Expansion - sean this time

[mattynokes]

Realistic, simple to implement rules on an expansion draft - http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread....-procedure&p=1109529#post1109529

As far as cities, my vote is the same as when expansion was last brought up (Vegas & Vancouver)

In that Post, I don't see the purpose of point number 5

"5) Sort the remaining list by “Years Experience” as the primary sort and “Age” as a secondary sort, and delete out any players that are both “Arb 10” AND are age 25 or younger. I figure that any players that are age 26 or older and still a couple years away from being arbitration eligible should have a chance at possibly playing elsewhere. However, if their current team still likes that player enough to make him one of their protected players, they can do so, which leads us to step 6."

I also don't agree with 22 and younger being exempt, I think it should be any player in the prior 2 drafts or under 20 years of age (I think that is how MLB does it).

For the 1997 expansion draft

"In addition to the above, players chosen in the 1996 and 1997 amateur drafts were automatically protected, plus players who were 18 or younger when signed in 1995."

I think you also need to keep in mind that the pool of players for MLB expansion to what we are doing is much much larger of a pool than what we have here (MLB minors are much more vast than what we have). I don't think we should allow the same protection of players. I think the number for protection should be closer to 10 than 15.

In regards to the cities, I agree with you on Vegas as a destination because they could slide right into an AL or NL west division. I don't know about Vancouver because that could eat into Seattles market.

#5 and really that whole post on the SM boards is for people who want to expand in their personal dynasty, but don't want to control the expansion teams. That's why older players or those close to exhausting their 6 years of team control are suggested to be removed from the selection lists.