Should MLB allow a 26th man?

[The Ultimate Champion]

Hawk has long argued for the expansion of the active roster to 26. With the increasing specialization of the game (more platoon roles, 4th OFers and UT players seeming to get more time, etc.) and the bullpens being managed as they are, would this move be good for baseball?

 

My immediate thought would be yes, and I think it could make low budget teams a bit more competitive as well by allowing them to take on a permanent platoon position featuring 2 lower salary players vs. a higher salary starter who can't hit both lefties and righties. Also I think it would increase the likelihood of Michael Morse/Jayson Werth/Ryan Ludwick scenarios where a "bust" gets playing time and becomes a highly paid starter.

 

What does SoxTalk think about this?

[Steve9347]

Eh, I think the 7-day DL for concussion like symptoms was a nice change to give teams more flexibility, but 25 makes things interesting.

[LittleHurt05]

Eh, I think the 7-day DL for concussion like symptoms was a nice change to give teams more flexibility, but 25 makes things interesting.

 

The 3-day paternity leave option too, which lets a guy (Youk) leave the team for a few days for the birth of a child, without hurting his team's roster flexibility.

 

I agree that 25 makes it interesting and shouldn't change. That's part of the intrigue of baseball, keeping your pitchers fresh every day, dealing with short starts, extra innings etc. That's why I hate the 40-man roster expansion in September. Playoff spots are on the line and they completely change the rules of the game.

[witesoxfan]

The 3-day paternity leave option too, which lets a guy (Youk) leave the team for a few days for the birth of a child, without hurting his team's roster flexibility.

 

I agree that 25 makes it interesting and shouldn't change. That's part of the intrigue of baseball, keeping your pitchers fresh every day, dealing with short starts, extra innings etc. That's why I hate the 40-man roster expansion in September. Playoff spots are on the line and they completely change the rules of the game.

 

I agree with the 40-man rule, although the coolest suggestion I saw regarding that was allowing for up to 40 players, but you can only have 25 of those going into the game. Of course, that immediately rules out at least 4, so it's got flaws too.

[flavum]

I'd go 27 the first three weeks of the season, when starting pitchers aren't fully stretched to go 7-9 innings, and teams can evaluate a little longer.

 

And for September 1, you submit a 25-man roster each day, with no more than 7 bullpen arms available that day.

 

Other than that, 25 is good enough and they already allow a 26th man for doubleheaders.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I wish that they allowed a 27 man roster, but you are only able to dress 25. Then if a guy has a sprained ankle or something and is out a couple days you dont dress him and your not playing short handed. Each team could have one reserve pitcher and one reserve position player.

[Eminor3rd]

Nah, it adds value to guys that can handle non-=specialized roles and makes roster construction creative -- you have to choose your advantages and disadvantages.

[Texsox]

Interesting that someone thought it would help the same market teams, I thought it would hurt the small market teams by increasing salaries. High payroll teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and White Sox could spend a few million for that last spot, versus a couple hudnred thousand for a small market team.

[witesoxfan]

Interesting that someone thought it would help the same market teams, I thought it would hurt the small market teams by increasing salaries. High payroll teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and White Sox could spend a few million for that last spot, versus a couple hudnred thousand for a small market team.

 

Bringing it up like this, I think you're right, but for different reasons. They'll still generally pay the same amount for the last guy - $500k or so - but that's an additional $500k small market teams have to spend, which takes $500k out of another of their offers, which creates problems of prioritization.

 

For example, we have team A who is large market ($150 million payroll) and team B who is small market ($60 mill). With a 25-man roster, team A can spend $18 million on their highest paid, $6 million on average, and $500k on their 25th. Team B, on the other hand, can spend roughly $10 million on their highest paid, $2.4 million on average, and $500k on their 25th. You add an additional player, and you are looking at team A spending $18/5.5, $17.5/6, or $17.75/5.75 (roughly). There's virtually no damage done, and they are not significant, relatively speaking. Compare that to team B who then has to decide $10/1.9, $9.5/2.4, or $9.75/$2.15 (roughly). $500k CAN make a difference on that average player, which can cost said team anywhere between 1-4 wins, which can cost a division title. It's something rich teams can afford and poor cannot.

 

EDIT: Just to add, the value of the 26th player is likely to be negligible and roughly equal across all teams - there are exceptions to any and all rules, as always, but generally speaking, the value will likely be 0 - while incurring this $500k cost. Thus, it's a proportional tax, which, per the situation as described above, actually hurts small market (ala poor and middle class) teams and deincentivizes spending.

Edited January 29, 2013 by witesoxfan

[klaus kinski]

25 is fine, we have a built in "practice squad" at triple A. I would like to see additional options avaiable on AAAA players

[southsider2k5]

Unless baseball gets rid of the DH, I can't see an extra roster spot being added.

[elrockinMT]

27 players has been mentioned before and might be intersting in that you might see some professional pinch hitters like Smoky Burgess again