Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 23:38:28 GMT -5
Well Ron first I'd check the talent pool and see if the teams are worth saving bc a few teams have plenty of talent but it just seem like this is more in your best interest then the leagues. Just like switching divisions so you have a better chance of making the playoffs. I see Tampa and I see a lot of players I'd love to have and it's apparent that you do as well. If you don't think Tampa has talent I'm worried about the league then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on May 15, 2017 7:26:40 GMT -5
Anton you keep mentioning the Rays. I don't see that they are open or have been identified as such. I have not listed them as one of the 7 teams needing an owner. Their owner was last on April 12. So I am not sure why they are part of the discussion. If they are also available I think that strengthens my argument that we need to re-assess some things. My opinions on how the playoffs are seeded are just that nothing more. Do I have a horse in that race? Yes. But I would feel the same way if my team was not one of the involved. Yes. Again just an opinion. Nothing that changes my mind that we have a pretty good league going.
But my real issue is having so many teams open consistently needs to be addressed. As far as the supplemental draft idea that would not help me much more than you. You would "draft" 3 or 4 spots behind me. Not a huge advantage. To the contrary I am thinking for the good of the league and ways to make it more competitive from top to bottom. Where you are trying to protect the really good team you have worked hard to build.
We would appreciate any help we can get in filling some of the better teams available. The reason I continue to put this out here is I think discussions like the one Anton and I are having needs to be transparent to all. We all have opinions and don't necessarily agree so more input is good. Anton to be honest I wish we could find more owners like you who are involved and have an opinion. That are committed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Larry) on May 15, 2017 8:02:55 GMT -5
Final point. Mariners #30 Cubs #29 Marlins #28 Padres #26 Twins #25 Nationals #24 Pirates #12 Know what all these teams have in common? They have no owner. Tell me again how these are all good teams. They should be easy to find owners. Some may have a few decent players but in the end they are not good. And they will all have expiring contracts robbing them of more talent. Sucking the life out of these teams until there is nothing left. We need to wake up. I agree these teams suck and at least 4 of them if not all need to go. Nobody is going to take these teams or if they do they won't be here long. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 8:05:41 GMT -5
Anton you keep mentioning the Rays. I don't see that they are open or have been identified as such. I have not listed them as one of the 7 teams needing an owner. Their owner was last on April 12. So I am not sure why they are part of the discussion. If they are also available I think that strengthens my argument that we need to re-assess some things. ACTUALLY, the Rays owner was recruited by C.J., so we DID have an owner. But C.J. sent this to me yesterday: I haven't got around to updating the board yet. Just want to clarify. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on May 15, 2017 9:57:04 GMT -5
He said he was looking in constantly for 2 days and it was a ghost town. Also mentioned too many open teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on May 15, 2017 9:59:21 GMT -5
Back to Tampa, there are a few good players but it's still a train wreck. Maybe to screw us all if we drop 6 the TRP can put the 8-10 better players on the other 2 vacant teams and make them even more attractive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on May 15, 2017 11:05:05 GMT -5
Ouch. Eight open teams. We need to do something. I can only imagine his thoughts might be representative of anyone looking at this league. That many open teams, at least two going on two years...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Jared) on May 15, 2017 12:12:52 GMT -5
We've been going overall league standings since the beginning. A true 30 team roto, but playoffs still get in by being highest scoring of your division teams.
I think the folding/changing of teams is definitely in discussion at this point. I would love to look at a way to help the bottom teams to entice some owners in here. But I'm not sure what that is. I still prefer 30 teams, but need to do what's best to keep us going.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Jared) on May 15, 2017 12:14:08 GMT -5
We could really use somebody to be in charge of recruiting new owners. Who is willing to go out and post places and try to drum up some interested owners. I simply don't have the time I did when I started the league. Anybody interested?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on May 15, 2017 12:40:02 GMT -5
I've done that and the interest isn't there right now. There are a ton of leagues like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on May 15, 2017 14:49:53 GMT -5
I have also. On Fantrax and Rotoworld. Several times. CJ is right there is not a ton of interest right now. I would not have a problem with trying to make the bottom feeders better but it's going to take a lot of work and agreement on what teams get what players. We also have to keep in mind expiring contracts, tags and cap room. (No problem for the Cubs) I am open to suggestions. But as much as I would like to see us stay at 30 teams, that is going to be an extremely difficult hill to climb. As CJ said there are a ton of leagues like this started every year. You get a ton of people who join those, draft and are gone pretty quickly. I don't think that is what we are looking for. We have had enough turnover as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on May 15, 2017 14:52:41 GMT -5
If we do have to contract maybe taking the divisions with two unowned teams and merging them into one. Might be the easiest way to go and keep leagues/divisions fairly balanced in the terms of numbers of teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on May 15, 2017 15:15:41 GMT -5
Possibly merging could be a good solution and only droppin 2 teams could help build the others, but now you have uneven divisions.
I feel like the divisions should also stay consistent with MLB. That's the only reason why I keep suggesting 6. To Anton's point he worked hard building so having someone just overnight get a guy like Kris Bryant isn't fair to him or the other owners . That's where these 2 vacant teams should be built strategically with the top 10 or so players from those scrapped teams. It would only give them an average advantage instead of bump a "rebuilding" squad into immediate glory. However with 24 teams a 3 round supplemental draft could spread out 72 players from these 6 squads and we could all move on afterward. Automatically bumping the 2 vacant teams to the top.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Larry) on May 15, 2017 15:31:20 GMT -5
We could really use somebody to be in charge of recruiting new owners. Who is willing to go out and post places and try to drum up some interested owners. I simply don't have the time I did when I started the league. Anybody interested? In all honesty who would want those teams. Lets face reality, we need to either contract those teams or combine them to make some good teams that owners would like to have. Keeping it as is will cause this league to fold after this year I agree. Look this is not about any of us as individual owners and how it would affect our teams individually. We have to look at this realistically and from the good of the league point of view. I think we all would like to see this stay a 30 team league. But this is not like 8 or 10 years ago when this league was started. There are a lot more leagues and people who want immediate satisfaction. If that does not happen they move on to perceived greener pastures. We don't have the ESPN boards which were very useful in recruiting. If we continue to bury our head in the sand and say "we should be able to find good people" this league will fold by year's end like Larry says. Having 8 unowned teams does not look good. Even though it is not a statement against our league itself it's just that there is more competition and many people don't want to put out the effort to be successful. They want it now. If this does not turnaround maybe contracting 6 teams, one from each division, moving/changing team names so that natural MLB rivalries are still in place. |
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Jason) on May 16, 2017 6:28:33 GMT -5
We've been going overall league standings since the beginning. A true 30 team roto, but playoffs still get in by being highest scoring of your division teams. I think the folding/changing of teams is definitely in discussion at this point. I would love to look at a way to help the bottom teams to entice some owners in here. But I'm not sure what that is. I still prefer 30 teams, but need to do what's best to keep us going. So are we using overall league standings or division? |
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Jared) on May 16, 2017 14:03:21 GMT -5
Overall league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 14:18:01 GMT -5
Feel the same way as others. Would love to stay at 30 but I get it if we need to contract a bit. I'd be for it. Not sure the best way to evenly distribute the players on teams we get rid of, but I'm sure we can find a reasonable way to make it work. I'm good with whatever the majority of the league feels best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 21:51:45 GMT -5
What would be your thoughts on making MLB players from contracted teams free agents and MiLB players enter the draft?
Disclaimer: I think this would benefit my team more than most, but please don't think that's why I'm suggesting it. I want this rebuild to be earned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on May 17, 2017 5:13:12 GMT -5
What would be your thoughts on making MLB players from contracted teams free agents and MiLB players enter the draft? Disclaimer: I think this would benefit my team more than most, but please don't think that's why I'm suggesting it. I want this rebuild to be earned. This has been said multiple times but I think we're over estimating the immediate effects of this "supplemental" draft. Adding one good player to your team and an average player to another team isn't going to change our standings. It would be spread out over 24 teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Jason) on May 17, 2017 7:45:05 GMT -5
If we do contract a couple teams but not all teams without owners then those players from the contracted teams should go to the remaining teams without owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on May 17, 2017 9:00:18 GMT -5
not my decision but I don't like that idea . 1-2 MLB and 1-2 prospects make any of those teams attractive. Stacking them is just kicking the other owners in the junk who are trying to rebuild. There has to be a happy medium.
For arguement sake you take the very worst team, Seattle. He has Dozier, Villar and Kiermier. Now he gets Bryant, Hunter Greene and has a boatload of money for FA.... I'd love to take that over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on May 17, 2017 11:45:22 GMT -5
Totally agree with CJ regarding combine players from two teams.
I think the supplemental draft created by contraction should be in reverse order of standings. I would not be opposed to making it a snake draft allowing the weaker teams to benefit but perhaps tempering it a bit in that way. If we have 24 teams after contraction the worst remaining team gets the #1 and #48 pick. The 1st place team gets #24 & #25 pick. Limit it to three or 4 rounds depending on how many players are eligible. I would much rather have Kris Bryant or Villar or any of the other really good players potentially available on a team with an owner. At least you would have a chance at landing a player like that in a trade. We can't do that now when they are on an unowned team. We could define the length of time these players could be kept before tagging. (MLB players 2 years across the board?) MILB same as now. The other issue is who is going to pay for the unowned teams next year? I know we aren't talking much but it isn't fair that we have to rush around at the last minute until someone decides to pick up the remaining amount due so that we can participate. If we keep it at 30 but only 24 pay the cost is $3.33. Not much but I would think it would be a recordkeeping nightmare on Fantrax. You pay $3.33, get credit for $2.67 and post the rest to an unowned team? Not even sure Fantrax would support something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baltimore (Bob) on Jun 7, 2017 20:53:02 GMT -5
I like that idea as well
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Larry) on Jun 8, 2017 17:25:22 GMT -5
We need contraction. Don't keep any of the teams that are open now unless we get an owner before the season ends
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Larry) on Jun 9, 2017 10:03:31 GMT -5
What if good owners here take one of the teams with no owner and try to build it?
My self & Mike (Dodgers) are willing to do this. I'm sure a few others would just to keep this at a 30 team league. If we do we couldn't trade with the team that we take.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on Jun 9, 2017 10:26:40 GMT -5
I think it would be a good challenge for 5-6 owners. We still try to find a new owner but in the meantime we make some moves. The free agents aren't that bad and if Tampa signed 10-15 kids (18,19 year old former top picks) they'd be crazy attractive to a new owner.
It wouldn't hurt and we could start before the deadline.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on Jun 9, 2017 10:28:25 GMT -5
I say we can make it a Foster Home challenge. See if we can make the scrub teams good enough to find a forever home. Each multiple team owner is in charge of his foster team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Jun 9, 2017 11:36:56 GMT -5
I think it wouldn't hurt to try and improve them for the remainder of the year and make them better. Then make a decision at year-end on contraction. The one thing I would say should not be allowed is selling off pieces for MILB. We are trying to improve these teams. I have the Padres but have been unwilling to do anything more than administrivia and keep the lineup set.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Larry) on Jun 9, 2017 12:15:06 GMT -5
We need to make these teams better. That would only happen if we can sell off some of the useful players for good prospects and set them up for the future. Standing pat with these teams is not going to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (CJ) on Jun 9, 2017 12:43:05 GMT -5
This is exactly why I want to do this as a "foster" family idea. rRon has one idea and Larry another. Truth is a prospective owner might want all babies for a retool and another could be a MLB enthusiast who doesn't know anything YET about farm ball.
|
|
