Yuku free message boards

The NoL will do little to increase costs --including changes to roster rules and salary cap-- for the forseeable future. Period. End of story.

There's are very good and obvious reasons why it hasn't changed. Quite honestly I don't think the current system is broken nor need of any real change. About the only thing that should be done (from time to time) is a COLA (Cost Of Living Adjustment) so that players get paid something a little closer to parity with past years (when adjusted for inflation).

The question of "quality" is really more one for the teams (and leagues) and how they find and keep talent. As for "so (too) many games..." Sorry. That's how baseball is (and has always been) played; this isn't football with only one game a week. Given that caretaker's a Fish fan I suspect this stems from some of the roster issues that have affected the high quality of play people in the Peg have gotten accustomed to. Sorry, that's part of the game too and somehow I doubt things will stay "bad" in Winnipeg this season.

Would "another bat" really raise the "calibre of play" (or just ERAs)?

Adding a veteran as a 23rd (or 24th) player, unless it's a pitcher, will do nothing to lighten the load on the players; it'll just put 1-2 more players on the bench all the time. The fact is the manager will almost always put the best guys in the line up every night and bench players will (tend to) remain on the bench. Only injuries (or winning the first half) change that equation.

When it comes to "wearing out" the players, you typically need look no further than how much your team's backup catcher plays. Catchers are the only guy involved with (nearly) every pitch/play, gets little or no time off, and most likely to be injured. He's the one who who could use the most rest and should be given special care. Unfortunately most clubs have an excellent every day guy and a rookie who comes on during blowouts or on Sundays.

Even at the MLB level, the story's the same. Utility and bench players just don't see a lot of play. The big names get into the lineup every night even when tired and beat up. That's why many phenoms get kept back at the triple-A level --so they keep their skills sharp until they have an every day spot with the big club. You simply cannot use "rest" as a reason to increase roster sizes.

The case against veterans

Another counterpoint to roster expansion is to ask why do teams sign veterans to DH? If the issue is getting quality players on the field (not just at the plate) it's going to be easier to find an LS player who can hit well (enough) to put all four veterans in the field --if that really matters. Except for signing the (increasingly rare productive) veteran pitcher, the effect will do little to improve the calibre of play mainly because veterans are, "by definition," older players. As a result they're often at the end of the career and lost some/most of the speed, arm strength and/or accuracy that would actually improve the quality. Is it no wonder you usually find them playing first, right field or left?

Veterans are definitely important, but even in leagues like the AtL where there are no limits on signing them, they are not filling the lineup. The AtL also brings up another important point. Veterans want more, not fewer, games. One of the reasons they like the AtL is that the season's (a little) longer and they can play even more games.

Support your LS players

Adding more veterans as a solution actually overstates their value and undervalues that of the LS players. Over the past 15 seasons the majority of the best players I've watched were LS players, not veterans. Yes, it was great to see former major leaguers and they can produce, but few were all that great in the field and were most valuable for their bats. LS players are also some of the most likely to get signed since they're the ones who typically needed the safety net of the indy league to get back into organized ball. They're typically the ones found at the tougher fielding positions like shortstop, center field, second base.

I'd also point out how clubs (like the '04 Championship Saints) went through most of the season without filling all veteran slots. That was an excellent team to watch and many/most of the stars (J. Hall, Olow, Chavez) were LS players. There were even complaints about bencing one of the veteran on the club (Guye Senjem). Good talent comes in all sizes and roster slots.

Give us "stability" (for a change)

When it comes to improving the NoL the issues are less with what's going on on the field and more the issues in the league front office. The league needs stability before it considers any new changes and when it comes to the roster rules. There has been far too much change the past 3 years and much of it has not been good.

The AA's roster (and other) rules are almost identical in all respects. That's something to keep in mind when thinking about interleague play since the FL and others can be significantly different.

I'm glad there's more agreement than I first thought. But I'll reiterate what I posted above that adding players will do little to reduce the amount of play (increased rest) for "daily" players. It's been part of the sport for well over a century.

The expansion the NoL could use is in teams, not players. Just getting back to 8 teams would do a lot for everybody (starting with having real divisions, playoffs and maybe reduced travel distances for the I-29 clubs).