|
|
Post by Brian (Blue Jays GM) on Jun 28, 2020 14:55:03 GMT -5
Hey guys,
The votes are in and the verdict is to continue the league as is!
However, I did mention in the post and my email that if a team did not vote, they would be considered as not moving forward with the league. Two teams, the Yankees and A’s, did not vote and are now considered vacant.
Before we attempt to fill those vacancies, the commissioners would like to propose an alternative to the league: contract the 2 franchises and redistribute the talent across the league’s remaining 28 teams via a contraction draft.
In addition to this, the commissioners are also considering other means of talent redistribution from the existing teams (as proposed in the comments of the previous poll) such that the contraction draft pool would include the players from the Yankees, A’s, and some talent from the other 28 franchises.
One other issue that would arise from contraction would be an imbalance in the number of teams in the NL vs the AL. A possible solution would be for 2 NL teams to “re-brand” themselves as the Yankees and A’s. Those teams would continue with their current rosters, but would switch their team affiliation for post-draft adds to their new AL franchise. If you’re an NL team and you’d be interested in switching to a specific AL franchise or are open to either, please comment below. If there are more than 2 teams interested in re-branding, I plan to select via random draw
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Jun 28, 2020 15:24:44 GMT -5
I am interested in taking over the A’s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toy (Braves GM) on Jun 28, 2020 17:17:27 GMT -5
Since the majority voted to continue the league as is, should option three re distributing the talent for all teams be taken off the table? Seems like it is just a second bite of the apple for trying to start over if we are redistributing talent from contracted and existing teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian (Blue Jays GM) on Jun 28, 2020 19:38:08 GMT -5
Since the majority voted to continue the league as is, should option three re distributing the talent for all teams be taken off the table? Seems like it is just a second bite of the apple for trying to start over if we are redistributing talent from contracted and existing teams. Won’t be anything too extreme, you’re not going to see teams losing their top talent. More likely something like how the nhl has done expansion drafts in recent years where teams get to protect a certain number of players and then expose the rest and can only lose a limited amount of players. It’s really about redistributing depth to narrow the gap between the top and bottom teams. Multiple people who voted to continue as is suggested there be some form of way to improve parity across the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Oren (Diamondbacks GM) on Jun 28, 2020 20:59:33 GMT -5
WOW I have such an urge to ask to swap to the Yankees to join that challenging division
|
|
|
|
Post by Oren (Diamondbacks GM) on Jun 28, 2020 21:00:35 GMT -5
What about filling to 30 teams and still doing some sort of redistributing? Could be a solid option as well
|
|
|
|
Post by Billy (Cardinals GM) on Jun 28, 2020 21:08:20 GMT -5
Has the idea of filling the two vacant positions AND redistributing the talent from all 30 teams been discussed at all? Judging by how close the voting was and from some of the comments left by the people who voted to continue as is about a need to redistribute players, it seems like most are more mixed on the matter than anything else. I feel that keeping all 30 teams would make things much easier when it comes to division alignment and realism and if redistribution was added to filling those teams positions, the added benefit would be a much bigger player pool in a redistribution which would truly shake things up and kickstart some of the teams who are struggling. It would act as a hybrid restart which is what I felt many people would prefer. That would be the best course of action in my opinion but I’d like to hear others takes on it as well.
Edit: And just as I’m typing this Oren beats me to it lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Jun 28, 2020 21:29:40 GMT -5
That’s why we are asking about either continuing with 30 or some sort of redistribution. It’s been a challenge for years to keep 30 quality people. This is a chance to keep our league competitive while also distributing some talent. If the majority want to keep it to 30 that’s what we will do. I just hate seeing 2-4 dead teams every year. It’s free wins for teams in their divisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian (Blue Jays GM) on Jun 29, 2020 8:18:48 GMT -5
What about filling to 30 teams and still doing some sort of redistributing? Has the idea of filling the two vacant positions AND redistributing the talent from all 30 teams been discussed at all? If we don't contract the 2 teams, we will be doing some form of redistribution among the 30 teams. I think it was made clear that one way or another, some form of redistribution of talent is needed in this league. The reason I separated the 2 contraction choices was to determine if teams thought redistributing the talent from the Yankees and A's was enough to help teams that are struggling, or if further redistribution from the other 28 teams was desired as well. Once a decision on whether or not to contract the 2 teams is reached, the next poll/discussion will be regarding redistribution plans. |
|
|
|
Post by Billy (Cardinals GM) on Jun 29, 2020 12:18:47 GMT -5
If we don't contract the 2 teams, we will be doing some form of redistribution among the 30 teams. I think it was made clear that one way or another, some form of redistribution of talent is needed in this league. The reason I separated the 2 contraction choices was to determine if teams thought redistributing the talent from the Yankees and A's was enough to help teams that are struggling, or if further redistribution from the other 28 teams was desired as well. Once a decision on whether or not to contract the 2 teams is reached, the next poll/discussion will be regarding redistribution plans. Thanks for clearing that up. If that’s the case then I’ll vote to fill the two vacancies. I personally like the league mirroring the actual majors so it keeps things realistic, and also six divisions with five teams each is much more manageable and easier to handle than the four division/seven team each setup (I’d assume) we’d have with taking out two teams imo. |
|
|
|
Post by Zack (Mariners GM) on Jun 29, 2020 15:12:26 GMT -5
This might be getting ahead of ourselves but...
If we were to re-align into 15 AL and 15 NL teams, this would require us switching to a different platform besides Yahoo, correct? 15 teams in each league would require at least one interleague matchup per week. But if Yahoo can't support 30 teams in one league, sounds like we'd need to switch to another platform (Fantrax?).
Obviously Yahoo has served us well through the years but it'd probably be worth switching, in my opinion, to re-balance the league and more closely mimic real-life MLB which now has constant interleague play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben (former Twins GM) on Jun 30, 2020 12:25:53 GMT -5
I think one rule change that could help competitiveness would be to eliminate discounts in free agency.....good teams are often able to retain top players at an extremely cheap price by stacking discounts
|
|
|
|
Post by Tucker (Padres GM) on Jun 30, 2020 19:37:55 GMT -5
What would you guys think about implementing a way to provide additional assets each season to the teams that need them rather than redistributing players from existing teams? I find myself either wanting a full restart or a minor adjustment to try and level things out rather than some sort of large talent redistribution. I'd obviously be ok with whatever the ultimate decision is, but the thought of teams losing players they don't want to because they're deep doesn't seem like it may be as productive as we hope.
One of the suggestions I had thrown around was giving all non-playoff teams an additional pick at the back end of a round to counter act the playoff FA discount. Teams picking 1-6 get an additional 1st, 7-12 a 2nd, 13-18 a 3rd in reverse draft order. This obviously isn't realistic, but provides additional assets for teams at the bottom to either use to potentially put them over the top or get another quality prospect and the teams that just barely miss the playoffs aren't left empty handed.
For example, this is what this past years first round might have looked like:
1 ) Texas Rangers
2 ) Pittsburgh Pirates
3 ) Boston Red Sox
4 ) San Francisco Giants
5 ) Oakland Athletics
6 ) New York Yankees
7 ) Cincinnati Reds (from Kansas City Royals )
8 ) Minnesota Twins (from Chicago White Sox )
9 ) Pittsburgh Pirates (from Cincinnati Reds )
10 ) San Diego Padres
11 ) Milwaukee Brewers
12 ) St Louis Cardinals
13 ) Detroit Tigers
14 ) New York Mets
15 ) Miami Marlins
16 ) Oakland Athletics (from Atlanta Braves )
17 ) Minnesota Twins
18 ) San Diego Padres (from Houston Astros )
19 ) Cleveland Indians
20 ) Philadelphia Phillies
21 ) Seattle Mariners
22 ) Colorado Rockies
23 ) Arizona Diamondbacks (from Tampa Bay Rays )
24 ) Pittsburgh Pirates (from Los Angeles Dodgers )
25 ) Milwaukee Brewers (from Arizona Diamondbacks )
26 ) Los Angeles Angels
27 ) Toronto Blue Jays
28 ) Washington Nationals
29 ) Baltimore Orioles
30 ) Cincinnati Reds (from Chicago Cubs )
31 ) New York Yankees
32 ) Oakland Athletics
33 ) San Francisco Giants
34 ) Boston Red Sox
35 ) Pittsburgh Pirates
36 ) Texas Rangers
Just a thought at a tweak to the system to try and level things out rather than redistributing the players.
|
|
