although not Houston cheap overall.

Just a note that the Astros had 6 minor league teams in the playoffs which reduced their willingness to call up minor leaguers in September and interfere with those teams' playoff chances. I would expect a few more call ups after the minor league playoffs are finished.

I can remember when Melvin complained several years ago that the September call up rule hurt teams with good farm systems, because the Brewers delayed call ups for the Brewers' minor league teams in the playoffs. I didn't buy his argument then, and I don't buy it now when my favorite team is in that same position.

I don't think the September call up rule significantly affects ML playoff races except for the occasional extra inning game---which is really infrequent. If a contender wants more players sitting in the bullpen or on the bench for those rare occurrences where it makes a difference, they are free to call up or acquire the players. I'm sure that many of those contending teams make a strategic decision to limit call ups for clubhouse chemistry reasons. Just like all of their strategy decisions, it's a choice for the team, and that's part of competition.

   45. The Ghost is getting a Woody Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:51 AM (#4535688)
My greatest fear with this 40-man thing is that some team will come with 6 LOOGYs and wll be playing matchup baseball starting in the 4th inning of a 4-hour game.

Getting the right guys on your 40-man so you can Septemberize them can be tricky. With your 40-man, you're protecting you rights to certain developing players who aren't ready for a callup.

I think Melvin is concerned about the extra costs that he can afford less than others, as someone said. Not that's it his #1 gripe.

I like the 30-man/game idea.
   46. Bob Tufts Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4535689)
How about a different way to speed up the game? Catchers can only visit the mound once otherwise the pitcher has to be removed?

And expand it to include all other position players when teams start trying to get around it.
   47. SoSH U at work Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4535690)
Wouldn't they just spread out the money that they would have spent on the DH on other players? I.E., if they didn't have to spend money on a veteran player for DH, they would be able to bid otherwise larger amounts on free agents (if they behaved logically).


Yes, which is why the AL has an advantage because of the DH argument is flawed.
   48. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:53 AM (#4535692)
There shouldn't, if things are fine. My idea was for those who think things aren't fine.


My idea for those people would be to tell them to stop worrying about something that isn't a problem.
   49. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 10:54 AM (#4535694)

When the DH is outlawed, only outlaws will have a DH.

Elimination of the DH will save owner's money (usually a higher priced veteran position), make all games consistent and played under the same rules, reduce runs and speed up the game.

Would the Royals have a better chance to win without a DH? Compared to what other AL teams have in the position, yes....


DH's don't lose games, losers lose games. Outlaw the DH? When you rip it out of my cold, dead hands!
   50. Bob Tufts Posted: September 06, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4535715)
The Royals' first DH? Ed Kirkpatrick.
   51. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: September 06, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4535732)
The one problem about September call-ups is that it can cause problems for teams whose AAA teams make the playoffs. Either you call up players before the AAA playoffs end (which is unfair to your minor league affiliates) or you make limited call-ups (which puts the MLB club at a bit of a disadvantage). The Governor's Cup final doesn't take place until September 17, so two MLB teams will be in this somewhat awkward spot for 2.5 weeks.

Among contending teams, the Rays, Indians, Royals, and Red Sox have AAA teams in the playoffs.
   52. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4535752)
When you rip it out of my cold, dead hands!


If killing you were all it took to get rid of the DH, you'd be dead before I finished typing this sentence. Sorry, but it's true.
   53. flournoy Posted: September 06, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4535754)
The one problem about September call-ups is that it can cause problems for teams whose AAA teams make the playoffs.


Teams always have to deal with this. Single A teams that make the playoffs do so without their best players from earlier in the season, since those guys moved up to Double A, and so on. It's just part of the territory. Playoffs are always weird for leagues where the best players move up before the season is over.
   54. I am Ted F'ing Williams Posted: September 06, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4535778)
I'd much rather see season-long 28-man rosters


Holy crap, you'll get 8 or 9 pitching changes in a 9-inning game. Snoozevill
   55. Bob Tufts Posted: September 06, 2013 at 01:10 PM (#4535807)
Quick personal research:

NL pitchers vs. Bob Tufts - 2 for 4 with a sacrifice (both singles - Kaat and Welch)
AL DH vs. Bob Tufts - 3 for 13 with a sac fly (all singles - Zisk, Burroughs and Ayala)

Pitchers faced: Odell Jones, Jim Kaat, Vern Ruhle, Nolan Ryan and Bob Welch.
DH's faced: Zisk 2), Hatcher, Wells, Baylor (2), Burroughs (2), Ayala, Skube, Evans (2), Cliff Johnson)

I still don't want a DH.

   56. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 06, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4535813)
AL DH vs. Bob Tufts - 3 for 13 with a sac fly (all singles - Zisk,

It just has to be asked: Did you pitch at risk?



   57. Steve Treder Posted: September 06, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4535814)
From 1947-56, rosters were 30 for the first month of the regular season, then 25 through August 31. From 1957-61, it was 28 through the first month.

The 25-from-opening-day limit was set in 1962, and has only been modified, as noted above, in 1990, when it was 27 through May 1st.

EDIT: I believe it was also modified in 1995, but I don't have the details.
   58. nick swisher hygiene Posted: September 06, 2013 at 01:34 PM (#4535820)
what if you had one additional roster level, below the 25/40?
call it the "gameday roster"--it must be announced with or x hrs before the lineup--
limit it to, say, 18 players, anybody on your 25/40 is eligible.
this way you can enlarge the 25/40 without letting in the possibility of unwatchable 6-LOOGY games.
   59. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: September 06, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4535830)
I'd much rather see season-long 28-man rosters

Holy crap, you'll get 8 or 9 pitching changes in a 9-inning game.

My thoughts too. Expand the roster by 3 and you'll wind up with 10-man bullpens instead of 8 and probably one more non-hitting (s)crappy utility player.
   60. Karl from NY Posted: September 06, 2013 at 02:49 PM (#4535870)
The minor-league regular season gets underway in April but is over by September, right? Isn't that why the rosters are able to expand now as opposed to Opening Day?

Right. Almost every minor league ends on Labor Day weekend. There's just no attendance and demand after that with folks back to work and school and football.
   61. Karl from NY Posted: September 06, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4535873)
I thought September call-ups didn't count against service time/arb clocks.

They do. I'm not sure why people constantly seem to think they don't, but they do.

They're thinking of Rookie of the Year eligibility, which September call-up time doesn't count against.
   62. Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor Posted: September 06, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4535874)
Was he baffled by it before last year? This complaining is a very recent development.

From the excerpt (don't even have to click through!):

...Melvin, who proposed the rule change about seven years ago, now hopes it will be adopted in November at their GM meetings. Teams still will be permitted all of their call-ups, Melvin says, but only five will be eligible to play any given game, providing every manager a 30-man roster.
   63. JJ1986 Posted: September 06, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4535885)
A 30-man roster is really 34, unless you put in special rules about keeping your last 4 starting pitchers active and those rules would be begging to be gamed. The limit would need to be 26 to achieve what Melvin wants.
   64. Tom Nawrocki Posted: September 06, 2013 at 03:28 PM (#4535897)
The 25-from-opening-day limit was set in 1962, and has only been modified, as noted above, in 1990, when it was 27 through May 1st.


Also, now you can have 26 players for a doubleheader. I think that rule went into effect last year.
   65. FrankM Posted: September 06, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4535899)
From 1947-56, rosters were 30 for the first month of the regular season, then 25 through August 31. From 1957-61, it was 28 through the first month.

The 25-from-opening-day limit was set in 1962, and has only been modified, as noted above, in 1990, when it was 27 through May 1st.

EDIT: I believe it was also modified in 1995, but I don't have the details.


Steve, the 28 men for the first 30 days of the season lasted later than 1962. I believe until around 1969.
   66. Steve Treder Posted: September 06, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4535937)
Steve, the 28 men for the first 30 days of the season lasted later than 1962. I believe until around 1969.

D'oh! You're right, I was misreading the info (which was compiled by Cliff Blau). The 28-until-the-31st-day limit applied through 1967.
   67. Paul D(uda) Posted: September 06, 2013 at 07:24 PM (#4536046)
They do. I'm not sure why people constantly seem to think they don't, but they do.

Do they use options?
   68. Jay Z Posted: September 06, 2013 at 07:41 PM (#4536059)
Since all additional roster spaces will be used for pitchers no matter what, I think rosters should be of unlimited size. For bench clearing brawls I want an endless stream of uniformed "pitchers" pouring out of both bullpens, using military strategy and tactics to take control of the field.
   69. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: September 06, 2013 at 08:19 PM (#4536073)
Ruben Amaro is baffled by his old players not playing as well as they did in their prime.
   70. flournoy Posted: September 06, 2013 at 08:26 PM (#4536078)
Do they use options?


Maybe I misunderstand how options work. But if the player was in the minors in the first place, on the 40-man but waiting until September to be called up, wouldn't he have already used up an option year?
   71. Howie Menckel Posted: September 06, 2013 at 08:45 PM (#4536085)

The Indians currently are carrying 14 relievers. I agree that is ridiculous.

   72. Buck Coats Posted: September 06, 2013 at 08:48 PM (#4536092)
Maybe they should change the team control rules to be a fixed number of years, regardless of MLB service time?

If you sign a guy at 16-18 you control him until age 27, from 19-21 you control him to 28, and 22-23 you control him to 29.


I just want to say that I love this idea.
   73. Bob Tufts Posted: September 07, 2013 at 12:09 AM (#4536243)
I just want to say that I love this idea.


A variation already exists - 3 years in the minors pre-40 man roster protection/Rule V draft, 3 years MLB pre-arbitration and six years to free agency.

I think it's a great idea - as long as you all first apply it to yourselves - I want to limit all of your salaries and job mobility because it's just so necessary.

   74. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: September 07, 2013 at 02:12 AM (#4536322)
I think it's a great idea - as long as you all first apply it to yourselves - I want to limit all of your salaries and job mobility because it's just so necessary.

Fine take it up with my union -- the BTF Posters' Association. We've got Marvin Miller IV on our side.
   75. God Posted: September 07, 2013 at 02:39 AM (#4536330)
the BTF Posters' Association. We've got Marvin Miller IV on our side.


Also, me.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
cardsfanboy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(99 - 3:12am, Nov 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(18 - 2:55am, Nov 23)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4169 - 2:28am, Nov 23)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(966 - 2:27am, Nov 23)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogDeadspin: Curt Schilling’s Son Accidentally Brings Fake Grenade To Logan Airport
(12 - 1:50am, Nov 23)
Last: ptodd

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(553 - 1:35am, Nov 23)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(12 - 12:17am, Nov 23)
Last: rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(48 - 11:13pm, Nov 22)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(28 - 11:04pm, Nov 22)
Last: Squash

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(134 - 10:49pm, Nov 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(24 - 10:32pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(19 - 10:19pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(4 - 10:00pm, Nov 22)
Last: jingoist

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(19 - 8:03pm, Nov 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(9 - 7:26pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

Page rendered in 0.5404 seconds
52 querie(s) executed