Expansion

[ezpkns34]

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).

Yes, this idea was not brought up in a very good way at all

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?

According to the link provided, 15

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.

Again, according to the link provided, 1 player from each team is fair game for the first 15 rounds/selections, at which point the teams are able to select 3 new players to protect

Any limitations on players that we can protect?

Not that I saw in their link

how many rounds would the draft consist of?

35 players per expansion team

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

Don't see why we should force people to select players at certain positions. If they think they're better off filling 2b or their rotation in free agency, why shouldn't they get that choice?

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

Unless there was a recent change, expansion teams have the last 2 picks of each round of the ammy draft in their first season. I believe the order is determined by the team that got the first pick of the expansion draft got the last pick, and the other team got the next to last pick

[dejota]

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.

From my POV the new GMs to open teams ratio situation doesn't change in the slightest. As had been pointed out repeatedly, there's two lines of reasoning when it comes to GMs leaving: Things nobody can control (life if you will) or putting bad GMs in place who were a liability to begin with.

Expansion in no way affects either of those in itself. The 'Life' situation never changes and falls under the old you can't let fear control you addage. The other aspect is doing a bad job of placing GMs to begin with. That flys directly in the face of the foundation of the very point that's trying to be established. Which is: we got a good thing going...Frankly if Scotty and I weren't capable of finding solid GMs there would be a good thing going to begin with. So I think it's a logical fallacy to play the We've got a good thing going card while pimping the two extra teams as the only real threat expansion presents to the league's integrity.

[GoIrish]

Nick, my point was the wording of the first post, if the age of 22 is arbitrary in interpretation, what else is arbitrary. I think we should have a rough draft of what we would be going into. That way we have no "I did not know that" moments.

[dejota]

As far as the logistics of the actual draft and protection go, it's as close to how BBM handles expansion drafts themselves. Thanks nick for the run down and everything he wrote is accurate according to my knowledge. The only thing that I didn't see that is important is you can only lose 1 player per round (aka, before you get the choice of protecting 3 more players)

[ezpkns34]

Nick, my point was the wording of the first post, if the age of 22 is arbitrary in interpretation, what else is arbitrary. I think we should have a rough draft of what we would be going into. That way we have no "I did not know that" moments.

Yeh, as I already said, I believe a detailed post needs to be made in this forum. The post should leave zero gray area in regards to any of the expansion talks, ranging from team stadiums to league alignment to the expansion draft as well as any & everything in between. I know this idea isn't fun or 'sexy' but I cannot possibly give a vote of approval without something like this being done

[dejota]

I'm completely on board with that Nick and will see if I can generate one this evening. Having read that post about expansion and played as expansion teams many times in BBM I suppose the "how's" are a bit more self-evident for me.

[AndyP]

From my POV the new GMs to open teams ratio situation doesn't change in the slightest. As had been pointed out repeatedly, there's two lines of reasoning when it comes to GMs leaving: Things nobody can control (life if you will) or putting bad GMs in place who were a liability to begin with.

When you add two more teams that always need a GM - it absolutely changes the ratio. Shit, by definition it at least does that much. The problem with adding two more teams is that it opens the gap for a large revolving door. It doesn't mean we can't fill it, but it means it makes it that much harder to keep the league full.

It isn't a fallacy to suggest that a good thing can become a bad thing quickly. We're coming up to the end of the baseball season which historically marks a dampened enthusiaism in mogul leagues. We're running into the time of year when life situations (school) tend to happen to more people. We already have several members of the league that may be great at posting DC, but are invisible otherwise.

Expansion teams eat into the buffer zone you have between a waiting list and open teams. Open teams are the first thing that starts to kill a league. It's a risky manuever that I just don't see any good reason to do.

All the logistics and things aside, I just don't see the pressing need to do it.

[Scott]

I keep reading open teams. When was the last time we had an open team without someone on the waiting list? Season 1?

['PR']

I keep reading open teams. When was the last time we had an open team without someone on the waiting list? Season 1?

It's not about that. It's about how many times they become open and how active the new GMs are that take those teams. Within a year in the game the Tigers have gone through 3 GMs, same for Red Sox, and the Red Sox are a large market franchise. The Tigers have had absolutely no activity while under their previous 2 GMs, and Fink stuck around because he posted a line up, however no one could ever find him and when he did come on it was only for about 10 or 15 minutes. My point is it doesn't matter if you can replace a GM over and over again, it matters how effective the new GM is and how often a team is given a new GM. Should be no more than 1 GM per 2-3 full seasons.

[Scott]

I keep reading open teams. When was the last time we had an open team without someone on the waiting list? Season 1?

It's not about that. It's about how many times they become open and how active the new GMs are that take those teams. Within a year in the game the Tigers have gone through 3 GMs, same for Red Sox, and the Red Sox are a large market franchise. The Tigers have had absolutely no activity while under their previous 2 GMs, and Fink stuck around because he posted a line up, however no one could ever find him and when he did come on it was only for about 10 or 15 minutes. My point is it doesn't matter if you can replace a GM over and over again, it matters how effective the new GM is and how often a team is given a new GM. Should be no more than 1 GM per 2-3 full seasons.

Good point