Expansion - sean this time

[Jordan]

also the climate is much more baseball oriented just think seattle obviously.

exactly, its basically Seattle, we already have a team there.

If we do add Vancouver, I believe it should go to the NL west then do to the close proximity to Seattle, and then move like Colorado to the NL Central.

you would have to figure closer cities (such as boston new york) being in the same league would be a good rivalry so i wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they need to be in seperate leagues. i think most people want the league to stay the same as much as possible if expansion were to happen which means moving as little as possible. it seems like the most that could happen would be one team switching from nl to al but i dont think anybody wants a lot of real life teams changing divisions

Expansion teams always suck in their first couple of seasons. If we put both in the same league, then the AL teams will get a lot of extra wins.

[Peter]

well im not opposed to swapping milwaukee to the al to combat that problem but i honestly see that as the good solution to that

[KillaCal AKA JS]

CA needs another baseball team. We can never have enough.

[rockybull]

Doesn't matter to me either way about this. I do have to say, the league seems to be going good right now, but what happens 4 mogul years down the road and instead of needing four new GM's, you need 6? To me the extra teams and needing active GM's is just something that could hurt the league. In outahere, they have 36 teams, which I think is a lot. And they have trouble finding 2-4 new GM's every year. And when they do find them, they either quit after the first two seasons or the GM isn't all that good. I think you need to have a core group of GM's here and build off of that. I honestly like the idea of contraction more than addition. You guys can do whatever yall want, it won't matter to me either way. All I say is think of this situation 4-6 mogul years down the road. I believe this can be a big headache trying to have 32 active GM's.

[ezpkns34]

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)

[GoIrish]

In regards to the teams, you have to keep in mind that these expansion teams will have an effect in game on teams in the area. So If you put another team in NY (Syracuse), that will effect the revenue of NYM and NYY. If you put another team in Texas (San Antonio), that will have an effect on the Rangers and Astros. When DJ put these two cities together, he was looking for cities that could not provide a negative impact on another franchise.

Here is a list of the top 20 populations by city
1. New York, New York - 8,214,426
2. Los Angeles, California - 3,849,378
3. Chicago, Illinois - 2,833,321
4. Houston, Texas - 2,144,491
5. Phoenix, Arizona - 1,512,986
6. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 1,448,394
7. San Antonio, Texas - 1,296,682
8. San Diego, California - 1,256,951
9. Dallas, Texas - 1,232,940
10. San Jose, California - 929,936
11. Detroit, Michigan - 871,121
12. Jacksonville, Florida - 794,555
13. Indianapolis, Indiana - 785,597
14. San Francisco, California - 744,041
15. Columbus, Ohio - 733,203
16. Austin, Texas - 709,893
17. Memphis, Tennessee - 670,902
18. Fort Worth, Texas - 653,320
19. Baltimore, Maryland - 631,366
20. Charlotte, North Carolina - 630,478

Las Vegas comes in 28th on the list with a total of 567,641
However, the one thing that I think vegas holds over all the other cities is that Vegas has 40M of visiters per year. That is the biggest reason that the next time NBA or MLB expand that the Vegas will be the most likely destination.

[Peter]

i think before even considering this seriously, you guys need to judge how many teams are open after this resigning period because if is two or three or more it could totally not even be worth expanding

[mattynokes]

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

Which is pretty much my suggestion. To achieve more reality, teams need to allowed to protect more players as the draft goes on. You get rid of all players under X age (whatever the league decision is) and GMs make a protect list with the remaining players. As the draft goes along and teams are granted more protected players, they're simply crossed off the list.

[GoIrish]

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.

[Peter]

i dont think if expansion teams are added a ton of restrictions to players should be added because the overall goal seems to be spreading talent and if the expansion gets absolute crap it will take much longer to accomplish that goal

i also decided to do a google search on mlb expansion ideas for vancouver and there is actually a surprising number of hits and most say if canada gets another mlb team it almost certainly would be vancouver