What about placing the entire 40 man on the major league roster in spring training, which is essentially what MLB does? Then, all 40-man players must get demoted if they're not in the opening day 25. Hence, anyone out of options would have to clear waivers.

Quote: Originally Posted By jwendt on 1/13/2010What about placing the entire 40 man on the major league roster in spring training, which is essentially what MLB does? Then, all 40-man players must get demoted if they're not in the opening day 25. Hence, anyone out of options would have to clear waivers

Of course, in HBD that would mean boosting the year-long salaries of an extra 10-20 players.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Seems like that would work, and it would enforce all of the rules that currently exist in MLB. It would still be complicated and a lot of work for new owners though, which I think is the main reason they haven't implemented something similar yet.

Couldn't out of options players just be paid 327k?

As I said earlier, it's one thing to keep players who make 61k and an entirely different beast when they're making 327k.

How is it complicated? Man, talk about dumbing the game down and playing the least common denominator.

You'd have to a be moron to not be able to handle the fact that yes, if a guy is out of options and on the 40-man, you either put him on the 25-man or waive him on opening day.

It's simple. If these new owners can handle coach hiring, promotions, demotions, Rule 5 draft, etc., they can handle this. It is not rocket science.

Give your users some credit. This promotes parity, which HELPS the new guys taking over bad teams. It gives them a little more to work with, they'd be the ones claiming these players, not losing them. Has anyone thought this through, past the 'ooooh it might be hard, we wouldn't that' stage?

And the 'risking retiring' comment up above is garbage. No one on the 40-man retires until they are in their late 30s and their ratings have fallen apart.