I'm only going to give like 13 or 14 more unsolicited opinions.

Posted by wcrebel on 1/7/2015 2:04:00 PM (view original):
We may be overthinking this and creating too much work for ourselves, most of these extra players are backups for the top teams anyway and will probably become keepers for the lower teams, but isn't that the goal of the league, balancing the teams. And since this 20 limit is there every season, sooner or later all teams will be unprotecting good players needed by other teams (hopefully)

Yeah, I agree, we are overthinking it and creating too much work for ourselves.  Given the amount and intensity of monitoring and determining of intent required, and the talent of the 21st best players and on, it's probably best to just enforce the 20 man rule 5 limit and let the unassigned players issue go.  Make possible 'loopholes' known so everyone is on an equal playing ground.   I think you are best allowing FA's to be signed in the preseason and sit unassigned.   Otherwise, an even bigger advantage goes to the owners who can log on at 10:05 PM CST the night of the Rule 5 draft to sign good free agents immediately at a discount.   If you sign too many long-term FA, eventually you will run out of clever maneuvers and workarounds, and be forced to let players go.   Probably sooner, rather than later. 

Agreed!

I would completely agree with that sentiment if we could DFA below 20.  It is tempting to allow the "loophole" to be allowed, and just make sure that everyone is aware of it, for simplicity of enforcement.   Anybody else have thoughts about this?

It would be nice to have a nice and easy to enforce rule, monitored only by looking at the rule 5 draft order page.  As far as enforcement goes, That's easy.  If you're over the 20 man limit, you have to waive the number of players that you are over the 20 man limit by, starting with your highest rated player, by overall.

Willfully keeping a loophole in place kind of defeats a good part of the purpose of the entire theme.  In essensce, it allows you to keep a 20 man ML roster and then as many unassigned LT guys as you are able to accumulate via FA, waivers, trade, etc.  I thought the intent was to force you to make hard decisions on which 20 (and only 20) guys you want to protect.  The more players above 20 you can "hide" on the unassigned list, the fewer hard decisions you need to make on your roster, and the less talent there will be available for redistribution via R5.  Moving away from that because of the complexity of policing and/or enforcing it waters down the theme.

All it really does is expose a crapload of AAAA players and maybe a handful of top minor league prospects to R5.

20 Man Keeper World Private World Rules Draft

Each team may not have any more than 20 players on their 40 man roster at the time of the rule 5 draft.

The owner of any franchise that fails to attain 55 wins in one season, 120 in two consecutive seasons, 190 wins in three consecutive seasons, or 265 wins in four consecutive seasons shall not be allowed to return the following season.

Each owner is responsible to keep their minor leagues adequately stocked and free of excessive fatigue.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/7/2015 3:24:00 PM (view original):
Willfully keeping a loophole in place kind of defeats a good part of the purpose of the entire theme.  In essensce, it allows you to keep a 20 man ML roster and then as many unassigned LT guys as you are able to accumulate via FA, waivers, trade, etc.  I thought the intent was to force you to make hard decisions on which 20 (and only 20) guys you want to protect.  The more players above 20 you can "hide" on the unassigned list, the fewer hard decisions you need to make on your roster, and the less talent there will be available for redistribution via R5.  Moving away from that because of the complexity of policing and/or enforcing it waters down the theme.

All it really does is expose a crapload of AAAA players and maybe a handful of top minor league prospects to R5.

I'm not sure that even with the attempts to close the many loopholes, we are going to see a significantly greater amount of talent moving around in the R5 draft.  One thing that is for sure is the monitoring and enforcement of the rules will add up to a great deal of work.

The only thing I would add is there needs to be a grace period of some sort. If you have 20 players on your 40 and put in a claim for someone or attempt to sign a FA, you don't always know for sure if you'll get that player. Once the player awarded to a team or decides to sign with that team, they go into the unassigned pool. An owner needs a reasonable amount of time to get rid of someone on the 40. 

Since a ML roster is only made up of 25 players anyway, how much difference in hiding a few free agents per season going to make?  The tough decisions would come the next season when those players are assigned, and have to be DFAd.

Posted by ronazbill on 1/7/2015 3:31:00 PM (view original):
The only thing I would add is there needs to be a grace period of some sort. If you have 20 players on your 40 and put in a claim for someone or attempt to sign a FA, you don't always know for sure if you'll get that player. Once the player awarded to a team or decides to sign with that team, they go into the unassigned pool. An owner needs a reasonable amount of time to get rid of someone on the 40. 

Why?  Take advantage of the "loophole", and it doesn't matter when they sign or get awarded.

I have 25 guys on my ML roster.  I DFA without waivers 5 of them, guys who have multi-year contracts.  They're not exposed to R5, I'm at zero risk of losing them.

I'm adhering to the rule as written, while essentially protecting 25 ML guys.

That's OK?

Not if those players are picked up just to be traded that season.

sorry, that was to respond to shobob, lol, you guys are too fast

Posted by tecwrg on 1/7/2015 3:24:00 PM (view original):
Willfully keeping a loophole in place kind of defeats a good part of the purpose of the entire theme.  In essensce, it allows you to keep a 20 man ML roster and then as many unassigned LT guys as you are able to accumulate via FA, waivers, trade, etc.  I thought the intent was to force you to make hard decisions on which 20 (and only 20) guys you want to protect.  The more players above 20 you can "hide" on the unassigned list, the fewer hard decisions you need to make on your roster, and the less talent there will be available for redistribution via R5.  Moving away from that because of the complexity of policing and/or enforcing it waters down the theme.

All it really does is expose a crapload of AAAA players and maybe a handful of top minor league prospects to R5.

The first season it might, but it will correct itself the following season when decisions have to be made to get the 40 man down to 20.  As for DFA No Waivers, you can only do that if they have options left - that too will run out.  The theme to me is 20 keepers, maybe I'm wrong though.   FA signed are not keepers, and if you prevent FA from being signed, they will go to whoever logs on at 10:05 PM CST the day of the Rule 5 at a deep discount than if there were competitive bids - does that sound like a formula for a balanced world?