28 man rosters

[Thrylos]

Here is the thing (and of course it is another CBA posturing situation, like the DH in the NL) :

 

Because of service time considerations, top prospects are not going to be the 26th (and/or the 27th and 28th) man.   So the 26th man will be the 3rd catchers, the 30 year old AAA veteran pitch hitters, etc.  If implemented will give 30 MLB jobs to the likes of Eric Fryer, Doug Bernier, and Darin Mastroiannis of the world at near league minimum.

 

Don't expect any real impact, other than further talent erosion 

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think the implication is more specialists personally.  Teams will likely go straight to a 7 man or even 8 man pen in that scenario and you may find a career for guys who can hit decently off the bench... I agree that it won't mean an instant spot for a top prospect. 

 

The only way to minimize it would be to put a cap on the number of starting pitchers you inactivate (i.e. you can only deactivate last night's starter or something like that).

[USAFChief]

First point: The rosters were decreased from 25 to 24 before the 1986 season then increased back to 25 before the 1990 season.

 

Second point: I am against changing the fundamental rules of the game for the sake of faster play. Limiting catcher visits, acceptable. Limiting pitching changes, unacceptable.

Second point: agree, but you can minimize the time required for pitching changes. Two warm up pitches, 1 minute from "signal for new pitcher" to "play ball."

[MileHighTwinsFan]

Found the following ESPN article on expanding MLB Rosters to 28 very interesting, especially given the renewed movement to add the DH to the NL.  

 

Here is the story:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14611636/reimagining-baseball-adopt-expanded-rotating-rosters

 

The story highlights how the proliferation of pitching staffs have essentially removed a great deal of strategy from the offense of many teams.   Use of pinch runners, defensive replacements and other strategic moves are limited when you only have four bench players.  By expanding to 28 and making teams choose 25 eligible players per game, teams can place unavailable starters or dinged up position players on the inactive list, allowing teams more flexibility.

 

I am salivating at the notion of a Twins roster that could carry Arcia and Santana or Vargas and Park, rather than having to choose among them.   How about that lock down defender who can't hit but can add that little bit of range at shortstop in the late innings?  How about extending the careers of some veteran hitters.  

 

Fun to think about how much more dynamic the Twins' roster could be with this approach.  

[Thrylos]

 

 

Fun to think about how much more dynamic the Twins' roster could be with this approach.  

 

5 starters, 10 relievers, 13 position players .  Non-starting starters inactivated.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm against the day-in, day-out expansion of rosters but going with a 28 man roster with three sitting out on any given day seems like a reasonable compromise... Though I still question the need for three players to sit. Move the rosters to 26 or 27 and let 1-2 guys sit on any given day.

[old nurse]

Veteran hitters who can hit but not play the field so much are called DH. When their skills wane they are called retired due to expense.  You are not going to pay Josh Willingham 7 million to be a pinch hitter, I doubt he would play for the veteran minimum.   It would allow you to not cut the player that is out of options, but that should be a rare occurrence.  Danny Valencia would be more secure. Drew Butera would be more secure. Austin Jackson could have a job. You are adding very fringe players, or holding onto a sunk cost rather than making yet another bad deal. I could see teams keeping 9 relievers on staff as there are relievers out there in the 24-28 year old range with nothing left to prove in the minors and proved nothing in the majors in their option years  as you hope they finally figure it out.

[HitInAPinch]

I wonder how the owners would feel about paying a MLB salary to 3 players everyday to sit and stay.

 

Actually, no I don't.

[TheLeviathan]

I think a degree of roster expansion would be a boost to the league.  I like the idea.

[Boom Boom]

The writer's premise is flawed. More pitchers and specialization of relievers didn't take strategy out of the game, it just moved it from the bench to the bullpen.

 

The casual fan wouldn't care if their team had more flexibility to pinch-run or bring in a defensive specialist late.

[Danchat]

I like the idea, but maybe they should try 26 or 27 first.

[Vanimal46]

I'm against this idea. Unless you enjoy having guys like Stauffer and Schafer on your team all season long. Me, I'd prefer teams trimming the fat and putting quality players on the MLB roster.

 

Though I will say the 26th roster spot would have been convenient last year to hide JR Graham....

[spinowner]

 

Second point: agree, but you can minimize the time required for pitching changes. Two warm up pitches, 1 minute from "signal for new pitcher" to "play ball."

I think something along these lines is reasonable in terms of speeding up the game, but remember the broadcast needs enough time to show a commercial while it's happening. Eliminate the commercial and you eliminate revenue. Probably wouldn't happen.

[spinowner]

 

I'm against the day-in, day-out expansion of rosters but going with a 28 man roster with three sitting out on any given day seems like a reasonable compromise... Though I still question the need for three players to sit. Move the rosters to 26 or 27 and let 1-2 guys sit on any given day.

I think the idea of inactivating players is a bit nonsensical. Baseball is not like other sports. Currently four players are already essentially inactive--the members of the starting rotation who are not starting that day. Only rarely would the next day's starter see action, for example in the case of an 18-inning game or something. Back in the '60's Jim Kaat was sometimes used as a pinch runner on his days off but that's not going to happen these days. So when it comes time to designate three inactive players it would always be the three starters who have most recently pitched. So if you're going to expand the roster just expand it and leave out the inactive player idea.

[Shaitan]

I think the writing has been on the wall for a while that it will increase. They're basically at 26-27 now, just with players on a plane between the Bigs and AAA on a daily basis anyway. I'd guess this is to reduce that travel as opposed to some real opportunity for new strategy.

 

But I also don't like the inactive list idea at all. Why make things more confusing than they need to be. 

[jorgenswest]

If it means more mid inning pitching changes, it is an awful idea. If it means that guys like Randy Ruiz get a shot as a platoon player, I am all in. Before someone distracts from the point, I realize Randy Ruiz is out of baseball and almost 40. Had he played in the 60s or 70s he would have been a major leaguer.

 

There is no space for he right handed half of a platoon with the 12 and 13 man pitching staffs. The Orilles had an 8-9 man staff in the early 70s. They filled the bench with platoon guys like Merv Rettenmund, Terry Crowley, Al Bumbry andElrod Hendricks. I am not sure if Bill Robinson has a career without getting his first shot as a right handed corner bench guy.

 

Adding players to the roster without having the 8 man bullpen become the norm seems impossible. It can only happen in combination with limiting pitching changes somehow. I am all for a max of one change per inning.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Imagine a world where Gardenhire has returned to managing an MLB team and rosters expand to include three "idle" players on the roster.

 

He could go an entire decade without putting a single player on the Disabled List. It'd be a thing of beauty.

[Seth Stohs]

The more I think about it, I'd be OK with a 27-man roster  in which the previous game's starter and the next game's starter are ineligible to play. Has to be those two. That way, it really doesn't affect the 25-man active roster, and those two don't/shouldn't play anyway. Two extra players... 

 

That'd be option 1, but the other idea, in my opinion, would just be to go to 26.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I could see some players liking the idea too.  Being inactive might allow for the occasional excused absence from the park.

[blairpaul715]

I would be for 28 man rosters if it meant shortening the season by 2 weeks, by having more Doubleheaders, while still playing 162 games.......so we dont have to see the World Series played in 30ish degree weather.

[spinowner]

 

I would be for 28 man rosters if it meant shortening the season by 2 weeks, by having more Doubleheaders, while still playing 162 games.......so we dont have to see the World Series played in 30ish degree weather.

We already have the rule allowing teams to activate a 26th player for the second game of a doubleheader.