|
Post by sjrand on Jan 15, 2007 14:21:23 GMT -5
Post, email, or PM two words: No expansion.
If 7 owners do this, the expansion is off.
There's no need for discussion, and yes votes or arguments in favor should not go here.
I'll start
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 15, 2007 14:22:04 GMT -5
The Mets say:
No expansion
|
|
|
Post by stros on Jan 15, 2007 14:25:00 GMT -5
NO EXPANSION!
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Jan 15, 2007 14:31:48 GMT -5
The Mets say: No expansion That's is truly shocking. I thought you wanted expansion Rand. The Royals say NO
|
|
|
Post by Yankees on Jan 15, 2007 14:57:12 GMT -5
NO EXPANSION
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 15, 2007 15:28:50 GMT -5
No Expansion
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 15, 2007 16:37:59 GMT -5
No Expansion
|
|
|
Post by bostongm on Jan 15, 2007 19:06:15 GMT -5
no expansion
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 16, 2007 11:29:31 GMT -5
I count 7 no votes here, which is more than 1/3rd of the league. We can't make a change this big with less than 2/3rds in favor, so expansion plans are canceled until further notice. That's is truly shocking. I thought you wanted expansion Rand. I'm sure that a lot of people think they know what I want based on what they see me post. The truth is that many of the things I bring up are only because other owners tell me what they want, and I take it to the boards to see how the rest of you feel about it, even if I'm less than thrilled with the idea. This one I could have gone either way with, and people probably would have liked getting three divisions plus a wild card, which would have doubled the number of teams making the playoffs but is something we can't do with 10 teams per league.
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Jan 16, 2007 11:39:08 GMT -5
hi Rand, Is there anyway to explore a middle ground? The grey area in between? Just wondering aloud...... tx. kevin
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Jan 16, 2007 12:43:28 GMT -5
If we could come up with something like the first expansion where we can protect X amount of players I would be in favor of expansion with 6 divisions and a wild card.
I can't remember did we got to protect 20 or 25 players in the first expansion?
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 16, 2007 13:16:48 GMT -5
hi Rand, Is there anyway to explore a middle ground? The grey area in between? Just wondering aloud...... tx. kevin If you mean something like the adding 2 teams idea, then no. BBM with an odd number of teams per league generates some very nasty schedules (playing into mid November for one thing), and locks interleague play on. If we didn't mind having interleague play on, we'd still have to sim for longer periods or add an extra real time week or two to every season. We really don't need longer seasons, and we still wouldn't be "historical" If you mean something like letting teams protect every good player they have, and some owners will settle for nothing less, then also no. We just got to a point where almost every team has at least a chance to win their division, we don't need to bring in 4 versions of the 1962 Mets just so we can say we're "historical". Nor do I see the possibility of compromising on the number of protected players. Owners are either okay with one of the plans I posted, or they want to keep everyone they have and everyone they're going to get in the next few drafts. With the possible exception of some burnouts they signed to 8 year contracts, and even that's not 100% since some owners actually think the burnouts are worth something too.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 16, 2007 13:54:09 GMT -5
We protected up to 25 players, which was a little too much. In Rand's original proposal this year, it added to 21 players. Some people still thought it wasn't enough..............
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Jan 16, 2007 13:56:32 GMT -5
20 would be enough to protect and I would be ok with giving the expansion teams extra DP's if not their own rookie draft
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 16, 2007 13:58:05 GMT -5
Does this mean you change your vote to yes?
Does this mean you rushed to vote no?
Does this mean you voted no because of a protection system we had not yet decided on?
Does this mean I'm about to turn into a question mark?
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Jan 16, 2007 15:57:45 GMT -5
hi Rand, Is there anyway to explore a middle ground? The grey area in between? Just wondering aloud...... tx. kevin If you mean something like the adding 2 teams idea, then no. BBM with an odd number of teams per league generates some very nasty schedules (playing into mid November for one thing), and locks interleague play on. If we didn't mind having interleague play on, we'd still have to sim for longer periods or add an extra real time week or two to every season. We really don't need longer seasons, and we still wouldn't be "historical" If you mean something like letting teams protect every good player they have, and some owners will settle for nothing less, then also no. We just got to a point where almost every team has at least a chance to win their division, we don't need to bring in 4 versions of the 1962 Mets just so we can say we're "historical". Nor do I see the possibility of compromising on the number of protected players. Owners are either okay with one of the plans I posted, or they want to keep everyone they have and everyone they're going to get in the next few drafts. With the possible exception of some burnouts they signed to 8 year contracts, and even that's not 100% since some owners actually think the burnouts are worth something too. reading down through the various posts in the YES and NO...it seems like we have used everything so far as a large sounding board. Some of the "no" guys sound like they might mean yes, and the "yes" guys (some of who had concerns about the amount of players they could lose) now sound,like "hell yeah". I guess my point is that I am one of those guys who had concerns...but was 100% willing to go with the leagues decision. It may have been the eeasy way out, but I was resigned to go with whatever option won majority vote. Guys, we have too many studs. Expansion fixes this. In hind sight I think the suggested protection plans were fair too. Rand, I know you feel we had a majority against expansion, but would you entertain reopening the subject? Anyone else agree with me? TMBL is a trend setter...this only continues our greatness. Come on guys, we need to do the right thing!! Be selfless...not selfish! PS, I would love to become an expansion GM, Rand.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 16, 2007 16:19:20 GMT -5
I'm with you 100% on this. Especially this part:
We're a league, we're almost 20 people here. Of course, we all want to win and we all love our teams and our players. But this isn't about "us" as individuals and about achieving our personal goals; it's about "us" as a league and about making sure the league continues to be great as it has been for several years now.
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Jan 16, 2007 23:32:51 GMT -5
Does this mean you change your vote to yes? Does this mean you rushed to vote no? Does this mean you voted no because of a protection system we had not yet decided on? Does this mean I'm about to turn into a question mark? If we got to protect 20 players of our choosing. And not X amount of hitters, pitchers, vets and rooks then I would say Yes
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 17, 2007 10:14:15 GMT -5
If we got to protect 20 players of our choosing. And not X amount of hitters, pitchers, vets and rooks then I would say Yes Not going to happen. Can't. It would create a massive talent gap on the expansion teams, so big that the 110+ loss expansion teams of 1962 would end up looking pretty good by comparison. Some of you just don't want to understand that this isn't 1962 anymore. The team and player talent dynamics are very different. We all have smaller rosters, and player talent levels have skyrocketed. I didn't pull the numbers I used for player protection plans out of my butt, or by just looking at my own team's roster. The plans I posted are the ones that would work. Protecting more players, or making it X number and owners choice, won't work. Not this time.
|
|
|
Post by bostongm on Jan 18, 2007 7:28:26 GMT -5
and how do we expect to pull 4 more owners into a game thats not even sold anymore? putting my no vote aside due to not enough protected. unless you all have friends lined up that would like to play mogul its going to be almost impossible to get 4 new guys. we would be lucky to get 1.
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Jan 18, 2007 8:02:41 GMT -5
and how do we expect to pull 4 more owners into a game thats not even sold anymore? putting my no vote aside due to not enough protected. unless you all have friends lined up that would like to play mogul its going to be almost impossible to get 4 new guys. we would be lucky to get 1. Rich (StL), Paul (Pitt) and I are in a fantasy league with some other pretty adept and clever guys. I believe we can fill the voids easily. You would be surprised to find that many people loved the 04 game and stayed with it. hey, so far we have stayed cookin...I don't expect that to change.
|
|
|
Post by king on Jan 18, 2007 17:40:07 GMT -5
I know one person who wants in the league now. It is going to have to be people we know, which should not be a problem, since getting them the game is easy enough. People we don't know will not know to look for a 2k4 league.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 19, 2007 14:00:00 GMT -5
I know one person who wants in the league now. It is going to have to be people we know... We've gotten almost all of our owners this way since the beginning. We've had a few owners come to us from Sports Mogul message board posts, but only one is still around. Most of the inquiries I get from the SM posts either don't notice the seventeen times I mention that we use 2k4, or don't even know what BBM is. And don't want to.
|
|
|
Post by bostongm on Jan 20, 2007 10:01:45 GMT -5
well get one of your guys to come now because if im not mistaken the Phillies are vacant and maybe another team... we cant even get enough people to fill the teams we have let alone another 4.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 20, 2007 10:44:59 GMT -5
well get one of your guys to come now because if im not mistaken the Phillies are vacant I'm talking about that with one of Paul's (PIT) friends right now.
|
|