|
Post by Demreb on Jun 29, 2009 21:28:46 GMT -5
Fellow owners:
As we head into July, we have to consider 2010. As we all know, last year we had two teams resign and we decided to play this season with ten owners. Now it's time to begin the discussion of whether to continue with ten owners, expand to eleven or go back to twelve.
What I would like each of you to do is think back over the off-season when you were doing your draft prep.
Think back to the draft (the start and stop time, the pace, the camaraderie, whatever comes to mind).
Think back over the first three months of the season (free agent call ups, trade discussions, team position in the standings).
Give your thoughts, ideas, opinions of sticking with ten or expanding. Once we've all had a chance to provide our give and take we can open the issue to an official vote.
If we decide to expand, we'll need to start lining up candidates and plan accordingly for an expansion draft.
Let the comments begin.
|
|
redhots
Rookie Part-timer
Posts: 90
|
Post by redhots on Jul 6, 2009 13:58:04 GMT -5
I guess I will be the first one to throw my .02 in here.
I think we should look to expand back up to 12 teams. It is just a personal preference. I will say that the owners must be a good match but the recent additions to the CFCL (and I include myself in this bunch) have all been successful additions.
Being an ultra league I think it is better to have 12 teams for proper league player pool penetration.
I will add additional thoughts later if need be but right now my 8 year old is asking for a Mario Kart whoopin' so this has to get cut short.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by MGrage on Jul 13, 2009 9:34:46 GMT -5
I'm going to have to offer the counter-point to Bob's post. I'd like to stay at 10 teams for a year or two. It's like being in a completely new league this year. Player valuations are different. More players are available as free agent pickups which should make at least one additional award more interesting this year. The whole league dynamic has changed and I like it.
|
|
|
Post by Demreb on Jul 15, 2009 23:07:49 GMT -5
Hmmm. I was hoping for a little more action since it's the All-Star break and no meaningful games are being played. We have ten owners in the league and only two have weighed in. I'm going to guess that my fellow ECers have had similar thoughts to mine and were waiting for more responses before weighing in so as not to influence the thought process.
We're getting to the point of needing to see the direction the league is going to go for 2010 and beyond.
Here are the thoughts I've had running through my head.
With ten owners the draft didn't seem THAT much shorter than with twelve. We started a half hour earlier than normal and tried to keep things moving at a workable pace, but we still got out around 5ish which was close to what we did in 2008 with twelve. So ten or twelve doesn't seem to affect us on Draft Day - at least time wise.
I don't know if the following is because I feel I have less time to devote to my team or what, but it doesn't seem like there's a ton of talent to draw from in the Free Agent Pool. I was kind of excited going into 2009 thinking there would be an extra 80 players to pick up. While there have been a couple nice acquisitions, there sure hasn't been the extra talent I thought we would see lying around. I could be wrong, but it feels like the Free Agent Pool is stocked about the same for 2009 as it was for 2008.
I like the idea of keeping with tradition and CFCL tradition has been to follow The Bible as closely as possible. So that means we should be at twelve. But in all honesty, I like the ten guys we have and don't want to add two more teams (personalities) just for the sake of adding two.
I will admit that being in sixth place this year is a bit more depressing. When I initially think about being in sixth, I think "Yeah but I'm still in the top half of the . .. oh wait, we only have ten teams. dang, I'm in the second division."
If I had to decide today, I would say I like the ten we have and let's leave it alone. However I'm not opposed to going back to twelve, we just have to find the right guys.
Gents, (the remaining seven teams) please weigh in with your thoughts. If, in fact, we do expand back to twelve, that decision needs to be made earlier rather than later. It's not just about finding two guys and giving them directions to Oak Brook.
We as existing owners have to think of who to protect in a supplemental draft. That may influence some of the rebuilding teams as they make trades now for next year. If I'm building for next year without a supplemental draft, I only have to worry about cutting down to 23 for Winter Waivers. But if I have to consider a supplemental draft, when I'm talking trade maybe I insist on one stud prospect who I could easily protect, rather than pick up three decent prospects, one or two of which I may need to expose to the SD.
I would imagine the contending teams wouldn't be affected too much by a potential SD. If you're making a run for this year, you're going to do what you need to do and worry about next year, next year. But I'm getting tired so maybe I'm not thinking clearly.
Additionally, the finding of two quality owners takes time. Yes, we met Mike Bentel at the draft and the general consensus was that he would make a fine owner. But he wasn't offered an opening and he hasn't accepted. So even if we say "He's in", he may not want in - he is a White Sox fan afterall and they think differently. Plus he's a college student so he has oats to sow and whatnot.
All I'm saying is the process takes a while - start to finish. The sooner we know if we have to start, the better.
|
|
|
Post by Copperfields on Jul 16, 2009 12:35:40 GMT -5
I like the idea of keeping with tradition and CFCL tradition has been to follow The Bible as closely as possible. So that means we should be at twelve. Technically, if we were to follow The Bible, we should have 13 teams, not 12. Since the NL has two more teams than the AL, an "official" NL-only league has 13 teams - at least according to the rules. That aside, I'm more inclined to stick with 10 teams rather than go back up to 12. I don't know if it's old age, my family situation, work, or what, but I don't have as much time for the day-to-day running of my team as I used to, let alone the more focused prep that goes into Draft Day. Maybe I'm ready for Dan Okrent's AARP version of Rotisserie: www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/03/qa-fantasy-base.htmlI stopped playing in 1995, and then started again in 2001 with some of the original guys. We call it “Rotisserie Lite” or “Slo-Pitch” or “AARP Rotisserie.” We will have a draft on April 5th this year, and then we’ll have one week of trading and that’s it. Then you can just move players up and down from an active roster to a reserve roster and you don’t have to talk to anybody else in the league, and you can lead your life like a semi-normal person. It’s a senior citizen version of the game.
|
|
|
Post by kenndoza (archived) on Jul 18, 2009 14:13:08 GMT -5
I guess the reason I didn't say anything yet is I'm not sure what I want. I like the idea of 10 - nice round number, easy to keep track, etc. Something nice about 10-team, 10-category league. I've also felt that the FA pool has been a little better this year (Rich's comments notwithstanding), but it's been picked clean a bit. I got Troncoso and Mujica and Nix this year, and they've all been nice contributors to my team. Not that they wouldn't have been there in a 12-team league, but there might have been more competition for them, and I might not have gotten them all. I also like how my bench seems to be a little better, which makes me think I have more depth. In a 12-team league, none of us would have many 300-AB guys on our bench - we'd be forced to play any "regulars" like that, but I can carry Prados and Thurstons on my bench and plug them in during the time they get regular duty. I like that.
On the other hand 12 teams seems "right". Most publications/websites think of things in terms of 12-team leagues, and I've never totally understood how to convert dollar values to different-sized leagues. Twelve teams is just easier. It's also a better challenge and I feel like I accomplish much more being in a larger league.
If I had a vote, I'd stick with ten, but if the majority of the league liked 12, I'd have no problems with that.
That said, I don't like 11 or 13. That just doesn't seem right.
|
|
|
Post by mcoulter2008 on Jul 27, 2009 14:19:08 GMT -5
I purposefully waited this out a bit. So here is my 2 cents.
I felt like the prep work for the auction and draft and the draft itself went a little smoother than my first season. The actual draft time may not have been less, but I felt as though I knew the owners a bit better and their motives...lol
I haven't really seen a difference in the race for the Copperfield trophy as a result of having two fewer teams. I have noticed a slight difference in the free agent talent pool, which has helped some teams (myself and the Revenge for example) overcome terrible injuries this year without having to fall to the mercy of being taken advantage of in trade...lol
I like the 10 team dynamic. I enjoy each of the owners we have now. I feel the deeper talent pool has helped ease the 'dump trade' mentality a bit.
I scoured the constitution to see how a supplemental draft might effect my year-round roster building/noodling. As a team of just two seasons now that was built from the scraps of others, I remain a bit wary of having to surrender talent to another supplemental draft.
So if I were to come down on one side or the other, I would side with a 10 team league. Especially since we have experienced turnover of five teams in the past two seasons alone. Who is to say at the end of this season that we might not have to find an owner or two just to stay at 10?
M.Coulter GM-CCC sportsline guy
|
|
|
Post by MGrage on Sept 1, 2009 5:39:53 GMT -5
Whoa, is it September already? With the fast approaching Pigskin 2000 Draft, I can only make a few brief points. I'll tell Harry, Bruce and Kelly y'all said hi. I'm with Kenny, prime numbers just look bad. Though it might be a good idea to expand incrementally. Instead of bumping up two owners, just add one a year. Also I have to disagree with Rich. I think there has been a plethora of good Free Agents out there. Just on my team, I added Dan Meyer (lots o holds), Joel Pineiro (lots of QS and trade bait), Jorge De La Rosa (surprisingly good on the road) and a bunch of speculative nickel players for next year (Cedeno, Stubbs, Putz, Freese, Medlin, Davis, Drabek). Hell, even Fernando Tatis and Jesse Chavez filled holes in my lineup pretty well. BTW, I speculated on a couple of players in the last week of August last year and one of them grew up to be Kung Fu Panda. Gotta love me my Pablo Sandoval .... I also agree with Mike that the added free talent lessened the desire for lower ranked teams to make dump trades. Finally, I think I know why Kenny likes the current number of teams. He's a closet European and the metric system appeals to him. Mahalo Matt
|
|