|
Post by Admin on Aug 4, 2015 16:37:58 GMT -5
We're now officially on the clock having passed August 1. According to the calendar, we can start setting up rosters and protecting players.
However, recruiting owners to fill the league has been a challenge for me. The question right now is - Do we press on? Or are we too far behind schedule to invest more time in this league?
Here are some of my thoughts... I'm not a fan of reducing the league size, with the intention of later expansion, although it would be easier to fill a smaller league. Also, because of the "no draft" format, empty teams still hold plenty of flexibility and appeal for new owners at whatever point they join. (Most of us would rather a blank slate and prospects than a high priced, long contract.) However, I don't feel that we can enter free agency with less than 15 - 20 active teams, because of the size of the initial FA class and the effect it could have on pricing.
On the face of it, setting up rosters and protecting players shouldn't be detrimental considering that MLB transactions will be reduced now that we're past the trade deadline. The question is - Is it worth sticking with the schedule, or would or be better to hold off investing any more time and effort given the difficulties I have with recruiting? (If we don't have enough teams filled, free agency might have to be delayed.)
Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by rockies (Steve, COL) on Aug 8, 2015 11:22:01 GMT -5
Adam, would you consider reducing the league to 12-14 teams that have exclusive rights to any players on their chosen team? Like say we have 25 man rosters, each manager could retain as many players on his team as he chose, then we could do a "slow" draft to fill out the rosters? We could also have a minor league roster consisting of as many players as we decide, (I'd like to see at least 20 man minor rosters or larger myself!) with each team again retaining as many players in his teams organization as he choses. We then could do a minor draft to fill out our minor rosters. If we had liberal add and drop rules for the minors...we would have plenty of incentive to be active in our research and our activity. A strong minor roster will insure the major roster gets stronger, so we'd have to study...or fall behind. If you wanted to incorporate salary cap...we could assign a value to each of our players according to performance...or we could just give them a "slot" on our roster. Like... for my Rockies...say Arenado would be my #1 guy and that slot might be a $15 5 year contract. Maybe Car/Go might be my #2 slot guy and might get a $12 4 year deal...etc. (the players might have to stay on our rosters even if they get traded...or maybe we would get the players they were traded for... ) We could set it up where the 25 man roster would use up say 80% of our cap thereby leaving 20% for trades and future free agent bidding. Just some thoughts on trying to keep the group together.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2015 14:46:58 GMT -5
Steve, thanks. I appreciate the suggestion.
Reducing the size of the league makes a lot of sense in many ways. It's not something I've considered as an option given how far that would deviate from the concept I'm trying to imitate. There are many 12 or 15 team leagues available where operations are smoother and simpler. However there's something unique and appealing about simulating the experience of managing 1 out of the 30 MLB teams with almost limitless MiLB rosters.
I guess I'm waiting to have 2 consecutive days with the same conclusion. (I'm a poor decision maker.) Every day the thought bounces back and forth between 2 options. - 1. Pull the plug. There's a lot of work to do. No one has invested too much time or energy yet that it would be unforgivable at this point to close up shop. Wait too long and we'll pass that point of no return. There's also some long-term risk of proceeding through to free agency with only 1/3 of the league filled at best. - 2. Set restrictions for free agency that wouldn't leave future owners at a serious disadvantage, and plow ahead. I believe very strongly in the format, and that given time the league will grow. Things will be rough at first with few participants, but they'll only get better.
These risks/decisions aren't really a surprise. I imagine most leagues of this size usually start with a core group with some binding ties. That's something lacking here, but I believe it can be overcome. I don't blame anyone if they prefer to look for a more standardized league, or one with a better track record. If this league attempt fails, I'd probably prefer to move into a more standardized league rather than alter the premise here. Anyway, sorry for rambling on. Thanks again for the good suggestion. We'll get this sorted out.
|
|
|
Post by rockies (Steve, COL) on Aug 9, 2015 16:31:26 GMT -5
I'm for whatever you decide Adam. I just want to be in a keeper with minors. Not really concerned about the particulars beyond that.
|
|