Expansion

mike · 11-27-2010, 07:03 AM

May I point out that we have gone through a few gm's this season for lack of activity, however I'm just stating that to get that part out of the way.

If in theory expansion got passed I figure get 2 cities that would support a 100mil budget for spending on players and at least 15th ranked in expenses so about 20mil on each there. So find places that can afford 140mil budget total. This way we don't add to the small budget teams and we don't add any potential power house teams either.

'PR' · (This post was last modified: 11-27-2010, 11:45 AM by 'PR'.)

(11-27-2010, 07:03 AM)mike Wrote: May I point out that we have gone through a few gm's this season for lack of activity, however I'm just stating that to get that part out of the way.

If in theory expansion got passed I figure get 2 cities that would support a 100mil budget for spending on players and at least 15th ranked in expenses so about 20mil on each there. So find places that can afford 140mil budget total. This way we don't add to the small budget teams and we don't add any potential power house teams either.

I do believe that our core is strong enough to get past it. In theory, with 2 established GMs taking the expanding team, they're leaving teams that are in the right path behind, and I'm sure we'll be able to find a way to get a GM to take the Tigers or Astros. Hell, I'm not opposed to taking one of the two for the sake of the league. I'd be up for taking the Tigers most of all because I would not want to be managing in DJ's shadow :P.

There is one thing to be said however. I believe I might have jumped the gun by saying the Tigers would be available, Stang hasn't yet given his take on whether he'd be fine leaving the Tigers for an expansion team, so I think it's safe to wait until he comments, even though I'm the only one that even put the Tigers name out there lol. When it comes to realignment I have a couple of ideas as well.

***AndyP*** · 11-27-2010, 01:17 PM

If stang doesn't want the expansion team, I've always said I would take them. So there is a backup in case he turns it down.

'PR' · (This post was last modified: 11-27-2010, 01:25 PM by 'PR'.)

I think that when it comes to realignment two teams should be added to the AL West. I would like to change one of the cities I chose from Montreal to Salt Lake City. Since Vancouver is so close to the AL team of Seattle I think it's best we keep them in the NL, and Salt Lake would take a spot in the NL West. We should move a team like Arizona, San Diego, or Colorado to the AL West to even the leagues out. We could do also do Vancouver and Montreal, put Montreal back into the NL East and move an NL Central team to the AL Central and have Vancouver in the AL West, but like I said I don't think it's a good idea to have two AL teams so close to each other. I like the 1st option because we would be leaving the NL Central alone, and less amount of movement we can have is for the better IMO. We're only messing with two divisions of the same region in that option, unlike the second option where we are messing with 4 divisions of 3 different regions.

ezpkns34 · (This post was last modified: 11-27-2010, 01:47 PM by ezpkns34.)

Personally, I think Milwaukee should be given the first option of going to the AL Central since they were an AL team not long ago. Should erick turn down that option, then we could open it up to other teams (probably to Ari & Col first since they are the newest NL teams)

dejota · 11-27-2010, 02:20 PM

The thing we're not taking into consideration is we can adjust the cities to create mid market teams (or small or large, whatever suits us. I think mid-market teams are best for league health). So if we have that ability the best thing to take into account imo would be geographical locations.

I think Las Vegas and Calgary would be ideal city locations b/c of location. If we select those two locations here's how I'd realign.

MIL to AL Central, LV expansion in AL West.
CAL expands to NL Central.

5-6-5 for both leagues. Only problem here would be an incredibly weak AL West...thoughts?

ezpkns34 · 11-27-2010, 02:25 PM

(11-27-2010, 02:20 PM)dejota Wrote: The thing we're not taking into consideration is we can adjust the cities to create mid market teams (or small or large, whatever suits us. I think mid-market teams are best for league health)

You mean altering the cities to make them artificially larger? If so, I'm not a fan of that

dejota · 11-27-2010, 02:32 PM

Basically yes. But we wouldn't be pigeon holed to only adjusting cities to be larger there growth and per capita income, but the point is that we can create whatever market is ideal and let geography decide where we put the new teams not outdated city info.

ezpkns34 · (This post was last modified: 11-27-2010, 02:37 PM by ezpkns34.)

I don't like that idea of making the cities bigger just to do it. If the city can't handle a team I think it shouldn't be an option. I mean Calgary would never even be thought of as a destination in real life. Not sure what it's budget looks like in Mogul, but if it doesn't look like it can handle a team, I think that tells us something

dejota · 11-27-2010, 02:37 PM

Fair enough, I keep going to Calgary b/c it should affect other team's markets. What semi-central local would have the pop. and per capita to support an expansion team?