Expansion

dejota · 11-27-2010, 01:47 AM

I'll back him, it seems that expansion (for some reason) boosts other teams so long as they're not encroaching on an existing market.

This is bringing something new to the reasons for expansion table, if nothing else. I think the next step towards sorting the matter would be deciding which two cities should be expansion cities since it's harder to paint a solid divisional picture until we know which cities are candidates for expansion. So in lieu of bring up your same schtick, I encourage people to nominate two cities for expansion and the way they'd align the divisions if their cities were chosen.

If you aren't bringing somethign new to the table or addressing Scotty's specific point I ask you refrain from posting. Silence will be taken as dissaproval, I don't want this turn into flame wars VIII

'PR' · 11-27-2010, 01:49 AM

Ok so what your saying is if I want to point something out about expansion that Scotty's post doesn't address, I shouldn't even respond right?

ezpkns34 · 11-27-2010, 01:53 AM

My main thing is just making sure 1 ex. team is in each league (meaning an NL team would need to switch over). No qualms with OFG's expansion rules being used

Don't have any city suggestions though. Off the top of my head I'd look at San Antonio, Sacramento, Vancouver, Portland & LV (assuming SA & Van don't encroach on other markets)

dejota · 11-27-2010, 01:57 AM

I want people to quit shitting on each other. So if you can't point something out logically and without being a dick I don't want it. 90% of the posts in this thread fails to meet those two requirements. As a result it's become nothing more than flame throwing. If you can't debate this subject without an open mind then stay out of this round.

dejota · 11-27-2010, 01:58 AM

(11-27-2010, 01:53 AM)ezpkns34 Wrote: My main thing is just making sure 1 ex. team is in each league (meaning an NL team would need to switch over). No qualms with OFG's expansion rules being used

Don't have any city suggestions though. Off the top of my head I'd look at San Antonio, Sacramento, Vancouver, Portland & LV (assuming SA & Van don't encroach on other markets)

Fair enough, if these requirements were met you'd be completely on board?

dejota · 11-27-2010, 02:05 AM

And to be clear my goal isn't to necessarily get this passed but to move this discussion forward logically. The cities and divisional alignment is the starting point. If we can all get on a similar page with those two things I'll redo a formal proposal attempting to address the issues previously brought up with Scotty's initial proposal.

I think it's safe to say if we can get on the same page as far as alignment/cities it's officially over for expansion. If we can agree on that I think most would feel it's worth moving to the next point. Who will take the Expansion teams and how the expansion will be run (the formal proposal I'll type up). So if you guys can work on me by taking this step-by-step and not flaming each other I promise we can end this thread once and for all before the 2016 season. Deal?

ezpkns34 · 11-27-2010, 02:05 AM

(11-27-2010, 01:58 AM)dejota Wrote:
(11-27-2010, 01:53 AM)ezpkns34 Wrote: My main thing is just making sure 1 ex. team is in each league (meaning an NL team would need to switch over). No qualms with OFG's expansion rules being used

Don't have any city suggestions though. Off the top of my head I'd look at San Antonio, Sacramento, Vancouver, Portland & LV (assuming SA & Van don't encroach on other markets)

Fair enough, if these requirements were met you'd be completely on board?

I'm not against expansion, I'm against it being done without a set plan of how to tackle it.

Showing us how expansion can lead to better attendance & revenue is a great step. Having the league as a whole spitball ideas of which cities & where to place them would be another good step. Deciding what GMs to run them would then be another step.

Taking it step by step wouldn't take as long as it sounds and would allow us to put a set timetable in place so GMs can make any necessary adjustments

Scott · 11-27-2010, 02:19 AM

Just ran some more tests... It looks as if Vegas and Vancouver had some great results... They had a budget in 65M-75M range, without affecting other markets

psbaseballfan27 · 11-27-2010, 02:23 AM

First off please gm's lets not start WWIII. I think we should look for cities that will not hurt or effect, at mininum, current MLB teams. The indiviual cities otherwise can be chosen anywhere. If two qualified Gm's took over then that would go a long way as to get my vote. (DJ said is was possible he would take over, that would really earn my support of this project.) Finally I think we need significant league support. Some gm's you won't be able to convince which is fine, just make sure this move doesnt kill them. My biggest concern is pissing off GM's and having opening caused by it.

ezpkns34 · 11-27-2010, 02:33 AM

(11-27-2010, 02:19 AM)Scott Wrote: Just ran some more tests... It looks as if Vegas and Vancouver had some great results... They had a budget in 65M-75M range, without affecting other markets

65-75M, but how much was being spent on expenses? If they're last in both med & farm with those totals, it could get ugly