|
Post by zlebk72 on Jan 15, 2007 15:14:03 GMT -5
Hey All, How about we go with the middle ground.....
add (2 ?) teams and a slight change to the proposed expansion process. I bet everyone is saying "no" based on fear of losing their players.
If we do this "staggered" it could be a lot of fun and we all love the historical aspect of the league.
So, I would vote "YES".
|
|
|
Post by Halos on Jan 15, 2007 15:20:21 GMT -5
I still vote yes for expansion. I think the talent levels are getting a bit high, so if we can spread it all around to four (or two) additional teams the league will be much more competitive and challenging.
I'm pretty sure no one is going to lose a player that they can't live without. There is enough players protected that any team's core will be safe. The only thing you will have to do if fill out the lineup with complimentary players, which can hopefully be done with the rookies who are auto-protected.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 15, 2007 15:23:55 GMT -5
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSs
|
|
|
Post by stros on Jan 15, 2007 15:46:07 GMT -5
i'd say yes if we switched to 2k6 or 7
|
|
|
Post by reds on Jan 15, 2007 15:59:41 GMT -5
Why is everyone so anti-expansion now? I think its worth trying. If we can't find enough good owners then we don't have to go through with it. Does anyone have a reason against expansion other than "I don't want to lose my players"?
|
|
|
Post by imerwin on Jan 15, 2007 16:31:01 GMT -5
YES
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 15, 2007 16:39:39 GMT -5
Does anyone have a reason against expansion other than "I don't want to lose my players"? Because i dont like the format that we would be doing it with. I believe it was adding 4 teams, but i could be wrong
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Jan 15, 2007 16:55:38 GMT -5
White Sox are also in favor of expansion.
We're still nearly three seasons away, so I'm not sure why we're in such a hurry to say yes or no on it. Whatever the various reasons are for teams' voting NO may well be changed by the time we get there.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 15, 2007 17:41:48 GMT -5
I also think adding 2 teams instead of 4 could be something viable. It might unbalance divisions a little, but then, maybe we can go to 3 divisions by then?
Not only the "no" voters look afraid to lose their players, but some of them seem to dislike the fact that it would disturb the plans they had to take over the league after a "reconstruction" (or build from scratch in other cases) period. Sure, the expansion would disrupt a little of everyone's plans. But that's part of the fun. I hate to think some have voted no out of selfishness.
They are; if we keep it going like this, we're going to turn into MLC in no time! Rand is going to have to take some talent out of the draft if we don't add some teams.
I have played both the 2k6 and 2k7. I cannot decide which one stinks the most. The 2k4 might be older, but to me, it remains the best one I've seen so far. And the only one where it's all about baseball. What's up with the friends thing, and the personalities? I feel like I'm playing "Sims"...
|
|
|
Post by bostongm on Jan 15, 2007 19:11:36 GMT -5
there is no wheres near enough protection. why couldn't we do it like we did earlier? protect around 20, 25. with the salaries this outrageous I do need everyone on my team to stay out of chapter 11 and still be good.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 15, 2007 19:20:16 GMT -5
We protected way too many players in the first expansion. We want to avoid going back to 110 losses teams again. If you voted no only because you didn't like a protection system we haven't even decided yet, there is something wrong, very wrong...
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 15, 2007 19:58:32 GMT -5
Selfish? A bit yes, but we just got done saying we wanted them to compete faster. Those teams in complete rebuild wont have enough slots to protect rookies they are waiting on, and will get hurt in rebuild. Those who have no rookies dont lose a thing, and will protect the younger end of there talent around now. To classify every team in the same protection list without some regard as to how their players will get taken was not what i had in mind when i voted yes.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 15, 2007 21:23:38 GMT -5
I vote yes.
|
|
|
Post by reds on Jan 15, 2007 23:14:18 GMT -5
Looking at the options for the expansion draft, this idea is in the lead: Each team gets to protect 10 rookies. Plus 6 hitters and 5 pitchers. Let's go hypothetical...
Team A is absolutely horrible. They have no good ML players, but a stacked minor leagues. That team can keep 10 rookies, plus use the remaining 6 hitters and 5 pitchers on more rookies. So they keep 21 of their key guys.
Team B is awesome. They have few prospects, but are amazing on the ML level. They get to keep 6 of their good hitters and 5 of their good pitchers. Let's say they have 5 decent prospects, so they protect those too. Team B gets to keep 16 of their key guys.
Please tell me how teams in complete rebuild are getting screwed?
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 15, 2007 23:40:34 GMT -5
because the chances of you having more than 6 guys that are essencial to your lineup and more than 4 pitchers and a closer essencial to your staff are less than your chances of having 10 rookies.
With my understanding, I had Tony C, Willie Horton, Carlton, Hands, Dahl, Wilson, Seaver, Gagliano, Josephson, and Jackson. I would stand to lose 2 30 HR hitters and two pitchers under a 3.50 era.
Give me a team who is stacked in the majors and i will compare.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 15, 2007 23:50:04 GMT -5
But all those guys would be protected! With your current lineup, 6 hitters means the worst 2 starters would be available, so let's say Deron Johnson and Chick King. You can recover from losing those guys! 5 pitchers mean Seaver, Maloney, Carlton, Hands and your closer Giusti. 80% of your future All-Star rotation is covered. Then you have 10 rookies. Imagine you don't have 10 rookies to protect and we go ahead with the idea of buying 1 regular protection for 2 rookie protections. You could easily buy down another reliever of your choice, or another starter, or even a hitter if you wish it to be that way. How do you calculate you would lose 2 30 HR hitters?
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 16, 2007 0:06:29 GMT -5
because i'd lose at least hickman.
This was assuming i did not bring all of these players up, meaning they were all still classified as rookies.
|
|
|
Post by Halos on Jan 16, 2007 0:14:38 GMT -5
I don't think you need to worry about losing Hickman because NO ONE would take him.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 16, 2007 0:42:47 GMT -5
LOL
Hickman?! Geez... I'd take Tony Kubek over him anytime.
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 16, 2007 1:10:31 GMT -5
If/when i buy my stadium dimensions to something normal, his average will climb some, and his power could really rocket.
that being said, pitchers park is fun, and i hope your not serious about kubek.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 16, 2007 12:48:19 GMT -5
I still vote yes for expansion. I think the talent levels are getting a bit high, so if we can spread it all around to four (or two) additional teams the league will be much more competitive and challenging. Talent levels have gotten much too high. I'm going to have to try working that out in future rookie drafts or it's going to get a lot worse. Tentatively, it's possible that no player who debuted on a team that doesn't exist in TMBL will find his way into the draft. Why is everyone so anti-expansion now? {omit} Does anyone have a reason against expansion other than "I don't want to lose my players"? I doubt it. Because i dont like the format that we would be doing it with. Yes, you were one of the owners who wanted the special custom drafting plan of " I get to keep every player I want" which didn't make it to my list of options. Funny, because teams like yours would have gained a ton of ground as the better teams got weakened. We're still nearly three seasons away, so I'm not sure why we're in such a hurry to say yes or no on it. Because this takes a lot of planning, or would cause a very long down period. I started expansion plans for 1962 during the 1959 season, and even with all that time there were still a lot of things that had to be worked out at the last minute. If we used fictional players, all I'd have to do is hit "add team" and find an owner, but we don't use fictional players, and most of us don't want to. there is no wheres near enough protection. why couldn't we do it like we did earlier? protect around 20, 25. with the salaries this outrageous I do need everyone on my team to stay out of chapter 11 and still be good. The very first plan I posted protected up to 21 players. Looking at the options for the expansion draft, this idea is in the lead: Each team gets to protect 10 rookies. Plus 6 hitters and 5 pitchers. Let's go hypothetical... Team A is absolutely horrible. They have no good ML players, but a stacked minor leagues. That team can keep 10 rookies, plus use the remaining 6 hitters and 5 pitchers on more rookies. So they keep 21 of their key guys. Team B is awesome. They have few prospects, but are amazing on the ML level. They get to keep 6 of their good hitters and 5 of their good pitchers. Let's say they have 5 decent prospects, so they protect those too. Team B gets to keep 16 of their key guys. Please tell me how teams in complete rebuild are getting screwed? Don't you know that using logic is considered bad form in most polite societies? And is often lost on the people you direct it towards? ;D Whatever the various reasons are for teams' voting NO may well be changed by the time we get there. Maybe we'll find out in a three or four seasons after some of the current owners have left.
|
|
|
Post by stros on Jan 16, 2007 15:11:20 GMT -5
yah thats stupid but it has no effect on performance, in either version (2k7 lets you make happiness a factor in negotiations but you can always turn that off)
another thing with the newer versions is you have arbitration, and guys dont become eligible for that untill they've played 3years in the bigs, which means you dont have to pay 3mil a year to a prospect who has never played a major league agame and is 6 years away from peaking in your minors (like in this game)
|
|
|
Post by reds on Jan 16, 2007 15:36:44 GMT -5
Everyone please read what Rand just said:
Talent levels have gotten much too high. I'm going to have to try working that out in future rookie drafts or it's going to get a lot worse. Tentatively, it's possible that no player who debuted on a team that doesn't exist in TMBL will find his way into the draft.
Think about this for a minute. Now the drafts are going to have less talent. That is going to totally throw off the balance of the league, meaning that less good players are going to be entering the league over the next 5 years than did the past 5. Hmm, I wish we had an better way to make the talent level more normal. Oh wait, we do, but it's getting voted down.
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 16, 2007 15:59:51 GMT -5
There are two things you can do within an expansion that are wrong and one that is right.
Wrong 1) make teams lack talent to compete within 4 or so years.
Wrong 2) make teams too strong and have them in the playoffs immediately.
Right 1) get it perfect, a hard thing to do.
rather than make the mistake i'm glad it was temporarily avoided, and hope that we can reconfigure it and execute it in a proper fashion.
|
|
|
Post by king on Jan 16, 2007 17:10:52 GMT -5
This is absolutely ridiculous. The only reason people are voting no is because they are too self centered to look at the overall health of the league. The talent in the league NEEDS to be dispersed. Teams are far too stacked for the health of the league. It will either a) only get worse as so many stars are poised to come into the league as mlb itself expanded or b) the drafts are going to be terrible thus creating a huge gap in generational talent. I mean if we don't have expansion, my team will probably dominate because i will have players who generation will absolutely dominate as I can hold onto these prospects for 15 years. I don't know why we had this vote so early. Clear proposals need to be discussed before they are voted on with something so important because we obviously still have some consternation over what was voted on.
|
|