| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 59.1 | What about expansion? | EVMS::WRIDE | Remember what the Dormouse said | Mon Dec 09 1996 21:54 | 20 |
| I'd like to see whether we can expand back to 20 teams this year. The
layoffs and downsizing seem to have leveled off, so maybe we can keep
a bit more stability than we've had for the last several years. I think
20 teams is about right for a combined league, in that it would make us
compete for the lower level players without having to fight over guys
like Rafael Belliard.
If we can get a consensus for expansion, I'd like to put it to a vote
fairly soon so we have a chance to find new owners and replace those
we lose through attrition (hopefully everyone'll be back).
Would it be fair to just give the new teams their 260 ducats and let
them stock themselves in the draft? As long as they have a shot at
doubling the Long Term Contracts and get to bid on everyone else whose
contracts are expiring, I don't think it's necessary to throw players
from each team into an expansion pool for a special draft.
Whattya think?
Steve
|
| 59.2 | 20 teams would be perfect. | BABAGI::adapt1.shr.dec.com::dlane | http://adapt1.shr.dec.com:80/index.htm | Tue Dec 10 1996 11:26 | 12 |
| I like the idea of an expanded league! I vote we try to drum up
enough more owners to try and get to 20 teams.
I also think just giving new owners their 260 ducats is enough.
Every season, big name ball players get just too expensive to
keep and there's always good major talent in the available pool.
Dana
|
| 59.3 | Can anyone beat Sam in 97? | STOWOA::WEINSTEIN | | Tue Dec 10 1996 16:54 | 5 |
| I still haven't slept since losing to Sam on that tie breaker! ;-)
I like the idea of expanding back to 20, and I agree that 260 ducats is enough.
|
| 59.4 | | CSLALL::TMACDONALD | | Wed Dec 11 1996 10:00 | 4 |
|
I fully agree with the ideas expressed in the base notes and previous
replies.
|
| 59.5 | I agree | FRSBEE::DEVANEY | Tim Devaney DTN 285-3635 | Wed Dec 11 1996 11:17 | 4 |
| re -1 me too
Tim
|
| 59.6 | | AWECIM::MCAULIFFE | | Tue Dec 17 1996 19:18 | 6 |
|
I agree too, let's expand to 20. Giving them 260 ducats is okay (as
there is no clean way of allowing the new owners to predraft prior to
the regular draft)
Dan
|
| 59.7 | yes for 20 | REQUE::HARDY | | Tue Dec 17 1996 20:13 | 5 |
|
20 owners would be great, and I think being unleashed with 260
ducats would be fun (and fair) for the new owners.
Sam
|
| 59.8 | How about this idea | SCASS1::WATKINS | | Wed Dec 18 1996 00:22 | 13 |
| How about giving them the 260 ducats, but let the current owners
protect say 12 players and offer long term contracts to the 4 they are
entitled to. If the new owners want one of the LTC, let them get first
choice at them at say 10 ducats over the LTC offer. Then they can draft
from the current teams unprotected players only until they reach 12
players. The current teams would lose two players max. The new
team would have to add say 5 ducats for any player drafted. That is
more or less how real expansion works, why not try to follow the real
world?
This is just a thought if no one likes it I can live with that to.
Dave
|
| 59.9 | Works for me. | BABAGI::adapt1.shr.dec.com::dlane | http://adapt1.shr.dec.com:80/index.htm | Wed Dec 18 1996 17:58 | 4 |
| I'd be willing to give that a go as well. I'm easy. That is a better
approximation of what happens in real life...
Dana
|
| 59.10 | I still like the KISS principle | EVMS::WRIDE | Remember what the Dormouse said | Wed Dec 18 1996 21:32 | 20 |
| Dave's idea has a lot of merit, but there's two problems with complicating
the draft to make it more fair to the expansion teams:
1. Time. Having an expansion draft before the regular draft is going to
move the timetable up by a week or two, meaning we'd start things off
around the beginning of February. We may not even have two new owners
by then, which is why I decoupled the questions of whether to expand
and how to expand. If we do (and the voting so far looks like we will)
then we have to get the new guys in ASAP. It might also be interesting
to see how they'd like to handle stocking their rosters.
2. The learning curve. The new owners will (presumably) be new to all
the rigamarole involved with this league. Remember your first draft?
It took me at least once through the draft to figure out what the
doubling round was all about, and I'm still struggling with players'
value. Making the whole thing more complicated, to make it more fair
for the new owners, might have the opposite effect.
Steve
|
| 59.11 | Dumb question... | BABAGI::adapt1.shr.dec.com::dlane | http://adapt1.shr.dec.com:80/index.htm | Thu Dec 19 1996 12:04 | 10 |
| Quickie question... Since I'm still reasonably new, I may have a
couple dumb questions that hopefully will not elicit dumb answers. 8-)
If I have a player whos standard contract is up, can I trade him
with the new owner being allowed to keep topper rights? Or is he
not even on my roster anymore?
Dana
|
| 59.12 | not a dumb question | TARKIN::MAYO | | Thu Dec 19 1996 12:18 | 9 |
| re .11
You may deal anyone from your final 1996 roster at any time, up until the
pre-season roster freeze (Feb 13, 1997). If a player's standard contract
has expired, you (or the person you trade that player to) can offer him
a long term contract, retain topper rights, or release him. A player is
released merely by not including him on your pre-season roster.
/dave
|
| 59.13 | Thanks! | BABAGI::adapt1.shr.dec.com::dlane | http://adapt1.shr.dec.com:80/index.htm | Thu Dec 19 1996 14:14 | 4 |
| Thanks!
Dana
|
| 59.14 | More of a Challenge! | RECV::CRONIN | Wait a min. MR. I didnt even kiss her | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:58 | 3 |
|
I think expanding to 20 would be fine... As long as I'm not
contracting for Dec...;) I'll be back!
|
| 59.15 | Rule change suggestion | STOWOA::WEINSTEIN | | Wed Jan 15 1997 13:00 | 9 |
| I would like to see a new rule, whereby players released by MRL owners
in one week are not available until the following week.
As I recall, relases are due by Wed at noon, and the draft is Thurs at noon.
Sometimes, good players get releases on Wednesday, and you don't find out
until after the deadline to release your players. So,....you don't have
enough ducats to bid competitively, if at all, for players you didn't
know were available. If we hold the players back a week, everyone has a shot
at freeing up enough salary to get these players. Please comment.
|
| 59.16 | I vote no | TARKIN::MAYO | | Wed Jan 15 1997 14:02 | 15 |
|
re -.1
Yes, the release deadline and the weekly draft is set up such that an
owner who fails to clear enough salary may not be able to make a
competitive bid on another newly-released player.
I think this was probably intentional, and should be left that way.
It adds more strategy for the weekly draft, by creating a disadvantage
in standing pat when you're close to the salary limit. You propose
to remove the risk of doing so.
It would also make administering the weekly draft more difficult...
/dave
|
| 59.17 | RE: -.1 Dave's response | STOWOA::WEINSTEIN | | Wed Jan 15 1997 16:44 | 7 |
| True, it does add more strategy, but I've never seen another league (including
auction leagues) where a player can be released one day, and picked up by
another team the next day. If you take a day off, or have system problems,
you'll never have a shot at that player.
Also, I don't understand how that would make administering the weekly draft
more difficult.
|
| 59.18 | Knucklecurve | SUBSYS::BAILLIE | Mean Mistreater | Wed Jan 15 1997 16:44 | 6 |
|
I too vote no for the same previously stated reasons.
jb
|
| 59.19 | Can't hurt to try. 8-) | SUBSYS::adapt1.shr.dec.com::laneda | http://adapt1.shr.dec.com:80/index.htm | Wed Feb 05 1997 19:58 | 4 |
| Anyone have any interest in Jose Canseco this season? He'll be
$34 in the last year of his LTC... Lemme know!
Dana
|