smoovethug wrote:I voted other. I hate to be difficult but all of these seem to have flaws IMO. I'm all for LF, CF, RF. I'd prefer IF over MI and CI but I've got no problem there either. Actually its fine because I like deeper rosters. Just seems that if you're going to have MI and CI then you'd need to add a OF to LF, CF, RF. My preferred layout would look like: C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, MI, CI, LF, CF, RF, OF, Util.
That option sounds fine.
That is fine with me
Yep me too. I voted number 4, but you can count me in as this one/other if you like. This should make it lovely and deep.
Snakes Gould wrote:there needs to be one more OF slot...you're adding two additional IF positions, but only adding 1, doesnt seem balanced.
Exactly. It isn't balanced with 2 other infield positions and only 1 extra OF position. Also what are we doing about bench spots and number of DL's? At least 5 bench spots will be good for me, 2 DL's seem fine.
Hal·la·day, n. 1. every fifth day in Philadelphia. 2. a day of rest for the bullpen. 3. innings eater. 4. doc. 5. ace.