|
|
Post by Lunatic Fringe on Dec 29, 2009 18:23:49 GMT -5
This proposal was brought to me. I thought there was enough validity to it to propose it to the group. We've already talked about the difficulty we've had finding good owners, and how shitty it will be to have to replace guys year in and year out. Lee's players going back into the draft will help a little with parity. Gary already mentioned that the keeper deadline is in 50 hours and that team has no owner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nellie's Holler on Dec 29, 2009 18:27:19 GMT -5
Are we sure all the other 15 teams are on board and know what's going on?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Dec 29, 2009 18:36:00 GMT -5
I reached out to Joe, and know Gary did too, doesn't sound like he was too interested.
I voted in favor on contracting it due to time but that's a bummer. I guess 4 shitty teams get huge upgrades in Kinsler, Markakis, Sizemore, and Cain. I guess that works because it's 3 replacement teams and Ryan. Dickman you better stay active if your dumpster fire of a team gets handed a top 20 player. Lopez and Hawpe are the only other players of any value. The MiLB system is non existent. Triunfel I guess.
It's not ideal but I'm not sure what else will work. Nobody has any possible replacements so what alternative is there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nellie's Holler on Dec 29, 2009 18:43:42 GMT -5
I just hate that someone gets Kinsler for nothing. I had to trade half my damn team away for MI not as good as him, and Kinsler is just going to be given away for nothing! It's just hard to believe we can't find some sap to take it over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 29, 2009 18:44:41 GMT -5
I think:
1) IF we could find a new owner within the next hour, it's not fair to a new owner to bring him/her on now, with our keeper deadline two days away.
2) It's silly to concentrate on repeatedly looking for new owners until we're sure all the current owners are good and active.
3) Putting Lee's players back into the player pool for the draft actually allows some of the bottom feeders (yes, me) to make a dent in the quality of their teams through the MLB draft. Fewer teams (15 instead of 16) means a more competitive league.
4) If, as Jackson said in a different thread, we are getting closer to having a league full of solid owners from top to bottom, then it won't be a problem to add ONE team back at some point in the future IF we have carefully chosen an owner.
5) We need to carefully contemplate any new owners. It's a bad idea to rush into a new owner for Lee's team just because we're all busy and nobody has had time to propose any alternatives...or because we're afraid to contract his team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Dec 29, 2009 18:48:13 GMT -5
I just hate that someone gets Kinsler for nothing. I had to trade half my damn team away for MI not as good as him, and Kinsler is just going to be given away for nothing! It's just hard to believe we can't find some sap to take it over. I hear you, but you know we aren't going to get anyone who gives a shit in the next 2 days. |
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 29, 2009 18:56:08 GMT -5
It's just hard to believe we can't find some sap to take it over. I hear you too, but this is exactly what I think we should be trying to avoid or we're just going to be looking for another new owner next June, when "some sap" quits. |
|
|
|
Post by Nellie's Holler on Dec 29, 2009 19:08:27 GMT -5
I understand. I'd be fighting for it if I was in your shoes. It probably needs to be done. Still doesn't make me any happier about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Ayala - Matt on Dec 29, 2009 19:10:10 GMT -5
We could also come to a consensus on who his keepers should be, so we wouldn't have to replace him in the next 2 days.
On the other hand, I don't want to contract any teams, but the situation couldn't be better for it. His players won't make a big impact, they only help the bottom teams, and none of the top picks that might be Kinsler, Sizemore, etc, have been involved in any trades.
I'd like to try to find an owner, but if we can't, I'd be okay with contraction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nellie's Holler on Dec 29, 2009 19:13:55 GMT -5
They may have made a difference in trades though. Would I have had to give up a pick along with Price & Shields for Brandon Phillips if he knew he could draft Kinsler? I don't want it back, just bitching to bitch. I'll shut up now before I become accused of shaking my fist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 29, 2009 19:14:58 GMT -5
I know, right? I don't want to be completely obvious about why I think this is a good idea, but the fact that it would help me should have been at the top of my list.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nuke LaLoosh Express on Dec 29, 2009 19:45:17 GMT -5
I know several guys who'd take over Lee's team and would be competitive, BUT I don't know how long they'd stay that way. It's pretty obvious who his keepers would be so we could wait it out until the 6th, or whenever we decide to start the draft. If you want, I'll bring Andy in ASAP, he's been following the league since it started and knows the rules, if not, contract it and let the bottom feeders get better instantly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2009 22:37:23 GMT -5
Pull the plug on Lee's team. 15 teams, an lets make a rule if somebody goes MIA for a certain time (to be determined) he will be deleted from the league, that team will remain ownerless. We need something in place to stop an owner for doing anything illegal.
Then a vote will determine the fate of that said team.
1. find another owner
2. contract that team for the following year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 29, 2009 22:58:24 GMT -5
Why do we need something in place to prevent owners from doing anything illegal? I wouldn't have thought that was a problem in this league. It doesn't seem like it has been during my short time here.
I thought we were considering contraction because we wanted to concentrate on keeping the league competitive for the good, active owners rather than feeling like we HAVE to find another owner NOW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2009 23:16:08 GMT -5
I should have never used to the word illegal......Colin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 30, 2009 12:45:41 GMT -5
Lots of comments...but only four votes so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Ayala - Matt on Dec 30, 2009 13:52:39 GMT -5
Lots of comments...but only four votes so far. It's not really much of a vote, if I vote to contract does that mean that I don't care if we find a good owner? If I vote to continue looking, does that mean I'd rather have a bad owner than contract? I vote 3rd option: Continue looking, and if we can't find someone, then contract. |
|
|
|
Post by Ninja Warriors (JB) on Dec 30, 2009 14:25:57 GMT -5
I agree with the above. I would like to find another owner if possible, but I would consent to contraction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 30, 2009 14:35:52 GMT -5
I don't think voting to contract means you don't care about finding a good owner...I think it means that you do care about the well-being of the rest of the league.
I agree that finding another owner would be great, but Lee quit two months ago and we haven't found one. The keeper/trade deadline is tomorrow. At some point, we have to stop talking about it and just DO something. That's what I figured this vote was about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2009 15:30:57 GMT -5
Sixteen teams with this much depth and forethought will inevitably lead to situations like this. With fewer teams -- 14 or 15 -- we could add more parity, well-rounded competition, and 100% participation. And fewer teams might prevent the conversations about tanking for a pick one way or the other. Having fewer teams would make our decision to flip the draft order on either level that much easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Trombones - Jackson on Dec 30, 2009 15:40:50 GMT -5
Sixteen teams with this much depth and forethought will inevitably lead to situations like this. With fewer teams -- 14 or 15 -- we could add more parity, well-rounded competition, and 100% participation. And fewer teams might prevent the conversations about tanking for a pick one way or the other. Having fewer teams would make our decision to flip the draft order on either level that much easier. I agree, just contract the motherfucker and we can move on. If the bottom feeder teams that get awesome upgrades quit, it will make it that much easier to find replacements because those teams will be more desirable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2009 17:24:14 GMT -5
Sixteen teams with this much depth and forethought will inevitably lead to situations like this. With fewer teams -- 14 or 15 -- we could add more parity, well-rounded competition, and 100% participation. And fewer teams might prevent the conversations about tanking for a pick one way or the other. Having fewer teams would make our decision to flip the draft order on either level that much easier. I agree, just contract the motherfucker and we can move on. If the bottom feeder teams that get awesome upgrades quit, it will make it that much easier to find replacements because those teams will be more desirable. I couldn't agree more.......Now everybody needs to get their MLB & MiLB keepers in..... |
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Ayala - Matt on Dec 30, 2009 17:26:24 GMT -5
ALRIGHT! My brother-in-law Dave might want to join. He has extensive experience, is smart on the waiver-wire, and will catch on quick to the rest. He's got the info and he'll be checking out our set-up, deciding whether or not he wants to commit to this. If he does, he'll be a great addition, except for the fact that he always tends to be on the podium at the end of the season.
One problem though, are we going to do anything about the fact that a new owner would only have 3 MiLB keepers? Can we give him 5 extra MiLB'ers from what the rest of us don't keep? 5 extra draft picks at the end of the draft? Or can he be allowed to have 5 extra adds in the free agent pick-up time?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nuke LaLoosh Express on Dec 30, 2009 17:45:51 GMT -5
ALRIGHT! My brother-in-law Dave might want to join. He has extensive experience, is smart on the waiver-wire, and will catch on quick to the rest. He's got the info and he'll be checking out our set-up, deciding whether or not he wants to commit to this. If he does, he'll be a great addition, except for the fact that he always tends to be on the podium at the end of the season. One problem though, are we going to do anything about the fact that a new owner would only have 3 MiLB keepers? Can we give him 5 extra MiLB'ers from what the rest of us don't keep? 5 extra draft picks at the end of the draft? Or can he be allowed to have 5 extra adds in the free agent pick-up time? Although it would mean ANOTHER DAVE, I can vouch for him as a fantastic fantasy baseball owner, operator and GM. If the rest of the league agrees I would bring him in pronto. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2009 17:56:09 GMT -5
IMO Contraction of Lee's team is the best thing for this league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nuke LaLoosh Express on Dec 30, 2009 18:02:38 GMT -5
What could work, if Matt's brother-in-law wants in, he could take over Baseball Junkies, in the case his kid needs his attention. I know little Baseball Junkies, aka Jackson, was released from the hospital but he still needs to be monitored at all times. But it doesn't matter to me either way if someone takes Lee's team or if it's contracted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2009 19:32:48 GMT -5
If he takes over a team that has three MiLB keepers at the moment, I would be glad to trade him a few fuckin' prospects for an MLB talent to upgrade someone on my roster. Then again, if trades are kind of sleazy in this kind of a situation, I say we should let him pick five and meet the league quota.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Ayala - Matt on Dec 30, 2009 22:43:04 GMT -5
He saw Lee's team and he wants in, he says he'll stay committed to the league. I've talked about the league to him before and he's mentioned his interest. He'd be perfect, and certainly better than removing a team.
This is pretty much exactly what we've wanted since Lee left, an experienced, committed, adult owner who doesn't mind coming late to the show.
Mack, should I formally invite him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2009 22:47:53 GMT -5
I think we should vote again on this issue before we formally invite anyone. The situation has changed, so several minds may have changed with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Dec 30, 2009 23:02:47 GMT -5
I think we should vote again on this issue before we formally invite anyone. The situation has changed, so several minds may have changed with it. Agreed. Also, I'm wondering why, when we've known about this for two months, we suddenly "find" a good owner when we start talking about contraction. Why couldn't we have found this owner two months ago? Or a month ago? Or hell, even a week ago? Regardless, if he'll be a good owner, great. Let's just make sure, before we invite him, that we have a viable 16-team league. |
|
