Add one spot to the DS squad?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Hey gang... I'm sure I'm not the only one looking to find room for all of my newly-aquired rookie draft picks. I know we've got 5 slots now... but does anyone else think it makes sense to add another spot this year (and possibly one more next) to make room to really DEVELOP our young talent?

Here's the rundown of the teams and potential DS candidates...

Freedom 13

Wonder Mutts 10
Royal Hawaiian Opihi 9
Soap Box Car 9
Nittany Dodgers 8
Parkwood Predators 8
Liquid Swords 8
Undead 8
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers 7
Urza's Ragers 7
Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects 6



So that means there are 104 DS elligible players... with only 60 spots. Now, a few of "last year's" DS'ers will probably be promoted to active roster positions, as well as a select few rookies this year. But with our recent expansion of the draft, it seems like it wouldn't be much of a problem to add a spot or two over the next few years.

Now, maybe some teams traded away picks, knowing they only had a limited number of DS spots available. However, if we add an additional spot, that would open up the possibility for more trading of DS-elligible players!



Opinions?

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Freedom 13

As you might imagine I am feeling this to and would love to see this happen. It would be great to really be able to develop some of these third or fourth rounders and I think it could make for some interesting trading opportunities down the line.

I am all for it.

[Liquid Swords]

I'm for an increase

I like the idea of adding one extra spot each year, but I think we'll need to cap it after so many slots...maybe 7 or 8...which would allow for an addition of one extra spot this year and one in 2005 and 2006 (depending on where we cap it).

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

I think keeping a cap on the DS makes it challenging to asses young talent. I think 5 DS slots is plenty as it stands. NFL teams have very tough decisions when cutting down to 53 man rosters. Sometimes they have to cut players they would normally like to keep. It also adds that level of strategy where you have a current DS player who's borderline Active roster worthy. Do you activate him to make room for another player you want to keep, and risk activating him before he's really ready to produce, or do you wait and keep that player on the DS and cut the younger player because you cant afford dead weight on the active roster.

I'd be against an increase. We knew going into the draft that most likely the 3rd and 4th round picks would have a small chance at making the roster anyway.

[Preds]

:stepsonsoapbox:

I am against an increase in spots, but would like to see the years increased to 25 so that all rooks could be given 5 year deals.

As for the increase in spots, one of the arguments in favor of the 4th round being added (which was made by my esteemed divisin mate the Opihi) was that there were only so many DS places to go around, and thus the chances of a 4th rounder at 100 having a long term impact at 100cb's was minimal, and even to make that impact a team would have to sacrifice a DS place for it.

Another point is that rookie salaries were lowered so that more draft picks and 2nd year players would make ACTIVE rosters, which IMO will occur in many instances. I know all 3 of the players presently sitting on my DS are targeted for active roster spots in 04 by me.

Again, I am most definately NOT in favor of adding roster spots to the DS at this point. Perhaps we can address adding a spot next year (although I'll still likely be opposed), but as for the 04 season I myself will be a big old NO vote.

I think you guys are being somewhat self-serving, after the fact, in asking to expand the DS squads now that the draft is complete. Could some of us benefit by expanding the DS? Sure. But will the league as a whole benefit? IMO that is a big fat NO. Make your cases, maybe you'll round up enough votes, but looking at it from a global perspective on how it would impact the league, I can't see expanding the DS beyond 5 at this point being anything but a negative for the league as a whole.

:stepsoffsoapbox:

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

I think keeping a cap on the DS makes it challenging to asses young talent. I think 5 DS slots is plenty as it stands. NFL teams have very tough decisions when cutting down to 53 man rosters. Sometimes they have to cut players they would normally like to keep. It also adds that level of strategy where you have a current DS player who's borderline Active roster worthy. Do you activate him to make room for another player you want to keep, and risk activating him before he's really ready to produce, or do you wait and keep that player on the DS and cut the younger player because you cant afford dead weight on the active roster.

I'd be against an increase. We knew going into the draft that most likely the 3rd and 4th round picks would have a small chance at making the roster anyway.

EXACTLY

[Flaxwless]

My sentiments exactly. Against increase for both roster spots and years.

I'm sorry but if I've had two 1st round picks the past two years and still have the lowest DS total, then there is obviously nothing wrong with the system. After this off-season I plan on having maybe only 2 or 3 players on DS. We also adujsted the rookie contracts to make them more Active Roster friendly.

The DS system is fine. Owners have just been reluctant to promote players. I'd be definatley opposed to any increase in roster spots on DS and contract years. We have 4 rounds in a draft, 20 DS years which breaks down to 5 per player if you are continsouly promoting players. If you scan the DS squad there are plenty of players who should and probably will be activated now due to the adjusted rookie scale.

Against all increase.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Preds

As for the increase in spots, one of the arguments in favor of the 4th round being added (which was made by my esteemed divisin mate the Opihi) was that there were only so many DS places to go around, and thus the chances of a 4th rounder at 100 having a long term impact at 100cb's was minimal, and even to make that impact a team would have to sacrifice a DS place for it.

... this is what happens when I don't do my research before posting!

This is not a big deal... not worth "going to battle over" for sure. Just throwing something out there for discussion.

Glad to see there's still PASSION among our leaguemates! lol

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

... this is what happens when I don't do my research before posting!

This is not a big deal... not worth "going to battle over" for sure. Just throwing something out there for discussion.

Glad to see there's still PASSION among our leaguemates! lol

hehe, the PASSION of the FRENZY ;)

[Philadelphia Freedom]

While I can see some merit to what folks are saying it seems kind of pointless to have four rounds each year with all the supplemental picks if we are just going to end up cutting players. I will be very interested to see how many of this years 60 plus picks make either the active or the DS rosters of teams.

For my part, I admit I have targeted maybe 6 or 7 of my DS eligilble players for the active so I can certianly live with just 5 slots (since I will only really have one or two DS decisions to make).

However, I think there could be big benefits for the league as a whole to encourage (and then facilitate) teams to use there late round picks to try and find hidden gems. While the Chasers point about talent evaluation is a good one. NFL teams have a slight advantage in knowing exactly what there needs are and actually seeing how a player may fit with their plans. We are trying to make our decisions based on a couple of mini-camps, training camp and maybe a couple of exhibition games. Also, I think the NFL recently increased their practice squad to 8 players.

In fact maybe a better solution is to just add one more spot and say that spot can only be used by a player taken after the second round. This would give teams the chance to take a flyer on a player that could help them (either on their active roster or through a trade) down the road. Obvisiously you could more later round picks if you so choose but there could be one spot held in reserve for a late round pick. This could be kind of like the NFL has the roster exemption for players that have gone to NFL Europe.

I will agree with Jim that it is not worth a major fight over but I don't see how allowing one extra late round pick per team will harm the league.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

While I can see some merit to what folks are saying it seems kind of pointless to have four rounds each year with all the supplemental picks if we are just going to end up cutting players. I will be very interested to see how many of this years 60 plus picks make either the active or the DS rosters of teams.

For my part, I admit I have targeted maybe 6 or 7 of my DS eligilble players for the active so I can certianly live with just 5 slots (since I will only really have one or two DS decisions to make).

However, I think there could be big benefits for the league as a whole to encourage (and then facilitate) teams to use there late round picks to try and find hidden gems. While the Chasers point about talent evaluation is a good one. NFL teams have a slight advantage in knowing exactly what there needs are and actually seeing how a player may fit with their plans. We are trying to make our decisions based on a couple of mini-camps, training camp and maybe a couple of exhibition games. Also, I think the NFL recently increased their practice squad to 8 players.

In fact maybe a better solution is to just add one more spot and say that spot can only be used by a player taken after the second round. This would give teams the chance to take a flyer on a player that could help them (either on their active roster or through a trade) down the road. Obvisiously you could more later round picks if you so choose but there could be one spot held in reserve for a late round pick. This could be kind of like the NFL has the roster exemption for players that have gone to NFL Europe.

I will agree with Jim that it is not worth a major fight over but I don't see how allowing one extra late round pick per team will harm the league.

Matt,

I think the point is, that

A. we lowered salaries to encourage rooks making active rosters, and thus make room on the DS
B. we openly discussed that the 4h rounders, and even the supplimentals will be extra picks that'll have to earn their way on to rosters after camp
C. we pushed back the declaration dates to after the 3rd pre-season game to allow more evaluation of talent
D. for the 1st time in a while, players will actually have to MAKE our teams, whether on the active or DS rosters. GM's will have to make decisions, do they activate DS players to accomadate the draftees? do they cut certain draftees, is player "x" a future gem or a lump of unpolished coal?'
E. we've waited 4 years to weed out the bargains out of the Frenzy from the inaugural draft, and thus see a more market driven salary base, accomodating the 4th rounders who all have 100cb contracts, or even the 3rd rounders by adding additional DS spots will not help the league. As it stands now, if you want to see that player develop, you need to make some hard decisions or sacrifices. Which IMO, is what it should be.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I agree for the most part with what has been said against expanding the DS. I do think cuts should be tough decisions in the end, and we shouldn't allow teams to be in situations where roster decisions are easy to make. I will make a couple of comments in response to what a few posters have said:

I strongly disagree with Mike's opinion that the year cap should be upped to 25 years, allowing all picks to get 5 year contracts. This eliminates the strategy we have in place of evaluating wether or not players should be activated, cut, or held on the DS. If every rookie can get a 5 year contract, then we are shorting ourselves that much strategy.

I am intrigued by Matt's proposal of the "roster exemption" idea. I'm going to take some time to mull this over, but I think there is some potential in there somewhere.