Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Oct 11, 2012 13:40:52 GMT -5
We are currently in the very preliminary talks about contracting the league down to as few as 24 teams. Before I go any further, let me say that this would only happen if we are considering replacing the GM of that team anyway. We are not considering contracting active, valued GMs. There's still a lot to iron out about contraction, but there is a strong case to be made for it:
For one thing, it would allow for greater depth in players. As it stands now, with 30 teams each fielding a 9 player lineup, there are more hitters in our active lineups than there are players starting on any given day (due to DHs in both the NL and AL in our league). With each team pitching a five-person rotation, it also means that at any given time there are no extra SPs, and no extra closers - so anybody who has extras is indirectly taking them away from another team. With fewer teams, the demand is reduced so the supply is increased, meaning that teams won't be stretched as thin and the playing field will be leveled. This surplus of players might lead to teams being more willing to trade, since it means there would be a handful of starting-caliber players not starting on a roster.
For another, it would lead to more even divisions. Currently, NL teams are at a disadvantage because the competition is greater (16 teams vs 14). There are also certain divisions with disadvantages (NL Central - 6 teams) and advantages (AL West - 4 teams). MLB is adjusting for both of these issues by moving the Astros to the AL West, but we can't do this because it would mean odd numbers in each league - unless we contract teams. If we contracted two teams we could go to two divisions in each league with 7 teams in each. If we contracted six teams we'd have 12 in each league, and could either go to two divisions of six teams or three divisions of four teams. There'd likely have to be some reshuffling, but we'd keep the divisions as geographically realistic and consistent with current rivalries as possible.
On the other hand, the change in realism is a definite con. 30 teams allows us to maintain realistic league size and divisions. It also allows for more realistic quality of the average teams - if we had fewer teams, the average team would be better, so suddenly a team that seemed above average might no longer be so. Adjusting for the size of the league would be an extra calculation when figuring out how much a player is worth and how good a team is.
Fewer teams also means fewer trade partners. If teams become inactive, it's a much bigger deal when there are only 24 teams to begin with.
I'm sure there are other reasons as well. Please share them below, as well as your thoughts on the reasons already given.
Again, I want to reiterate that these conversations are in their early early stages. We just want to determine whether we should move forward in those conversations or just drop them where they are. Even if the entire league votes that they're interested in contraction, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen.
Last Edit: Dec 26, 2012 12:19:06 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Oct 11, 2012 13:47:24 GMT -5
This has been on my mind for a while this season but I never brought it up. I think it would be good for the league. Even though it is not "real" it makes for a more competitive league which to me is better than a "real" league where teams are not active or can't put in lineups or don't put in lineups.
While less teams mean less people to trade for, with better lineups, more trades may happen so that point is a wash to me.
I just feel having 24 strong and active teams is better than 24 and 6 that are non exsistant.
Post by Brian (Blue Jays GM) on Oct 11, 2012 13:50:55 GMT -5
I'm for it as well for the reasons Ben stated above. There are several teams that are inactive enough that losing them effectively would not reduce the number of trade partners available. I think stronger, deeper teams would be good for this league.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Oct 11, 2012 14:42:01 GMT -5
Glad to hear that this has been on other people's minds, too.
And that's exactly it - we're not asking you to decide now whether we should contract. We just want to know whether you think this is something we should continue to consider.
Post by Max (Tigers GM) on Oct 11, 2012 15:23:20 GMT -5
As Ben said there would be a lot of details to iron out to make this transition possible but in broad terms I'm for it since it will presumably make the player pool deeper.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Oct 11, 2012 17:14:19 GMT -5
Looks like the two "no" votes so far are due to the loss of realism, which I totally get - I agree it's the most compelling case against contraction. For what it's worth, though, we could almost certainly maintain fairly realistic divisions, even if we had to do some realignment.
I'm curious, for the teams that voted no, what realism is most crucially lost in your opinions?
Undecided. Lean No due to realism, but I definitely understand the yes side. If I saw the outline of the final proposal, I might be more sympathetic to the yes side. 6 divisions of 4 sounds really cool, and if it was 'realistic enough' I would be OK, but I think full roster size would have to increase to like 80.
Undecided. Lean No due to realism, but I definitely understand the yes side. If I saw the outline of the final proposal, I might be more sympathetic to the yes side. 6 divisions of 4 sounds really cool, and if it was 'realistic enough' I would be OK, but I think full roster size would have to increase to like 80.
I completely agree about increasing roster size if we do contract teams. As for seeing how realistic it would be with contraction - I've decided to use a random number generator to come up with three distinct scenarios, contracting six teams and then realigning accordingly. Teams that ended up in a different division are listed in red. For the purposes of this exercise, the Astros are eligible for the AL West or NL Central
First attempt: Contracted teams: Angels, Phillies, Twins, Braves, Brewers, and Orioles NL East: Marlins, Mets, Nationals, Pirates NL Central: Cubs, Reds, Cardinals, Rockies NL West: Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Padres, Giants AL East: Red Sox, Yankees, Rays, Blue Jays AL Central: White Sox, Indians, Tigers, Royals AL West: Astros, Athletics, Mariners, Rangers
Second attempt: Contracted teams: Mets, Rays, Blue Jays, White Sox, Astros, Rockies NL East: Braves, Marlins, Phillies, Nationals NL Central: Cubs, Reds, Brewers, Cardinals NL West: Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Padres, Giants AL East: Orioles, Red Sox, Yankees, Pirates AL Central: Indians, Tigers, Royals, Twins AL West: Angels, Athletics, Mariners, Rangers
Third attempt: Contracted Teams: Rangers, Dodgers, Padres, Braves, Brewers, Twins NL East: Marlins, Mets, Phillies, Nationals NL Central: Cubs, Reds, Pirates, Astros NL West: Diamondbacks, Rockies, Giants, Cardinals AL East: Orioles, Red Sox, Yankees, Rays AL Central: White Sox, Indians, Tigers, Blue Jays AL West: Angels, Athletics, Mariners, Royals
Fourth Attempt: Contracted Teams: Rays, Giants, Phillies, Cubs, Royals, Mets NL East: Braves, Marlins, Nationals, Pirates NL Central: Reds, Astros, Brewers, Cardinals NL West: Diamondbacks, Rockies, Dodgers, Padres AL East: Orioles, Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays AL Central: White Sox, Indians, Tigers, Twins AL West: Angels, Athletics, Mariners, Rangers
Fifth Attempt: Contracted Teams: Reds, Red Sox, Rangers, Angels, Dodgers, Marlins NL East: Braves, Mets, Phillies, Nationals NL Central: Cubs, Brewers, Pirates, Cardinals NL West: Diamondbacks, Rockies, Padres, Giants AL East: Orioles, Yankees, Rays, Blue Jays AL Central: White Sox, Indians, Tigers, Twins AL West: Athletics, Mariners, Astros, Royals
Sixth Attempt: Contracted Teams: Brewers, Orioles, Rockies, Rays, Diamondbacks, White Sox NL East: Braves, Marlins, Mets, Nationals NL Central: Cubs, Reds, Pirates, Cardinals NL West: Dodgers, Padres, Giants, Astros AL East: Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays, Phillies AL Central: Indians, Tigers, Royals, Twins AL West: Angels, Athletics, Mariners, Rangers
As you can see, in none of these examples did more than three teams have to change divisions. Even in an extreme example, where we contract, say, the entire AL East along with the Royals, we can do:
NL East: Mets, Marlins, Braves, Phillies NL Central: Reds, Cardinals, Cubs, Rockies NL West: Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Padres, Giants AL East: Pirates, Nationals, Brewers, Indians AL Central: White Sox, Tigers, Astros, Twins AL West: Angels, Athletics, Mariners, Rangers
Very extreme example, but only six teams had to move. No way would it actually be this extreme.
Last Edit: Oct 11, 2012 23:20:46 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Switched from undecided to "No, due to realism." Being a newer owner I'm not privy to the full dynamic of the league since it began, but I'm of the mind that contraction is a move of last resort, especially in a league that began by mirroring the full MLB system. But I also know that trying to keep that many owners active can be a real challenge, so I'm not morally opposed to contraction, I just don't prefer it as an option.
Switched from undecided to "No, due to realism." Being a newer owner I'm not privy to the full dynamic of the league since it began, but I'm of the mind that contraction is a move of last resort, especially in a league that began by mirroring the full MLB system. But I also know that trying to keep that many owners active can be a real challenge, so I'm not morally opposed to contraction, I just don't prefer it as an option.
I get what you're saying about contraction seeming like a move of last resort, but I want to reiterate that this is not about keeping everybody active. This is about making it so that teams no longer have to start bench players in their starting roster spots. Mathematically, having 30 teams means there are only just enough players to go around. For me this is about making it so that there's a little more wiggle room in the player pool and making it so that all of the teams can field full lineups, fixing the disparity between the top and bottom teams (which to me is just as unrealistic as 24 teams would be - no real life team wins or loses 90% of their games, no real life team only has half a lineup, but in our league these things happened) and making the league more competitive.
I also want to reiterate that this is still a long way off. We currently have 29 active teams, and we're not talking about contracting active owners. So if contraction to 24 teams does turn out to be the decision, it'll have to wait until six teams are inactive.
Last Edit: Oct 12, 2012 10:12:22 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Oct 12, 2012 11:12:50 GMT -5
I agree for the most part with contraction. Basically do not replace inactive teams until we have 6 of them. Then that following offseason you handle the contraction. Typically teams disappear in season not in the offseason so I agree that we are at least a season away.
In a perfect league we would have 30 committed people but that isn't reality. On average we might have 15-20 active members during the season and this last year we replaced roughly 4-6 people. If we had to worry about filling less teams we would collect a more dedicated group of people and improve the quality of our rosters.
I am a no. Sorry I just like the realism factor. I am in leagues that have fewer teams than 30 and it is not the same feel as this one. I think it has to stay in my opinion because this changes the whole league dynamic.
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Oct 14, 2012 21:29:17 GMT -5
But how real is it when teams dont have full lineups? Not very real at all.
It's important to remember that this would not be on people's mind if we had 30 active owners but the fact is we have not and it is pretty hard to achieve that. 24 would still be a hell of a great league in my opinion.
Post by Tucker (Padres GM) on Oct 14, 2012 21:55:39 GMT -5
Does it change the game though? Does it affect the strategy so much that its no longer what we have come to expect. It definitely changes players values.
I think it has to stay in my opinion because this changes the whole league dynamic.
I've been wavering for a few days and have enjoyed the arguments for Yes. But I'm going with my initial gut reaction and vote No. The quote from Angels is the trunk of my argument.
some more half-formed thoughts on the matter.... --I have faith the league will fill itself out. If that takes another full season or two before we have 30 owners actively playing (and playing to win) throughout the season, it's worth the wait. --Let's say we do contract to 24 and 5 owners leave. Now we've got the same problems with the same ratio- and no better off. --Getting as close to reality is a big part of the fun. 30-teams is a perfect match to reality, therefore a no-brainer in it's construct.
Post by yellomellojello on Oct 20, 2012 10:36:34 GMT -5
I'm strongly against contraction, almost entirely because I love that we have to struggle just to find guys to fill out our lineups, no different than major league teams. A league average player under cost control has a lot of value in this league, just like real life. Contraction not only reduces that playing time struggle, it also undercuts the value of cost controlled players, making one of the strengths of this league (deep minor league systems/detailed draft and player progression rules) less important.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Oct 31, 2012 14:08:31 GMT -5
So I've been thinking. We have less then 5 days till the rosters need to be posted and we have 10 teams that have yet to do so. We all want realism in this league, but if we only have 20 active people and 10 "dead" teams, what's the point of staying at 30 teams. Maybe we get lucky and half of these 10 post by the 4th but if not were still looking for 10 new people. I just truly think we are more viable at 24 teams in this league.
Say we go through the offseason with 20-25 active teams. That means a handful of teams won't sign free agents or make trades to build their roster. Look at how many have joined later and left. I could tell you that right now if I was joining in January/February I doubt I would. I would have to either trade for my team or wait till next off seasons free agency to build my team.
If we contract 6 teams were basically doing the same thing as if we leave it at 30 except the active league members will be getting better instead of letting approximately 300-400 players just sit on rosters not being available. Just my two cents here. Long term we are better off. In a perfect world we have 30 dedicated members. As it looks now we barely have 20. Going into our 3rd year, I would of hoped for more.
Post by Oren (Diamondbacks GM) on Oct 31, 2012 14:55:56 GMT -5
well i know that me for one havent posted my roster, i will do so by the deadline. you guys need to realise, having 20-25 ACTIVE teams is very good for such a league, just kick them and recruit owners its not THAT hard i can help if needed this is a great league and i disagree with contraction
Post by Billy (Cardinals GM) on Oct 31, 2012 17:47:28 GMT -5
I believe that we are slowly gaining more active managers. If we go into the off season with 20+ active managers I see that as a success. It's almost impossible to get 30 active people in the first year or two of the league. If we can replace the few inactive teams with people who are dedicated then I believe we can have 30 active teams easily.
Post by Max (Tigers GM) on Nov 11, 2014 11:25:46 GMT -5
The Nationals resignation prompted me to revisit this thread. With the Nationals and Pirates now both without GMs I'm wondering if there is any desire about contracting those two teams in the NL. The GM ownership and involvement for those two clubs has been spotty during our history and perhaps now is a good time to access this direction (contraction) prior to FA and well before the 2015 season.
In reviewing the above thread most GMs who commented are still active and the voting was close. I'm curious as to our current thinking especially from the NL GMs and naturally our commissioners. There is still certainly plenty of time prior to the 2015 season to recruit new GMs. Both clubs have some nice players on their rosters that may be attractive to new GMs. Both teams are potentially only losing a few players to FA as well. Both teams have some FA money to spend.
Personally I'd prefer 30 strong active GMs--usually on any given day during the season we have about 24 GMs checking in and during the off season maybe 20 which is pretty good. However I'm leaning toward rolling up those two clubs, having a dispersal draft (or maybe all those players just become FAs), perhaps increasing the remaining clubs salary cap, and ultimately making our available player pool deeper to strengthen the overall condition/health of both leagues. Any thoughts out there? Perhaps we can get together and have some discussion going as we wait for Rule V to come around...
Post by Brian (Blue Jays GM) on Nov 11, 2014 12:08:11 GMT -5
When we discussed this 2 years ago I voted in favor of contraction, but if we voted again today I'd vote against it. At that time, we were struggling to fill vacancies and keep teams active, but we've had much better success recently with finding new GMs who've been both committed to the league and savvy with their roster transactions (with the exceptions of the 2 current vacancies, who were good GMs when active but failed to remain committed to the league). I'm confident we can find new GMs who can fill these vacancies and bring these teams back to contention.
Also, the realistic nature of this league (specifically the representation of all 30 teams and the need to fill rosters while facing the same challenges a major league GM would have) is one of my favorite things about it and I'd only be in favor of changing that if I felt we were worse off having 30 teams than 28, which I currently do not feel is the case.
Post by Billy (Cardinals GM) on Nov 12, 2014 20:16:45 GMT -5
I still believe we should keep 30 teams. We have a solid group of committed members. There's always going to be people coming and going so realistically we should expect to have to add a manager or two from time to time. Getting new guys in is healthy for the league though in my opinion.
The realism of having 30 teams is what sets this league apart from others. On top of that we have 28 managers who are active. That is almost unheard of in a league of this size. I say if we can get the managers to maintain a full league then we should. It's what makes this league unique.
If we ever wanted to spread the talent throughout the league we could always do a re-draft where every team keeps a certain amount of players and the rest are up for grabs in the draft.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Nov 15, 2014 10:44:44 GMT -5
I originally voted in favor of contraction the first time through this discussion. I'm against it now, but still think it's worth discussing.
Pros for me remain: 1) No longer having to scrape the bottom of the barrel when looking for players (30 teams in our league all starting at least 5 SPs and 9 hitters more than uses up what's available out there). Then again, I have another possible solution for this one. See my upcoming thread... 2) Even divisions (especially given how competitive the NL Central has been the past two seasons, it's a bit unfair that they have to play in a six-team division while the AL West has just four).
Cons: 1) Realism. Not having 30 teams really would take something away, I think. 2) As a counterpoint to number 2 above, to have all six divisions be even we'd need to contract down to 24. The alternative to that would be contracting to 28 and having two divisions in each league (7 per division), but now we've deviated even further from reality.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Nov 15, 2014 10:44:52 GMT -5
I originally voted in favor of contraction the first time through this discussion. I'm against it now, but still think it's worth discussing.
Pros for me remain: 1) No longer having to scrape the bottom of the barrel when looking for players (30 teams in our league all starting at least 5 SPs and 9 hitters more than uses up what's available out there). Then again, I have another possible solution for this one. See my upcoming thread... 2) Even divisions (especially given how competitive the NL Central has been the past two seasons, it's a bit unfair that they have to play in a six-team division while the AL West has just four).
Cons: 1) Realism. Not having 30 teams really would take something away, I think. 2) As a counterpoint to number 2 above, to have all six divisions be even we'd need to contract down to 24. The alternative to that would be contracting to 28 and having two divisions in each league (7 per division), but now we've deviated even further from reality.
