Coslett is taking over Hutchens' team.
Question to the league:
Would we like to expand to 15 teams if the new team is willing to start out only picking from our weaker players? If we would like to, then we have plenty of time to sort that out before any drafting for the season starts.
If we were to expand, then my initial thoughts on having the new owner fill his team are that every team would protect X number of players, and beyond that no more than Y players can be taken from any one team. Please chime in (I know I don't really have to ask) with thoughts regarding whether we should expand, and if yes then how the general layout that I provide here sounds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I vote yea.
I don't think we should expand.
The new team couldn't possibly be very good unless teams could only protect, say, five players (which measure I would think likely to be wildly unpopular).
... and the redistributive forces are much less potent in this league than in MLB, making expansion very difficulut as a practical matter of maintaining a league with parity and widespread owner interest.
The league currently penetrates the player pool very deeply. There are very few players of any value whatever that remain unowned. So I can't really see an argument for it on that front either.
If we get to a point where we have 100% (consistent) owner participation, I think expansion may be a topic worth revisiting should a worthy candidate come forth.
I think a team could be decently competitive by only drafting one player from each team's lower half (teams protect 12-15 players). The point here is expansion, not to make a new team immediately competitive with our leaders. In fact, I would be kinda pissed if the new team got to draft players in the 6-10 range because the new team would probably end up being better than mine. Ideally, the new team should be about as good as bottom 2 or 3 teams in the league - then let the owner work up from there. And as far as the redistibutive forces of the league are concerned, we could do something like give the expansion team three #1 waiver priorities for the first season. My point being, if we have a chance to secure a new owner who will be committed to the league, we should take it.
I cant agree to adding another team if it means I have to disband part of my team to do so. I am not against adding another team if my team stays intact. With that condition, why would anyone want to play with the new team? He wouldnt, and the team will become inactive when he is in last place and has no hope for the next 5 years. The team will turn into a free agent pool that nobody can touch, thus making less players available for free agents and lowering the overall activity in the league.
Also, if we were allowed to keep 15 players, here is who would be available from my team: Ianetta, Stewart, Chris Young, Jimenez, Parra, Buchholz, Ray and someone else who I havent even decided yet. So, atleast for me, adding a new team = losing all my young talent. I cant agree to that.
Zach read: "I cannot agree to anything that adversely affects me in the smallest way, even if that same thing affects everyone else equally as well."
My argument for expansion is two fold. I feel that 15 is the optimal number of teams in the league because that's how Tout Wars was set up in "Fantasy Land." I Also feel that the particular person I know showing intrest in joining the league would be a good addition in all areas (he'd be competitive, baseball savy, check regularly, and probably participate on the message board as well).
All that being said, I can understand why people in the league might be reluctant to expand. So would anyone have a problem with my inviting him to be my co-manager?
Oh and also, Zach, you'd be losing one player. Hardly "all" of your young talent.
I wouldn't have a problem with him being co-owner.
Of course, that's contingent upon this person not secretly being Zach. :)
I assumed he would be able to pick up all the players on my unprotected list that I posted since they were all unprotected, not just 1 player. So, no need for the "Oh and also, Zach, you'd be losing one player. Hardly 'all' of your young talent" comment. Remember, you were the one who said "let us not all forget we created this league to further friendships - not to strain them over little things". I feel strained!
Anyway, even knowing this, I dont want to lose one of my young guys so that someone else can manage a bad team and come in last. I just dont see the point. If everyone really really wants to add another manager, here is the most fair way:
We already said we were doing the drop 3, so some managers like myself planned on that. Also, some people want to abandon that. How about we compromise and do a drop 2 and let the new guy chose his team from that pool and the free agents from this year (I say this year because he shouldnt have first choice on all the new young talent coming up from the minors)? Then, we take the remaining players (new young guys, new japanese players, rest of the free agents) and have a draft. That would be fair I think. New guy gets 2nd most draft dollars (we need to reward kyle for actually playing while in last place and starting to rebuild his team). How does that sound?
FA Team:
C - Ramon Hernandez
1B - Paul Konerko
2B - Rickie Weeks
SS - Jerry Hairston Jr
3B - Scott Rolen
OF - Nick Swicher
OF - Jeremy Hermida
OF - Mike Cameron
DH - Luke Scott
SP - Joe Blanton
SP - Tim Wakefield
SP - Anthony Reyes
SP - Sean Marshall
RP - Octavio Dotel
RP - Ramon Ramirez
As for the co-manager thing, I will never be against an outsider to the league co-managing a team. I think its great that he would co-manage with you. BTW, I am available for a secret co-managing position this year. My track record of signing hidden Cy Young gems for the team I co-manage is 1 for 1.
Zach, how could you possibly remember that quote ver batim? You truly have a gifted memory. As for the straining, I apologize. Tone and inflection don't really carry well over the internet. Anyways, I think it would be best to go the co-manager route. God knows I could use the help. And I'll keep you on my short list of double secret probation owners.
lol its ok eric...i was messing around. and the quote is from 2006...it was on the message board.
Post a Comment