Expansion

GoIrish · 09-13-2010, 01:30 AM

I voted no because I don't want this process to be rushed. I think the people taking the expansion teams should be a co-gm or hold a position in the league for a full season. I understand that DJ and Scotty know the two GM's however since I have been in this league since day 1, we have seen GM's enter this league that had great resumes only to vanish and that is my major concern. If we bring in 2 expansion teams and we have those owners vanish, it is going to be a real pain in the ass to go through a revolving doors with owners. I think it could add frustration and rock the boat for some owners in the league and I want to make sure that there are no issues.

I don't mean what I said above in any way to pass judgment on atlbravesfan or to question Scotty or DJ, I think Scotty and DJ know how I value their opinions and the work that they do in this league. I also think from atlbravesfan posts on this thread, I think he is going to be quality GM but I think it would ease a lot of minds if they saw him (as well as the other gm in question) around for a season in some manor. I will be more than happy to allow one of them to be my co-gm for the season. I think we see them around, let them ease their way into this and at this time next season, we bring the topic up for discussion.

My other concern, i have discussed with DJ and I think we have it figured out with Calgary. My problem with Calgary is their per capita income is only 18,200. They are already an average to below average market with population, you add in now they are well below average in per capita income and this will make them a small market team. That will not be a good recipe for success in being a small market team and an expansion team on top of it. I think the per capita income would need to be increased to the mid 20's for them to have a legit shot at making it as an expansion team, along with a minor bump in their population to reflect what it currently is as opposed to what it is in file.

***Atlbravesfan27*** · 09-13-2010, 01:34 AM

(09-13-2010, 01:27 AM)Mstrpr626 Wrote: I'm basically saying this beacuse I've been in past leagues with a GM core of the same excellence and they have fallen. It's been so hard to create a league with these kind of GMs and this kind of staff, along with this kind of dedication. Can't we relax and live with the beauty of what we got before going ahead and jumping into expansion? It's a subject that changes the whole perspective of the league. I don't question anyone, but I really just want to enjoy our success for a while longer, strive to achieve 10 seasons which is a great accomplishment and see what teams need consistent and active GMs so they don't go through them like water. Right now, me and many other GMs just want to enjoy this league and play the game, we don't want to have to cram our heads into a subject that could risk it all.

again, i understand what your saying, but, why would expanion risk it all? i dont get why its such a big deal. you would still have fun if all the teams were filled and everything went smoothly correct? a good commish will know what teams need attention, hopefully, they know that right now. and hopefully they are working on that right now. i'm not arguing for expansion, i just dont see why people say they would quit if expansion happened. you make very valid points, i've argued for both sides, but to say you would quit even if the expansion went smoothly, is a bit juvenile

'PR' · 09-13-2010, 01:49 AM

Never said i would quit. I said I was going to quit because I thought the decision on expansion was made for the entire league without the voice of the GMs being heard. It would risk it all because if the GMs taking the teams fall, we know have one or 2 teams in deeply hot water, along with the other teams in the league that have GM trouble. Liabilities is something I really don't like when we have an up and coming league like this. Even if Scotty and DJ over looked those teams, that takes up their time and focus. If those two teams can't get off their feet, we will have 3-5 teams that consistently lose GMs and that's not good.

***Atlbravesfan27*** · 09-13-2010, 01:57 AM

(09-13-2010, 01:49 AM)Mstrpr626 Wrote: Never said i would quit. I said I was going to quit because I thought the decision on expansion was made for the entire league without the voice of the GMs being heard. It would risk it all because if the GMs taking the teams fall, we know have one or 2 teams in deeply hot water, along with the other teams in the league that have GM trouble. Liabilities is something I really don't like when we have an up and coming league like this. Even if Scotty and DJ over looked those teams, that takes up their time and focus. If those two teams can't get off their feet, we will have 3-5 teams that consistently lose GMs and that's not good.

Fair enough. And maybe that is something that dj and scotty need to look into before expanding. What teams right now currently have a revolving door of gm's and which ones, if any are having financial problems and get those teams squared away with solid gm's first. you cant neglect a team or two and then expand with teams in trouble or idle b/c of no gm. I can only speak for myself, as i would not be a liability to a team. especially an expansion team. But i love a challenge, and if there is a team right now that is in trouble, or a team that has a revolving door of gm's, i'd be willing to take on one of those teams...anyhow, you guys have some thinking to do on this issue before this goes through. Though i do think it could be done, with of course, dedication and unity

ezpkns34 · (This post was last modified: 09-13-2010, 02:14 AM by ezpkns34.)

My biggest issues with expansion are ones that I already mentioned in this thread.

1 - Both expansion teams starting in the same division
2 - The appearance that it was going to happen regardless of the outcome of a league vote

Another issue I would take is that I would like to see a detailed post regarding the ins & outs of exactly what an expansion draft would consist of, such as:
- age limits
- number of protected players
- number of drafted players for each team
- number of rounds
- when the draft would be conducted
- how teams unable to attend the draft would be handled

I know some of you guys like to just assume that it will get worked out by then, but before I even think of voting yes, I would like to see all rules regarding the expansion teams and the accompanying expansion draft posted on this forum

Scott · 09-13-2010, 02:17 AM

(09-13-2010, 02:14 AM)ezpkns34 Wrote: My biggest issues with expansion are ones that I already mentioned in this thread.

1 - Both expansion teams starting in the same division
2 - The appearance that it was going to happen regardless of the outcome of a league vote

Another issue I would take is that I would like to see a detailed post regarding the ins & outs of exactly what an expansion draft would consist of, such as:
- age limits
- number of protected players
- number of drafted players for each team
- number of rounds
- when the draft would be conducted
- how teams unable to attend the draft would be handled

I know some of you guys like to just assume that it will get worked out by then, but before I even think of voting yes, I would like to see all rules regarding the expansion teams and the accompanying expansion draft posted on this forum

It is in the 1st post. With the exception to deleting all players 20 and under instead of 22.

GoIrish · 09-13-2010, 02:22 AM

Both expansion teams could not be in the same division. That would make the leagues way too unbalanced. One would have to go in the NL and the other in the AL. We would then need a team from the NL to go over the AL. That is the only way to balance out the win allocation that will come in the first couple seasons for expansion teams.

my thought would be to have Milwaukee do the old switch a roo once again. Considering they have gone AL to NL already once and have a prior history in the AL.

ezpkns34 · (This post was last modified: 09-13-2010, 02:42 AM by ezpkns34.)

(09-13-2010, 02:17 AM)Scott Wrote: It is in the 1st post. With the exception to deleting all players 20 and under instead of 22.

Didn't see the link the first time around, I guess I assumed the rest of the post was info on the newly introduced teams

Assuming the draft is held between the WS & Re-signings? Any particular reason expansion teams won't be able to draft injured players?

Still think it is ridiculous to have both expansion teams starting in the exact same division. The odds of the wildcard team coming out of that division are disproportionately high

Scott · 09-13-2010, 02:47 AM

(09-13-2010, 02:34 AM)ezpkns34 Wrote:
(09-13-2010, 02:17 AM)Scott Wrote: It is in the 1st post. With the exception to deleting all players 20 and under instead of 22.

Didn't see the link the first time around, I guess I assumed the rest of the post was info on the newly introduced teams

Assuming the draft is held between the WS & Re-signings? Any particular reason expansion teams won't be able to draft injured players?

Still think it is ridiculous to have both expansion teams starting in the exact same division. The odds of the wildcard team coming out of that division are disproportionately high

It evens out the leagues without hurting existing budgets,thus why why we chose this option

ezpkns34 · (This post was last modified: 09-13-2010, 02:50 AM by ezpkns34.)

Having one expansion team in the AL & one in the NL will not effect budgets