REJECTED 7-5 (Increase Roster Size in 2003?)

[Preds]

Another thing that's been eating at me is the roster size. Last year, (like Joe of the BDSC pointed out in an earlier post a while back) some guys slid through cheap late in the season, whether due to cap issues, limited roster space, or more likely, just because they were out there since the rosters were limited.

In this style of league, most of our roster activity can and should occur during the off-season. There really should be few changes in the regular season (much more realistic, more like the NFL IMO). Our teams should really be coached during the regular season, with most roster management in the off season IMO.

What I'd like to see is an 18 man active roster to go along with the 4/5 player development squad we've already voted in to place for next year and 2004.

Increasing the Active roster sizes next year would also make room for moving up a development player or 2.

I think adding 24 players to the rosters, combined with the development squads will really limit the Free Agency pool to the size it should be during the season... next to nothing out there.

What do you all think.

If we did this, I'd suggest the $10,000 cb cap be increased by$1,500, to a total of $11,500 cb's.

I'd also suggest Contract years be increased to 40/team on the active roster.

Further, I'd propose the minimum roster size be increased from 13 to 15 players.

Vote in the poll above and reply after doing so with any comments you might have.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I voted yea for next year. I think we're too far along this off season to make roster size changes, but again, I won't cry if we do it this year.

[Preds]

I also voted Yes for 2003, and really hope others will agree 2003 is better than immediatly.

I agree that there's been too many moves to implement it this year, however, I wanted to leave the option out there in case the majority of the league wanted to implement it this year.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

I voted no and I'll tell you why. I don't think we need that big of a bench. We already have one development squad, and it seems to me that the change would mean the equivalent of a 2-tiered development squad.

That's the problem with democracy, somebody's likely to shoot their mouth off with an opinion!

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I am fine with increasing roster size (voted on the board) for 2003. I am wondering if with the increase in roster size and cap space if it might be possible to discuss some sort of Franchise Tag that could be used? I am not dead sure how it would work, but maybe like the tender offers it would be the option to offer a deal to a player (one per team, per year) once his contract expires (but before the RFA begins). Here is my first stab at how this could work:

The greater of 1.2 times last years salary or $1,200 for a QB, $1,500 for a RB, $1,100 for a WR, $550 for a TE and $450 for a K . I am not sure how many teams would take advantage of this but it might make for another interesting option, especially since a lot of guys were signed to deals before we made all of these changes. Some teams might figure that the cost is too high but for a lot of young guys that were signed for like $100 this presents them with the option of resigning one of their own players. This could work well since we are looking to increase the contract years and cap space anyway.

The other twist that may be worth thinking about, again not trying to make the management end anymore complicated, but maybe these guys salaries also increase by 20% instead of 10% and the tag cannot be used on the same player more than once with the same team.

For example Corey Dillon currently has a one year deal for $1,772. If the Predators wanted to "Franchise" him he would get a 2003 deal for $2,126 since it would be higher than $1,500. Using the 20% escalator his 2004 salary would be $2,552 and his 2005 salary would be $3,062. This would offer the option of signing him before he hits the market but there is a price to pay for utilizing this option.

Another example would be Duece McCallister who has a one year deal for $110 in 2002. If the Freedom want to "Franchise" him he would get $1,500 in 2003 since it would be much higher than the 20% increase. Using the 20% escalator his 2004 salary would be $1,800 and his 2005 salary would be $2,160. Again, it is not a cheap option but it would allow teams to retain one of their own. In some cases the player may not be worth it and the team would not want to use option however with the possibility of more years and cap space this would allow teams to retain talent.

Sorry, I am kind of thinking on the fly, but it might add another dimension to the decision making process. Please feel free to post your thoughts.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I think I have to second the opinion of the Undead gentleman... I like the roster size right now, especially since it gives more UFA action during the season/offseason as players develop. I'm in a 20-player 12-team Dynasty league, and it's always hard finding players... making it really tough for teams to regroup after a rough season.

But I won't quit the league if we increase, either! ;)

That being said, I like the idea of a FRANCHISE TAG, and think we need to flesh this out a bit! Way to go, Matt.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

I think 16 with a Dev squad is a good number already. Especially if you consider we're going to increase the D squad from 3 to 5 in a couple of years. The problem I brought up before, about players sliding through for cheap(Crowell and Sharpe for example) was more due to the fact that owners were not as active near the end of last season. From the looks of it I dont think that will be a problem with this group. And as the Ophi pointed out if you make the FA pool too thin, it will be very hard to recover from a down year(not that I plan to have any ).

[Urza's Ragers]

I voted nah!!! Too many bench slots allows easier team management even though I may like the idea, but come on we all need a challenge sometimes.:p

[Flaxwless]

A no for me.

I really think with the dev squad and the active roster that is more than enough. Especially since next year the dev squad will be enlarged.

I also agree that it would limit the UFA. If the problem is the in season FA pool having many good players, how abotu this?

Give teams an extra roster spot for in season FA bidding. If a team utilises this extra spot they must sign the player to a one year deal as long as they fit under the current cap.

If they would like to retain the Free Agent then they must make room on their roster if they don't have any. This allows in season FA movement as owners have the flexibility of signing in season FA.

This is just off the top of my head so you guys can refine it more.

I voted no, for pretty much every reason stated above

[Mutts]

I voted no... I'd be willing to revisit this though once the development squad has been expanded to the final 5 slots. That will give us some experience to base our actions on.