Expansion

dejota · (This post was last modified: 09-13-2010, 03:56 AM by dejota.)

He means we chose Calgary and LV for geographic reasons since they're far enough away from other markets they don't impact their budgets.

Again, I would like to see these unstable GMs called out. If not publically, which is understandable, then PM Scotty and I. As has previously been mentioned we cannot control life, jobs, school, getting bored etc. but one of the things that initially sparked this conversation was the fact we were constantly able to have 3 or more GMs on the wait list in case said situations arose.

I think we also need to realize that a lot of what's creating No's, it seems, is semantics such as divisional alignment. I understand we can't just go 'that'll be worked out later', but at the same time I don't think they're deal breakers and deserve a maybe or 'yes as long as X is addressed'.

As far as the risks to the league, I keep hearing a lot of "it will ruin our league" without any further explanation or facts other than "in this other league"...I'm sorry but that's not how my brain works, I need to know why these leagues failed b/c of expansion and how FCM is or could be put in a similar situation by expansion. Until those two dots are connected it's hard to believe there weren't other factors already in place and that, at best, expansion was the straw that broke the camels back, but probably not the main cause. The only other reasoning I've heard is having poor GMs and Scotty and I have presented two GMs we support and presented the alternative of having one of our current "rock" GMs or even myself handle the other expansion team.

Lastly, I think we need to remind ourselves that nobody is dismissing anybody's POV as invalid or stupid or not counting in the grand scheme of things. A lot of animosity seems to be stemming from that line of thought. Scotty and I certainly want to field your opinions and will not make a decision without them if at all possible.

Jordan · 09-13-2010, 10:19 AM

Did I read only 20 and under is protected? lol wow that screws everything i've done the past few years.

What about retraction? Washington has been the biggest revolving door in my mind. Retreat Washington and... Seattle? haha.

If we did go on with expansion, I like sean's thoughts behind putting one team in the AL and one in the NL. I would perfer if anything to not have them both in the same division. If we do one in AL and one in NL, I'd be willing to volunteer to switch to the AL.

Jordan · 09-13-2010, 10:21 AM

If GMs liked the idea of expansion I could see it happening, but it looks like the idea doesn't have the support of the league, which in my mind says if this does go into place, many GMs are more likely to lose interest as time progresses, causing the league to fail in my opinion.

dejota · (This post was last modified: 09-13-2010, 11:10 AM by dejota.)

"Did I read"...if that's how you're starting out a post criticizing something then go reread. You did misread. 3 yrs min in league, so some 20 year olds you'll have to protect yourself others will be auto...

I point out people are upset about things we can address and I think some arguments are nit pickey and you bust out with one post w/ bad information furthering potential negativity and a joke about retraction... Additionally two minutes later you follow it up with a second post just stating the obvious. I mean I respect if you don't want it, but if you want to plug your fingers in your ears and go na-na-boo-boo then vote no and move on. Jordan you're smarter than stating your POV in that context...

ezpkns34 · 09-13-2010, 11:10 AM

(09-13-2010, 03:53 AM)dejota Wrote: I think we also need to realize that a lot of what's creating No's, it seems, is semantics such as divisional alignment. I understand we can't just go 'that'll be worked out later', but at the same time I don't think they're deal breakers and deserve a maybe or 'yes as long as X is addressed'

When all these details are hammered out, I may be more open to voting yes. But definitely not before then

***AndyP*** · 09-13-2010, 11:53 AM

I guess my no vote is pretty simple - if it ain't broke, why fix it?

People are having fun, we have a stable group of GMs, and the league is going well. Why interject something that carries a significant risk of ruining our GM stability?

it's great that we consistently have several potential people on the waiting list, but when you add two more teams to the league that waiting list can evaporate VERY quickly. Having too many GMs and not enough teams is a much, much better problem then having open teams.

And, for the record, I'd much rather see established GMs here take over the teams. No offense to anyone new coming in, but with the risk expansion takes on a league - putting that in the hands of new people is very risky. If Dejota or Scotty or Nick or Irish or whomever was doing it, even for the first 5-6 seasons, I'd feel much better about it. Proven, committed GMs is the way to go - I would be willing to take one in the best interest of the league if needed, but I think Nick is right - we need more information before we even take that step.

***Atlbravesfan27*** · 09-13-2010, 12:18 PM

I'm not understanding the distrust in myself... oh well

Jordan · 09-13-2010, 12:21 PM

(09-13-2010, 11:08 AM)dejota Wrote: "Did I read"...if that's how you're starting out a post criticizing something then go reread. You did misread. 3 yrs min in league, so some 20 year olds you'll have to protect yourself others will be auto...

I point out people are upset about things we can address and I think some arguments are nit pickey and you bust out with one post w/ bad information furthering potential negativity and a joke about retraction... Additionally two minutes later you follow it up with a second post just stating the obvious. I mean I respect if you don't want it, but if you want to plug your fingers in your ears and go na-na-boo-boo then vote no and move on. Jordan you're smarter than stating your POV in that context...

I'm a little confused by this comment, but if you mean that i'm just jumping into a convo I wasn't part of, I was posting in this thread my thoughts on this before hand, but I wasn't around for the big fuss you, mstr and who ever else had at midnight last night. I did go back early this morn and re-read all that I missed though.

And I don't see any invalidity in my statements except suggesting Seattle for contraction because they have had the same GM for a number of seasons. And you were right that i guess I could go back and re-read scotty's post about that but I don't remember what page it was one when I read everything I missed from the night before.

Like I like seans thought because that is exactly what I was thinking. It makes absolutely no sense to me even if we do expand to place both teams in the same division. But I also can't think of any big markets in the 'central' area that are un touched and not in someone elses geographical area. All I can think of is Omaha but thats a small market.

Jordan · 09-13-2010, 12:24 PM

Is it possible to get more information, like more hard copies of the research that is actually been done? Because I've heard that the teams budgets would be fine and what not, but I can't see it with my own eyes. I 'think' other GMs might agree with me that if we could be presented with more information and not be told "yes this will work" we might be more inclined to agree.

Though I for one do not see these new GMs as an issue, because even though i've been against expansion, we have talked about this for awhile in the staff form, and it took as a long time to go out and hand pick GMs that we felt would be willing and able to take an expansion team. I know scotty looked at a bunch of options and contacted a lot of people, I for one have a lot of faith in the two new GMs we have picked for a potential expansion.

GoIrish · (This post was last modified: 09-13-2010, 01:15 PM by GoIrish.)

(09-13-2010, 11:10 AM)ezpkns34 Wrote:
(09-13-2010, 03:53 AM)dejota Wrote: I think we also need to realize that a lot of what's creating No's, it seems, is semantics such as divisional alignment. I understand we can't just go 'that'll be worked out later', but at the same time I don't think they're deal breakers and deserve a maybe or 'yes as long as X is addressed'

When all these details are hammered out, I may be more open to voting yes. But definitely not before then

I have to agree with nick on this account as well. I think the outline should be drawn up and not just "we will use something like this with tweaks". It is not definite and too much can be implied or up for interpretation. I am also not a fan of the age being 20 or 3 years service. Too many good prospects are going to have to either be protected or be in the expansion draft. Typically expansion teams consist of B prospects or old vets.

I think the initial presentation of this was less than desirable and I think that is why a lot of people have put on the proverbial breaks. I am all up for anything that is unique or creative but the initial presentation made the appearance that this post was more of an FYI rather than trying to obtain additional input and I think that is why mstrpr and a couple others were rubbed the wrong way (not that I would want to rub mstrpr in any way).

Here are questions that I think need to be defined and answered, on top of my additional concern of making sure the stability of the new owners.

How many players are teams going to be able to protect?

Once a team has a player selected, are they given additional protection for remaining players. Typically in expansion drafts once a team has a player selected, they can protect X amount of additional players. The reason that is done is so one team is not cherry picked and it forces the expansion teams to select talent from all the teams.

Any limitations on players that we can protect?

how many rounds would the draft consist of?

will the expansion teams need to draft x amount of players at positions (example 2 catchers, 5 OF....)?

Are expansion teams going to get any extra benefit in the amateur draft?

(09-13-2010, 12:18 PM)Atlbravesfan27 Wrote: I'm not understanding the distrust in myself... oh well

I would not take it in that context, you are more of an unknown entity for some of the owners and people are always going to be more cautious when dealing with the unknown. That is why I was suggesting getting you and the other owner in the league even if it is a co-gm, so we can break that proverbial hurdle/barrier.