Expansion - sean this time

[GoIrish]

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

That is true Peter, but you also have to consider that some people have taken a lot of effort and work into making their roster and it should be protected as much as it can in the fairest way possible.

We need to make sure that teams don't have to waste their protection picks on players that they should have solid control over. However, we want to try and deversify some of this talent, it is all about finding the happy medium.

[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.

[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.

#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.

I understand, I just don't think that rule will mesh with the rules we have put in place to govern the contracts of players. It would leave off some good players without the team having to use one of their allocated protections.

[Jordan]

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

Sure, if "canada" gets one, I can't think of another Canadian city that could possibly support a team.

[Jordan]

Calgary would never get an expansion team because they are in the middle of no where, write them out. They tried to have a minor league team, the Calgary Cannons, but the poor weather led to bad attendance and no longer made economic sense to have a team in Calgary.

Maybe we should look at attendance numbers of minor league teams to see which cities would be most interested in having a team.

Sacramento, Columbus, Louisville, Buffalo are cities that pop out to me on that list. Las Vegas is not even on the top 20 - when people go to Las Vegas, they are normally not interested in going to a baseball game.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/sports/201...ar-503987/


It shouldn't be a matter of population to determine which city can sustain a Major League team. It should be a matter of which city has people that would want to go to a baseball game.

Look at the Green Bay Packers in the NFL, they always sell out but are in an illogical location population wise for an NFL team.

Sean, did you see this post? I disagree with your population list.

[dejota]

Color me surprised, no negative comments or questions about the league's long-term viability!! HOORAY!

[mattynokes]

I understand, I just don't think that rule will mesh with the rules we have put in place to govern the contracts of players. It would leave off some good players without the team having to use one of their allocated protections.

Yeah, I figured that was just understood -- That we have humans running the teams, so if they want to draft a 40 year old, so be it.

Again, I'll just say my suggested rules have most of what the thread that Nick linked.

Whether it be 20 and under or 21 and under or whatever, that exact thing can be worked out. Yes, in the real world there's stipulations on age at draft/signing date. If we choose that route, great, that'll only add more realism. An age number is simply easier to do with the info we can pull from the roster page.

And DJ, I'll say the only question of this league is if it can really handle 32 teams and that's a question any league has to ask itself.

[Cdawg]

I'd like to make a radical suggestion. A team in Mexico City. Mexico City has about 9M inhabitants in the city. It's got a high growth rate and contrary to belief it's not a ghetto. 32 Skyscrapers are set to be or are being developed in MC. It's the 8th richest city in the world is is home to one of the top financial centers in North America. and it's not inconceivable for a team to travel to a Texas team and then a short trip to MC and back again to another city w/ 1 day off. It is about 1050miles from Houston and with in 2000 miles of Los Angeles.(both are car travel and not a more direct route) Theoretically w/ a Japanese bullet train that is traveling it's top speed of 200MPH it can get from LA to Mexico in 10 hours.

Again it's a radical thought, but just something to stir the pot.

[Peter]

I'd like to make a radical suggestion. A team in Mexico City. Mexico City has about 9M inhabitants in the city. It's got a high growth rate and contrary to belief it's not a ghetto. 32 Skyscrapers are set to be or are being developed in MC. It's the 8th richest city in the world is is home to one of the top financial centers in North America. and it's not inconceivable for a team to travel to a Texas team and then a short trip to MC and back again to another city w/ 1 day off. It is about 1050miles from Houston and with in 2000 miles of Los Angeles.(both are car travel and not a more direct route) Theoretically w/ a Japanese bullet train that is traveling it's top speed of 200MPH it can get from LA to Mexico in 10 hours.

Again it's a radical thought, but just something to stir the pot.

the elevation of mexico city is like 7 or 8000 feet i thought colorado was home run city

[Jordan]

I'd like to make a radical suggestion. A team in Mexico City. Mexico City has about 9M inhabitants in the city. It's got a high growth rate and contrary to belief it's not a ghetto. 32 Skyscrapers are set to be or are being developed in MC. It's the 8th richest city in the world is is home to one of the top financial centers in North America. and it's not inconceivable for a team to travel to a Texas team and then a short trip to MC and back again to another city w/ 1 day off. It is about 1050miles from Houston and with in 2000 miles of Los Angeles.(both are car travel and not a more direct route) Theoretically w/ a Japanese bullet train that is traveling it's top speed of 200MPH it can get from LA to Mexico in 10 hours.

Again it's a radical thought, but just something to stir the pot.

In a fictional league I was doing by myself, I once added the Mexico City Mexicans, and the Montreal Canadians at an expansion.