Roster Size For The 2011 Season

[mgteich]

Some say that teams will reduce roster size to 45 in order to save money. That is rather poor analysis. Add 15 to that sunber only amounts to about $5M. The teams may indeed reduce overall compensation. However that will almost certainly come from the amount paid to this year's free agents, and perhaps the 1st roun d draft choices.

So, IMHO, even if the there is a reduced salary cap from 2009, or if teams simply spend less, it is the free agents who will suffer.
---------------------------------------

ROSTER SIZE is a different issue. There will need to be a way to bring on rookies that will likely not be effective this year due a reduced amount of offseason practices. We had an example in Price last year.

OPTION ONE
Have roster expemptions for rookies and keep the 53 man limit.

OPTION TWO
Have a roster limit of 60. This increase could be only for 2011 and there could be a different limit for 2012.

OPTION THREE
Have a permanent change to 56. This was suggested early in the negotiations.

BOTTOM LINE ON ROSTER LIMIT
The issue is how to allow teams to protect plays that will not contribute this year. let's say an agreement is signed in Mid August. It would a great hardship for most teams to have a 53 man roster limit.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Some say that teams will reduce roster size to 45 in order to save money. That is rather poor analysis. Add 15 to that sunber only amounts to about $5M. The teams may indeed reduce overall compensation. However that will almost certainly come from the amount paid to this year's free agents, and perhaps the 1st roun d draft choices.

So, IMHO, even if the there is a reduced salary cap from 2009, or if teams simply spend less, it is the free agents who will suffer.
---------------------------------------

ROSTER SIZE is a different issue. There will need to be a way to bring on rookies that will likely not be effective this year due a reduced amount of offseason practices. We had an example in Price last year.

OPTION ONE
Have roster expemptions for rookies and keep the 53 man limit.

OPTION TWO
Have a roster limit of 60. This increase could be only for 2011 and there could be a different limit for 2012.

OPTION THREE
Have a permanent change to 56. This was suggested early in the negotiations.

BOTTOM LINE ON ROSTER LIMIT
The issue is how to allow teams to protect plays that will not contribute this year. let's say an agreement is signed in Mid August. It would a great hardship for most teams to have a 53 man roster limit.

Shrinking rosters sizes would damage the product... hurting the game, the players and the fans.

 

[TheSolderKing]

I really hope this is not the case decreased roster size is a huge catastrophe. If anything the roster size needs to be expanded by two players and perhaps even three



I hope you're wrong

 

[AzPatsFan]

The Players decreed that the Revenue Pie would not increase in size. The owners who pay the checks said they need and will take a bigger piece of the pie. So the Players have explicitly chosen to get less. That is the simple math of the situation.

The smaller pie can be served equitably with a) smaller rosters, or b) pay cuts of high price players, rookies or FA. That second alternative is what will likely happen. Although the highly paid players and FA will yell "Collusion" when no one wants their services at the present or their expectant rates.

Many veterans will unexpectedly get asked by the clubs to "renegotiate" their salaries downward with the predictable outcry.

 

[mgdouche]

Some would like a sunber of expemptions. Other posters would like a number of exemptions.

Some say that teams will reduce roster size to 45 in order to save money. That is rather poor analysis. Add 15 to that sunber only amounts to about $5M. The teams may indeed reduce overall compensation. However that will almost certainly come from the amount paid to this year's free agents, and perhaps the 1st roun d draft choices.

So, IMHO, even if the there is a reduced salary cap from 2009, or if teams simply spend less, it is the free agents who will suffer.
---------------------------------------

ROSTER SIZE is a different issue. There will need to be a way to bring on rookies that will likely not be effective this year due a reduced amount of offseason practices. We had an example in Price last year.

OPTION ONE
Have roster expemptions for rookies and keep the 53 man limit.

OPTION TWO
Have a roster limit of 60. This increase could be only for 2011 and there could be a different limit for 2012.

OPTION THREE
Have a permanent change to 56. This was suggested early in the negotiations.

BOTTOM LINE ON ROSTER LIMIT
The issue is how to allow teams to protect plays that will not contribute this year. let's say an agreement is signed in Mid August. It would a great hardship for most teams to have a 53 man roster limit.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

If they increase the season to 18 weeks they absolutely need to increase the roster size.

 

[mgteich]

The issue that I am raising is that we need an increased roster size for 2011 because of the shortened offseason. If players come into camp for the first time in July, many rooks and free agents will not be ready for the season.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

The issue that I am raising is that we need an increased roster size for 2011 because of the shortened offseason. If players come into camp for the first time in July, many rooks and free agents will not be ready for the season.

How will adding more rooks and FA solve that problem? Its not like increasing the roster size is going to increase the number of vets.