Topics

Draft thoughts/roster cutbacks

Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory)
 

Looking at the 1981 crop of rookies, there are less than 70 new players, so we will be drafting recycled players pretty early in this one, maybe as early as the mid-2nd round. Being in the league only five seasons, I may have missed the disucssion, but has there every been a thought to eliminating the off-season roster cutbacks? We went through this discussion in J-Rob over the years, and my belief is that off-season roster cuts hurt parity. I know that's not universally agreed, but I think those cuts make it harder for the weaker teams to build for the future because they are forced to retain coverage in the short term, rather than build depth. Just two cents.....

==

John Anderson
 

And teams sometimes draft coverage players with no further value that they don’t need.  Why?

John Anderson 


On May 29, 2020, at 8:45 AM, Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory) <strovel@...> wrote:


Looking at the 1981 crop of rookies, there are less than 70 new players, so we will be drafting recycled players pretty early in this one, maybe as early as the mid-2nd round. Being in the league only five seasons, I may have missed the disucssion, but has there every been a thought to eliminating the off-season roster cutbacks? We went through this discussion in J-Rob over the years, and my belief is that off-season roster cuts hurt parity. I know that's not universally agreed, but I think those cuts make it harder for the weaker teams to build for the future because they are forced to retain coverage in the short term, rather than build depth. Just two cents.....

==

Steven Galbraith
 

C: I'm not sure where you get the less than 70 new players? Baseball Reference has 146 players making their debuts in 1981.

As to off season cuts: My view is that is helps parity (or can) by preventing a good team(s) from stashing too many players. If a weaker team is cutting a good/better future player to keep a coverage player then that's, well, dumb <g>. With innoc players and pitchers you can always grab a body late to give you coverage.

I really can't understand why a team lacks coverage. Unless the owner is just not caring after the first 2-3 rounds. With innoc and the bonus everyone should be able to get coverage. It may be lousy coverage but it's a body.

I think 30 gives a lot of wiggle room to both keep top players AND be able to stash a future player.

On Friday, May 29, 2020, 9:45:32 AM EDT, Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory) <strovel@...> wrote:


Looking at the 1981 crop of rookies, there are less than 70 new players, so we will be drafting recycled players pretty early in this one, maybe as early as the mid-2nd round. Being in the league only five seasons, I may have missed the disucssion, but has there every been a thought to eliminating the off-season roster cutbacks? We went through this discussion in J-Rob over the years, and my belief is that off-season roster cuts hurt parity. I know that's not universally agreed, but I think those cuts make it harder for the weaker teams to build for the future because they are forced to retain coverage in the short term, rather than build depth. Just two cents.....

==

Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory)
 

Brain fart. I did a spreadsheet of what I thought were the 81 rookies from BBRef, and now that I look at it, I have rookies from a spread of five different years. No idea how that happened, or why I was too dumb to catch it.

I am still a fan of no pre-draft cuts, but the argument for such is kinda, er,.... blunted by my spreadsheet foibles.

==

On May 29, 2020 at 12:58 PM "Steven Galbraith via groups.io" <stevemgalbraith@...> wrote:

 
C: I'm not sure where you get the less than 70 new players? Baseball Reference has 146 players making their debuts in 1981.

As to off season cuts: My view is that is helps parity (or can) by preventing a good team(s) from stashing too many players. If a weaker team is cutting a good/better future player to keep a coverage player then that's, well, dumb <g>. With innoc players and pitchers you can always grab a body late to give you coverage.

I really can't understand why a team lacks coverage. Unless the owner is just not caring after the first 2-3 rounds. With innoc and the bonus everyone should be able to get coverage. It may be lousy coverage but it's a body.

I think 30 gives a lot of wiggle room to both keep top players AND be able to stash a future player.

On Friday, May 29, 2020, 9:45:32 AM EDT, Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory) <strovel@...> wrote:


Looking at the 1981 crop of rookies, there are less than 70 new players, so we will be drafting recycled players pretty early in this one, maybe as early as the mid-2nd round. Being in the league only five seasons, I may have missed the disucssion, but has there every been a thought to eliminating the off-season roster cutbacks? We went through this discussion in J-Rob over the years, and my belief is that off-season roster cuts hurt parity. I know that's not universally agreed, but I think those cuts make it harder for the weaker teams to build for the future because they are forced to retain coverage in the short term, rather than build depth. Just two cents.....

==

 

Thomas Battiato
 

I completely agree with Steve on this. The smaller the roster, the more parity there is. The logic is simple to follow:

If we kept zero players, every team would start the season on an equal basis, only separated by draft order.

If we kept only one player, the best  team would not be that far apart from the worst, and everyone would still have an good chance to draft a winning team.

If teams only kept their five best players, there may begin a bit of separation, but still not much.

At ten players each, the depth of a couple teams would start to rise a bit above the rest of the field.

If we kept 20 players each, there are now significant differences in the quality of the players kept. The players kept in slots 11-20 would vary significantly in quality from the best teams to the worst.

At 30 players each, there are major differences, in present value and often in prospects for the future, which cannot be made up short of several years of fortuitous drafting and trading.

At 40 players, it would be far more difficult for the weaker teams to catch up, as there is plenty of room for the better teams to hoard every player of any value rather than release them to the draft. The weaker teams can use this pool of players to find the coverage needed at various positions.

Thus, I would be opposed to keeping all the players on a roster every year as it serves to reward the stronger teams.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tom




-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Galbraith via groups.io <stevemgalbraith@...>
To: assl@groups.io; assl@groups.io
Sent: Fri, May 29, 2020 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: [ASSL] Draft thoughts/roster cutbacks

C: I'm not sure where you get the less than 70 new players? Baseball Reference has 146 players making their debuts in 1981.

As to off season cuts: My view is that is helps parity (or can) by preventing a good team(s) from stashing too many players. If a weaker team is cutting a good/better future player to keep a coverage player then that's, well, dumb <g>. With innoc players and pitchers you can always grab a body late to give you coverage.

I really can't understand why a team lacks coverage. Unless the owner is just not caring after the first 2-3 rounds. With innoc and the bonus everyone should be able to get coverage. It may be lousy coverage but it's a body.

I think 30 gives a lot of wiggle room to both keep top players AND be able to stash a future player.

On Friday, May 29, 2020, 9:45:32 AM EDT, Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory) <strovel@...> wrote:


Looking at the 1981 crop of rookies, there are less than 70 new players, so we will be drafting recycled players pretty early in this one, maybe as early as the mid-2nd round. Being in the league only five seasons, I may have missed the disucssion, but has there every been a thought to eliminating the off-season roster cutbacks? We went through this discussion in J-Rob over the years, and my belief is that off-season roster cuts hurt parity. I know that's not universally agreed, but I think those cuts make it harder for the weaker teams to build for the future because they are forced to retain coverage in the short term, rather than build depth. Just two cents.....

==

John Anderson
 

Thomas makes some excellent points with which I agree wholeheartedly.

John Anderson 


On May 29, 2020, at 12:28 PM, Thomas Battiato via groups.io <Dodger300@...> wrote:


I completely agree with Steve on this. The smaller the roster, the more parity there is. The logic is simple to follow:

If we kept zero players, every team would start the season on an equal basis, only separated by draft order.

If we kept only one player, the best  team would not be that far apart from the worst, and everyone would still have an good chance to draft a winning team.

If teams only kept their five best players, there may begin a bit of separation, but still not much.

At ten players each, the depth of a couple teams would start to rise a bit above the rest of the field.

If we kept 20 players each, there are now significant differences in the quality of the players kept. The players kept in slots 11-20 would vary significantly in quality from the best teams to the worst.

At 30 players each, there are major differences, in present value and often in prospects for the future, which cannot be made up short of several years of fortuitous drafting and trading.

At 40 players, it would be far more difficult for the weaker teams to catch up, as there is plenty of room for the better teams to hoard every player of any value rather than release them to the draft. The weaker teams can use this pool of players to find the coverage needed at various positions.

Thus, I would be opposed to keeping all the players on a roster every year as it serves to reward the stronger teams.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tom




-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Galbraith via groups.io <stevemgalbraith@...>
To: assl@groups.io; assl@groups.io
Sent: Fri, May 29, 2020 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: [ASSL] Draft thoughts/roster cutbacks

C: I'm not sure where you get the less than 70 new players? Baseball Reference has 146 players making their debuts in 1981.

As to off season cuts: My view is that is helps parity (or can) by preventing a good team(s) from stashing too many players. If a weaker team is cutting a good/better future player to keep a coverage player then that's, well, dumb <g>. With innoc players and pitchers you can always grab a body late to give you coverage.

I really can't understand why a team lacks coverage. Unless the owner is just not caring after the first 2-3 rounds. With innoc and the bonus everyone should be able to get coverage. It may be lousy coverage but it's a body.

I think 30 gives a lot of wiggle room to both keep top players AND be able to stash a future player.

On Friday, May 29, 2020, 9:45:32 AM EDT, Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory) <strovel@...> wrote:


Looking at the 1981 crop of rookies, there are less than 70 new players, so we will be drafting recycled players pretty early in this one, maybe as early as the mid-2nd round. Being in the league only five seasons, I may have missed the disucssion, but has there every been a thought to eliminating the off-season roster cutbacks? We went through this discussion in J-Rob over the years, and my belief is that off-season roster cuts hurt parity. I know that's not universally agreed, but I think those cuts make it harder for the weaker teams to build for the future because they are forced to retain coverage in the short term, rather than build depth. Just two cents.....

==

Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory)
 

Except that the teams that are currently weak (in the main) have more coverage holes. The stronger teams with no coverage issues can afford to draft a little bit earlier that prospect that will take a few years to mature. I think roster cuts enable strong teams to hang onto the long-term prospects better.


==

On May 29, 2020 at 1:28 PM "Thomas Battiato via groups.io" <Dodger300@...> wrote:

I completely agree with Steve on this. The smaller the roster, the more parity there is. The logic is simple to follow:

If we kept zero players, every team would start the season on an equal basis, only separated by draft order.

If we kept only one player, the best  team would not be that far apart from the worst, and everyone would still have an good chance to draft a winning team.

If teams only kept their five best players, there may begin a bit of separation, but still not much.

At ten players each, the depth of a couple teams would start to rise a bit above the rest of the field.

If we kept 20 players each, there are now significant differences in the quality of the players kept. The players kept in slots 11-20 would vary significantly in quality from the best teams to the worst.

At 30 players each, there are major differences, in present value and often in prospects for the future, which cannot be made up short of several years of fortuitous drafting and trading.

At 40 players, it would be far more difficult for the weaker teams to catch up, as there is plenty of room for the better teams to hoard every player of any value rather than release them to the draft. The weaker teams can use this pool of players to find the coverage needed at various positions.

Thus, I would be opposed to keeping all the players on a roster every year as it serves to reward the stronger teams.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tom




-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Galbraith via groups.io <stevemgalbraith@...>
To: assl@groups.io; assl@groups.io
Sent: Fri, May 29, 2020 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: [ASSL] Draft thoughts/roster cutbacks

 
C: I'm not sure where you get the less than 70 new players? Baseball Reference has 146 players making their debuts in 1981.

As to off season cuts: My view is that is helps parity (or can) by preventing a good team(s) from stashing too many players. If a weaker team is cutting a good/better future player to keep a coverage player then that's, well, dumb <g>. With innoc players and pitchers you can always grab a body late to give you coverage.

I really can't understand why a team lacks coverage. Unless the owner is just not caring after the first 2-3 rounds. With innoc and the bonus everyone should be able to get coverage. It may be lousy coverage but it's a body.

I think 30 gives a lot of wiggle room to both keep top players AND be able to stash a future player.

On Friday, May 29, 2020, 9:45:32 AM EDT, Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory) <strovel@...> wrote:


Looking at the 1981 crop of rookies, there are less than 70 new players, so we will be drafting recycled players pretty early in this one, maybe as early as the mid-2nd round. Being in the league only five seasons, I may have missed the disucssion, but has there every been a thought to eliminating the off-season roster cutbacks? We went through this discussion in J-Rob over the years, and my belief is that off-season roster cuts hurt parity. I know that's not universally agreed, but I think those cuts make it harder for the weaker teams to build for the future because they are forced to retain coverage in the short term, rather than build depth. Just two cents.....

==
 

 

Steve Alvin
 

Chris,

In my experience, I disagree.  I've had bad teams in ASSL and other leagues were there are cut backs and I've never had problems keeping prospects and having enough coverage.  The difference with J-Rob when compared to other leagues like ASSL is the cockimany rules regarding 930 players.  In that league my bad team has had to constantly worry about coverage.

Steve
"I have snatched my share of joy from the grudging hand of fate as I have
jogged along, but never has life held for me anything quite so entrancing as
baseball."--Clarence Darrow


On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 9:06 AM Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory) <strovel@...> wrote:
Except that the teams that are currently weak (in the main) have more coverage holes. The stronger teams with no coverage issues can afford to draft a little bit earlier that prospect that will take a few years to mature. I think roster cuts enable strong teams to hang onto the long-term prospects better.


==
On May 29, 2020 at 1:28 PM "Thomas Battiato via groups.io" <Dodger300=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

I completely agree with Steve on this. The smaller the roster, the more parity there is. The logic is simple to follow:

If we kept zero players, every team would start the season on an equal basis, only separated by draft order.

If we kept only one player, the best  team would not be that far apart from the worst, and everyone would still have an good chance to draft a winning team.

If teams only kept their five best players, there may begin a bit of separation, but still not much.

At ten players each, the depth of a couple teams would start to rise a bit above the rest of the field.

If we kept 20 players each, there are now significant differences in the quality of the players kept. The players kept in slots 11-20 would vary significantly in quality from the best teams to the worst.

At 30 players each, there are major differences, in present value and often in prospects for the future, which cannot be made up short of several years of fortuitous drafting and trading.

At 40 players, it would be far more difficult for the weaker teams to catch up, as there is plenty of room for the better teams to hoard every player of any value rather than release them to the draft. The weaker teams can use this pool of players to find the coverage needed at various positions.

Thus, I would be opposed to keeping all the players on a roster every year as it serves to reward the stronger teams.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tom




-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Galbraith via groups.io <stevemgalbraith=yahoo.com@groups.io>
To: assl@groups.io; assl@groups.io
Sent: Fri, May 29, 2020 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: [ASSL] Draft thoughts/roster cutbacks

 
C: I'm not sure where you get the less than 70 new players? Baseball Reference has 146 players making their debuts in 1981.

As to off season cuts: My view is that is helps parity (or can) by preventing a good team(s) from stashing too many players. If a weaker team is cutting a good/better future player to keep a coverage player then that's, well, dumb <g>. With innoc players and pitchers you can always grab a body late to give you coverage.

I really can't understand why a team lacks coverage. Unless the owner is just not caring after the first 2-3 rounds. With innoc and the bonus everyone should be able to get coverage. It may be lousy coverage but it's a body.

I think 30 gives a lot of wiggle room to both keep top players AND be able to stash a future player.

On Friday, May 29, 2020, 9:45:32 AM EDT, Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory) <strovel@...> wrote:


Looking at the 1981 crop of rookies, there are less than 70 new players, so we will be drafting recycled players pretty early in this one, maybe as early as the mid-2nd round. Being in the league only five seasons, I may have missed the disucssion, but has there every been a thought to eliminating the off-season roster cutbacks? We went through this discussion in J-Rob over the years, and my belief is that off-season roster cuts hurt parity. I know that's not universally agreed, but I think those cuts make it harder for the weaker teams to build for the future because they are forced to retain coverage in the short term, rather than build depth. Just two cents.....

==
 

 

Steven Galbraith
 

I think the 30 limit for ASSL is large enough for teams to both have coverage and to keep/stash a prospect. And the innoc players provide coverage. The best of both worlds.

The 24 limit in J-ROB is more difficult to handle. And, as you said, that 930/100 limits makes it difficult to balance things out. So 24 with a "distorted" 930 causes headaches.

In J-Rob, I had to cut a couple of good players that would have helped me this year. It's brutal competing against Seneca. I can't keep up with them. In ASSL there would have been no problem keeping them.

Really, the key is the number.

On Monday, June 1, 2020, 12:03:39 PM EDT, Steve Alvin <salvin123@...> wrote:


Chris,

In my experience, I disagree.  I've had bad teams in ASSL and other leagues were there are cut backs and I've never had problems keeping prospects and having enough coverage.  The difference with J-Rob when compared to other leagues like ASSL is the cockimany rules regarding 930 players.  In that league my bad team has had to constantly worry about coverage.

Steve
"I have snatched my share of joy from the grudging hand of fate as I have
jogged along, but never has life held for me anything quite so entrancing as
baseball."--Clarence Darrow


On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 9:06 AM Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory) <strovel@...> wrote:
Except that the teams that are currently weak (in the main) have more coverage holes. The stronger teams with no coverage issues can afford to draft a little bit earlier that prospect that will take a few years to mature. I think roster cuts enable strong teams to hang onto the long-term prospects better.


==
On May 29, 2020 at 1:28 PM "Thomas Battiato via groups.io" <Dodger300=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

I completely agree with Steve on this. The smaller the roster, the more parity there is. The logic is simple to follow:

If we kept zero players, every team would start the season on an equal basis, only separated by draft order.

If we kept only one player, the best  team would not be that far apart from the worst, and everyone would still have an good chance to draft a winning team.

If teams only kept their five best players, there may begin a bit of separation, but still not much.

At ten players each, the depth of a couple teams would start to rise a bit above the rest of the field.

If we kept 20 players each, there are now significant differences in the quality of the players kept. The players kept in slots 11-20 would vary significantly in quality from the best teams to the worst.

At 30 players each, there are major differences, in present value and often in prospects for the future, which cannot be made up short of several years of fortuitous drafting and trading.

At 40 players, it would be far more difficult for the weaker teams to catch up, as there is plenty of room for the better teams to hoard every player of any value rather than release them to the draft. The weaker teams can use this pool of players to find the coverage needed at various positions.

Thus, I would be opposed to keeping all the players on a roster every year as it serves to reward the stronger teams.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tom




-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Galbraith via groups.io <stevemgalbraith=yahoo.com@groups.io>
To: assl@groups.io; assl@groups.io
Sent: Fri, May 29, 2020 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: [ASSL] Draft thoughts/roster cutbacks

 
C: I'm not sure where you get the less than 70 new players? Baseball Reference has 146 players making their debuts in 1981.

As to off season cuts: My view is that is helps parity (or can) by preventing a good team(s) from stashing too many players. If a weaker team is cutting a good/better future player to keep a coverage player then that's, well, dumb <g>. With innoc players and pitchers you can always grab a body late to give you coverage.

I really can't understand why a team lacks coverage. Unless the owner is just not caring after the first 2-3 rounds. With innoc and the bonus everyone should be able to get coverage. It may be lousy coverage but it's a body.

I think 30 gives a lot of wiggle room to both keep top players AND be able to stash a future player.

On Friday, May 29, 2020, 9:45:32 AM EDT, Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory) <strovel@...> wrote:


Looking at the 1981 crop of rookies, there are less than 70 new players, so we will be drafting recycled players pretty early in this one, maybe as early as the mid-2nd round. Being in the league only five seasons, I may have missed the disucssion, but has there every been a thought to eliminating the off-season roster cutbacks? We went through this discussion in J-Rob over the years, and my belief is that off-season roster cuts hurt parity. I know that's not universally agreed, but I think those cuts make it harder for the weaker teams to build for the future because they are forced to retain coverage in the short term, rather than build depth. Just two cents.....

==
 

 

Scott Clark
 

Where are we at...starting to draft soon?  

Melonville Mirage ASSL


From: ASSL@groups.io <ASSL@groups.io> on behalf of Steven Galbraith via groups.io <stevemgalbraith@...>
Sent: June 1, 2020 12:08 PM
To: ASSL@groups.io <ASSL@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ASSL] Draft thoughts/roster cutbacks
 
I think the 30 limit for ASSL is large enough for teams to both have coverage and to keep/stash a prospect. And the innoc players provide coverage. The best of both worlds.

The 24 limit in J-ROB is more difficult to handle. And, as you said, that 930/100 limits makes it difficult to balance things out. So 24 with a "distorted" 930 causes headaches.

In J-Rob, I had to cut a couple of good players that would have helped me this year. It's brutal competing against Seneca. I can't keep up with them. In ASSL there would have been no problem keeping them.

Really, the key is the number.

On Monday, June 1, 2020, 12:03:39 PM EDT, Steve Alvin <salvin123@...> wrote:


Chris,

In my experience, I disagree.  I've had bad teams in ASSL and other leagues were there are cut backs and I've never had problems keeping prospects and having enough coverage.  The difference with J-Rob when compared to other leagues like ASSL is the cockimany rules regarding 930 players.  In that league my bad team has had to constantly worry about coverage.

Steve
"I have snatched my share of joy from the grudging hand of fate as I have
jogged along, but never has life held for me anything quite so entrancing as
baseball."--Clarence Darrow


On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 9:06 AM Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory) <strovel@...> wrote:
Except that the teams that are currently weak (in the main) have more coverage holes. The stronger teams with no coverage issues can afford to draft a little bit earlier that prospect that will take a few years to mature. I think roster cuts enable strong teams to hang onto the long-term prospects better.


==
On May 29, 2020 at 1:28 PM "Thomas Battiato via groups.io" <Dodger300=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

I completely agree with Steve on this. The smaller the roster, the more parity there is. The logic is simple to follow:

If we kept zero players, every team would start the season on an equal basis, only separated by draft order.

If we kept only one player, the best  team would not be that far apart from the worst, and everyone would still have an good chance to draft a winning team.

If teams only kept their five best players, there may begin a bit of separation, but still not much.

At ten players each, the depth of a couple teams would start to rise a bit above the rest of the field.

If we kept 20 players each, there are now significant differences in the quality of the players kept. The players kept in slots 11-20 would vary significantly in quality from the best teams to the worst.

At 30 players each, there are major differences, in present value and often in prospects for the future, which cannot be made up short of several years of fortuitous drafting and trading.

At 40 players, it would be far more difficult for the weaker teams to catch up, as there is plenty of room for the better teams to hoard every player of any value rather than release them to the draft. The weaker teams can use this pool of players to find the coverage needed at various positions.

Thus, I would be opposed to keeping all the players on a roster every year as it serves to reward the stronger teams.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tom




-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Galbraith via groups.io <stevemgalbraith=yahoo.com@groups.io>
To: assl@groups.io; assl@groups.io
Sent: Fri, May 29, 2020 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: [ASSL] Draft thoughts/roster cutbacks

 
C: I'm not sure where you get the less than 70 new players? Baseball Reference has 146 players making their debuts in 1981.

As to off season cuts: My view is that is helps parity (or can) by preventing a good team(s) from stashing too many players. If a weaker team is cutting a good/better future player to keep a coverage player then that's, well, dumb <g>. With innoc players and pitchers you can always grab a body late to give you coverage.

I really can't understand why a team lacks coverage. Unless the owner is just not caring after the first 2-3 rounds. With innoc and the bonus everyone should be able to get coverage. It may be lousy coverage but it's a body.

I think 30 gives a lot of wiggle room to both keep top players AND be able to stash a future player.

On Friday, May 29, 2020, 9:45:32 AM EDT, Chris Strovel (Harpers Ferry Federal Armory) <strovel@...> wrote:


Looking at the 1981 crop of rookies, there are less than 70 new players, so we will be drafting recycled players pretty early in this one, maybe as early as the mid-2nd round. Being in the league only five seasons, I may have missed the disucssion, but has there every been a thought to eliminating the off-season roster cutbacks? We went through this discussion in J-Rob over the years, and my belief is that off-season roster cuts hurt parity. I know that's not universally agreed, but I think those cuts make it harder for the weaker teams to build for the future because they are forced to retain coverage in the short term, rather than build depth. Just two cents.....

==