Expansion for 2014?

[Demreb]

I sent out an e-mail asking for feedback on possibly expanding to 11 or 12 teams for the 2014 season. So far I've heard from five of you, sort of.

Two owners are in favor of expanding to 12 teams. One owner is against it (though it isn't a dealbreaker for him returning to the league for 2014). Two owners seem in favor of it if the new owners are quality (i.e. knowledgeable, active, etc.)

So let's talk it out. Should we expand or not?

Over the course of the 2013 season, I have had interaction with three guys who have expressed serious interest in joining the CFCL. They all seem to fit the mold of what the CFCL would look for in a new owner. Whether that's true will most likely be filtered out during the application process - should we get that far.

For 9 seasons (2000-2008) the CFCL did have 12 teams. Everyone currently in the league competed, at least in part, in 12 teams seasons except for the Killers and Danger. So the majority of us have that experience.

Assuming we expand and the candidates are qualified, the one major difference between then and now is that the NL has one fewer team with the Astros jumping to the AL this season. That's 24-25 active major leaguers not at our disposal for filling out active and reserve rosters.

So here's some quick math for expanding to 12 teams (accuracy of these numbers is about 85%). Twelve CFCL teams with 23 man active and 17 man reserve rosters equals a total of 480 players.

Fifteen National League teams with 25 man active rosters equals 375 major league players to select from.

480 (needed for the CFCL) - 375 (available in the NL) = 105 additional needed players. These players would come from minor league rosters, Japan (or Cuba or Australia or the developing Turkish team) or (in the case of the Bulls) high school rosters.

105 divided by 12 CFCL teams, means that, on average, each CFCL roster would have 9 minor league/foreign/college players.

Seventeen man reserve rosters would leave us with (on average) eight National Leaguers to rotate in and out or use for an injured player. Granted some of those minor leaguers would be called up in the case of injury, so it's not like the 9 minor leaguers on each reserve roster would never be used (again except for the Bulls with their bevy of 17 year olds).

That could be an argument against expansion - we would be spreading ourselves too thin.

A potential argument in favor of expansion is "striking while the iron is hot". Right now we don't HAVE to expand. We have ten teams (all but two have confirmed their return for 2014). Assuming those two teams remain, we can keep the status quo. However, if in the future someone (or someones) decide to resign, then we'll need to find their replacements. Any or all of the three interested owners may not wait around for us in which case we're in scramble mode, emptying our collective pockets in an attempt to bribe the Copperfields to return.

I'm sure each of you have additional, more coherent thoughts and we need to hear them. We need to hear them quickly because if we are going to expand we need to

1) Interview the potential owners
2) Vote on their qualifications
3) Conduct an expansion draft which requires:
a) all ten of us to submit protected lists (we'll get into the specifics if the conversation leads us to believe expansion could be imminent).

All of the above takes time. With work, familiy schedules and looming holidays, we don't really have much time. Remember Winter Waivers begins on the first Sunday of January. All of this needs to be completed before then.

Please weigh in.

[bentel889]

I agree with everything Rich says. I think an expansion to 12 teams would be nice. It would make moves more critical, but it would expand over the whole league. Ultimately, in the end, we may need more teams once some teams fallout, which also makes sense. I vote for expansion.

-Mike

[MGrage]

This topic actually dovetails nicely into the previous thread wheee we discussed the strategy of putting DL'ed or minor league players on your active roster to preserve ratios. I think expansion could result in an increase of that.

Anyways, this is a tough choice for me. I've becomed inured to the current level to the status quo and I'd have to make a lot of adjustments to accommodate the bigger league. On the other hand, the prize pool would be much better and an extra money finish.

If I have to vote now, I'd vote yes. Mahalo

Matt

[Go Beatniks!]

And to facilitate moving this discussion to this forum, here's the latest email copypasta (email addresses are stripped):

Not to be all jerk like, but this kind of discussion is way better suited to a forum. If for no other reason we’re not getting a metric crapton of copypasta with each email forward.

So please, Gentlemen, can we take this to the CFCL discussion boards? My reading email from my phone during work hours self thanks you.



From: M C [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:51 AM
To: Richard Bentel; Kenn Ruby; Matt
Cc: Nick Hansen; Michael Bentel; Nick Hansen; mattbentel; Tim Morkert; Dave Holian; David Holian
Subject: Re: Add on to Address

If the expansion draft is to be like Winter Waivers, why not make all teams make their cuts down to 23 players now... tossing those players into the expansion pool? Then, following the expansion draft, any unchosen players can be returned to their original team, allowing for a winter waiver period later, albeit a diluted one.

This way no team will be penalized for giving up a 14th and/or 15th keeper while other teams may not lose any keepers at all. We all will have to make those cuts eventually anyway. And as the Winter Waiver period has shown in the past, there is plenty of talent to grab. I snatched Kenley Jansen there one year!

I know I could trim my roster to 23 right now without concern. And still be putting enough talent out there that an expansion team would select some of the players. Also, the new expansion team will have the same chance to load their roster as the rest of us at the auction. And as Kenn proved, a championship contending team can be purchased solely on auction day. So they would hardly be at a disadvantage.

M. Coulter
GM-CCC


On Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:13 AM, Richard Bentel wrote:
There are too many moving parts to this conversation. I was going to post this on the Forum but since everyone seems to enjoy 72 e-mail in the Inbox I'll simply respond to some of the comments. This isn't a comprehensive response, I don't have enough energy to address all the concerns at this point but here are a couple of main points.

1) I understand the concerns with your current roster and the effect it may have with an expansion. But there is not one person that can say they didn't know anything about the possibility of expansion. I brought it up at the draft. I pointed out we had at least one quality inquiry and what does everyone think about potentially expanding? That was met with a resounding collective "meh" followed by "well if it's a quality guy we should think of snapping him up." I'm paraphrasing of course.

Look, I'm not pushing for expansion. What I am looking for are quality owners. Obviously the Danger didn't fit that bill. You all express frustration over lack of response from the Danger to trade inquiries. Fair complaint. I sent him FIVE trade inquiries prior to Roster Cut Day and he didn't respond in any way to any of them. I also had to chase him down for six and a half months to collect the fee for 2013. I also had to ask him at least four times to respond to the e-mail that asked if everyone was coming back. I also had to chase him down to get his roster filled after the draft.

I don't point this out to put Scott on the spot (although he brought this all on himself), I point it out to say finding quality owners is not easy. I know this from 30 years experience and having crossed paths with deadbeat owners and vile despicable scum. So if we have the opportunity to bring on a quality owner, I believe it should be taken seriously.

Like I said, I'm not pushing for expansion, I'm simply trying to look big picture at the survival of the CFCL. If the eight of you want to sign 20 year contracts that you will not leave the CFCL, then we can call off the search. But the reality is we have four out of town owners who at any moment could say "It's too expensive/time consuming/inconvenient to get to Chicago each spring". The Clowns just pointed out they were an interview away from having to resign and they live locally.

As strong as our core is talent-wise, it is not a guaranteed core for longevity. In the past when an owner left it fell on the shoulders of David and me to find a replacement. With David retired, it's on me to actively chase down any potential talent to join our league. I haven't heard anyone else say they want to be CFCL Recruiting Officer.

2) There is a lot of handwringing going on about how devastating an expansion could be to your team. Possibly. However we all have to cut down to fifteen players (and four minor leaguers) for Roster Cut Day, so having to do basically the same thing in November, potentially, doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.

I don't buy that if we knew there would be expansion this off-season (and it WAS discussed) that everyone would have crafted their roster dramatically different. What I'm hearing is that, knowing expansion loomed in the off-season, teams would have tried to compete by acquiring talented players via trade, FAAB, etc. but not TOO many talented players for fear of having a few taken away during the off-season.

The point is to try to win each year. Let's say we don't expand this year, but agree to do it at the end of the 2014 season. You mean to tell me some of you would hold back on trying to amass enough talent to win simply so some of your talent doesn't go to an expansion team? You wouldn't play all out trying to win in 2014?

3) Yes, the "rules" for expansion are not in the Constitution. Not exactly sure why aside from the fact that when the CFCL has expanded it hasn't always been under the same exact circumstances each and every time. Whether verbage should be in the Constitution about expansion is debatable. What I find interesting is that at least two times in the last four or five years I have asked, almost begged, each of you to read through the Constitution and let me know if you noticed anything missing or any loopholes. With ten sets of eyes I figured we should be able to identify any needs for change. Now I know ten sets of eyes didn't scan through the Constitution so it was left to a few.

Aah nevermind. It's late. We don't have to expand. We don't have to replace the Danger. We don't have to do anything. I'll pass along any applications that get returned and await your responses.

Rich


From: Kenn Ruby <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: Add on to Address

Right...I should've mentioned that Rich said that to me today. Sorry about that.

I guess that's an important point though - nothing here is written down, so I think we just need to get all of the information before we even know how to vote. If Rich knows some things, and I happen to know some of those things because I asked him, and Mike and Matt don't know about them, but maybe someone else does...well, that's a whole lot of misinformation that can be out there.

Let's get this thing written down. Something like...

* Protect 14 players from your team that are 14, 15, 16 (or in the case of Stanton) 17 contracts.
* Mx players do not count toward your 14, nor can they be selected in the expansion. They are automatically protected and will remain on your pre-winter waiver roster.
* Any other players currently on your roster who has a 14, 15, or 16 contract is unprotected for the expansion
* Any player on your roster with a ! contract, MUST be among your 14 protectees.
* Assuming full expansion to 12 teams, a maximum of four of your unprotected players can be selected in the expansion draft. Once four of your players have been taken, the rest of the unprotected players will be returned to your pre-winter waivers roster.

I'm not saying this is exactly how it will go, or even if everything I said above is right, but it seems like a good starting point to solidifying the procedures so all nine of us will know what to expect.

From: Richard Bentel <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: Add on to Address

In an e-mail between us Kenn had asked something about the potential expansion rules and I pointed out the last time we had a potential situation like this (two owners left and four joined) we had the existing teams cut back to 14 major leaguers. Mx players were not protected, nor were they available to be chosen.

If I get a chance later tonight I'll address some of your concerns, not to sway your thoughts or decisions but to put things in perspective perhaps.

From: Matt <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: Add on to Address

Um Kenn, where did you read that minor league players wouldn't be eligible to be picked in the Expansion Draft? All I see in Rich's OP is that expiring & S contracts are excepted ...

Great, green gobs of greasy, grimy gopher guts.

On Oct 16, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Kenn Ruby <> wrote:
I understand and agree Mike, and it's spelled out well below.

The more I hear about the expansion, the more I don't really like it for precisely these reasons - no one thought we were going to do it at any point of this season. It would be like deciding we're going to remove the second catcher and second middle infielder and replace them with pitchers next year. Sure, we're all affected the same way, but maybe trading for a $2 catcher (who happened to get hurt the next day, grrrr...) wouldn't have been much of a draw for me. Maybe that's an extreme example, but maybe it's not.

I'll go along with expansion if it wins the vote, but I'm going to be very tough on the candidates and not agree to expand just because there's a couple of people who might like to join the league, and my preference would be to add just one team - the team to replace the Danger.

I guess the ultimate question is: what are we getting with owners 11 and 12 that we don't already have? I'm not completely against expansion per se, but there just doesn't seem to be a ton of upside, and while I understand the need to entice the new guy(s), at what cost?

One last thing Mike you may not know is that Mx guys neither count toward the 14 must keep nor are exposed to the draft. So you can keep 14, as well as your Mx guys (d'Arnaud is Mx, right?), if that counts for anything. I assume any players on contract MUST be among your 14, correct?

I guess we're not done talking about this.

Kenn

From: M C <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Add on to Address

"Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one."
-- the favorite quote/sagest advice of the late William Coulter

I did not comment on the league forum board on this topic for a couple reasons. A work promotion that I was up for would have likely prevented me from returning to the CFCL in 2014. And I have also grown weary of being the lone wolf dissenting voice in most of these league debates.

Now that cooler heads have prevailed at my workplace and I have been found lacking in terms of promotion, I figured I would send out my take on expansion.

Outside of replacing the missing Stranger Danger, who by my estimates from the frequency of return emails were missing long before this offseason, I'm against expansion, at least this offseason.

The loss of the Astros thins the talent pool as it is.

But that alone is not the sole reason.

The rules of expansion, as clearly stated in the email above, are NOT spelled out in the constitution. Thus not affording an owner a way to protect his roster in the impending wake of an expansion draft.

I believe in a long-term plan in constructing my team. And feel an owner should be given more of a warning that their carefully acquired assets could be plundered.

For example, knowing going into the 2013 season that expansion was coming in 2014 and knowing I would be faced with exposing assets for the taking at season's end, I severely doubt that at least two of my trades would have been agreed to on my part. In the Billy Hamilton trade alone, I acquired Hamels, D'Arnaud, Prado and Turner. Four potential keepers for one. Now I am faced with the possibility of exposing most if not all of them. Knowing the league was going to expand, and having the process well spelled out in our constitution, which it isn't, might have led me to treat things much differently as an owner.

I fully expect to be the lone dissenter here. But my points are valid.

As constructed now, my roster after expiring contracts, sits at 30 players. If I am forced to expose more than half of those to a draft, and the cream of them are selected, I will be left to "keep" two players I had no desire to keep just to reach the Roster Freeze limit. Hardly seems fair to someone who has painstakingly acquired said talent.

Forewarning an owner prior to the season that a two-team expansion draft will follow the season would allow that owner the opportunity to craft his roster accordingly.

My 2 cents.

M.Coulter
GM-CCC



On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:59 PM, Richard Bentel <> wrote:
I'm about 99% certain we WON'T be doing any extra protecting. We have a precedent of how we handle expansion (even if it's not in the Constitution) and I don't have 26 hours a day to dedicate to adding MORE weight to the way we do things.

That being said, one of the prospective owners responded ALREADY and said he is interested. He said (and I quote) "I was re-reading your Constitution during my lunch break . . ."

Let's let that sink in a moment. RE-reading the Constitution. Implying having read it once already. He had some pretty impressive questions about expansion and how that works timing-wise with Winter Waivers.

I just may give this guy my team. It would be in better hands.

Rich

From: Nick Hansen <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: Add on to Address

We didn’t do that in the expansion that brought Matt and I (and some other pair of clowns no longer with us…not to disparage clowns in general…especially those in candy colors). Seems like a lot of overhead to me. That could also be Rich exerting his mind control rays. I haven’t checked my tinfoil lately…



From: Kenn Ruby [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:10 PM
To: Matt; Richard Bentel
Cc: Michael Bentel; Nick Hansen; mattbentel; Tim Morkert; Michael Coulter; Dave Holian; David Holian
Subject: Re: Add on to Address

I thought about that as well, and it might be easy to do if you have 30 MLB representatives all participating at the same time, but the chances of us all getting together to react to each expansion pick is pretty difficult.

The only way around that: ranking the players you're not protecting. So if I have my guys ranked as Smith, Jones, and Wilson, and the draftee takes Wilson, then I get Smith back, but Jones is still available. If the draftee chooses Smith, I get Jones back, but Wilson is still available. That's not TOO complicated.

But now we're just getting greedy. I don't want to give up Darin Ruf (or whoever), but if that's what it takes to get someone interested in joining our league, I'm willing to do that. I just want to make sure that whatever we do is spelled out specifically (maybe an amendment to the constitution?) so that we're all clear what we're getting into and we do it the same way next time. I was in the 2004 expansion draft, and I don't recall there being any pull-backs like this, so I'm guessing we won't do it that way this time either. If we *are* considering that, however, let's discuss it.

Kenn


From: Matt <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Add on to Address

Interesting, it'd be great to have any of them back.

I had a thought on a possible expansion draft. What if an owner was able to protect a couple more players after having one or two players picked? Kinda like how they do in the Rule V draft ...

Not all 14th best players are created equal you know

Great, green gobs of greasy, grimy gopher guts.

On Oct 16, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Richard Bentel <> wrote:
Gents -

I also wanted to keep you informed that I have sent out inquiries to the former owners of the Lambchops, Red Hots and Copperfields to guage their interest in potentially returning. I don't think anything will come of it, but you never know. That's how we got Nick back, although apparently he was just looking for any opportunity to say yes to me and fall further under my power.

Rich

[Go Beatniks!]

And now for my replies:

Oct 17, 2013 9:34:18 GMT -5 Go Beatniks! said:

If the expansion draft is to be like Winter Waivers, why not make all teams make their cuts down to 23 players now... tossing those players into the expansion pool? Then, following the expansion draft, any unchosen players can be returned to their original team, allowing for a winter waiver period later, albeit a diluted one.

This way no team will be penalized for giving up a 14th and/or 15th keeper while other teams may not lose any keepers at all.

This seems like a really polite way of saying my team is way better than most of the other teams out there. IOW, some teams really suck. Which, to me, is unseemly.

Oct 17, 2013 9:34:18 GMT -5 Go Beatniks! said:

I understand the concerns with your current roster and the effect it may have with an expansion. But there is not one person that can say they didn't know anything about the possibility of expansion. I brought it up at the draft.

ding!

Oct 17, 2013 9:34:18 GMT -5 Go Beatniks! said:

2) There is a lot of handwringing going on about how devastating an expansion could be to your team. Possibly. However we all have to cut down to fifteen players (and four minor leaguers) for Roster Cut Day, so having to do basically the same thing in November, potentially, doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.

ding!

Oct 17, 2013 9:34:18 GMT -5 Go Beatniks! said:

I don't buy that if we knew there would be expansion this off-season (and it WAS discussed) that everyone would have crafted their roster dramatically different. What I'm hearing is that, knowing expansion loomed in the off-season, teams would have tried to compete by acquiring talented players via trade, FAAB, etc. but not TOO many talented players for fear of having a few taken away during the off-season.

The point is to try to win each year. Let's say we don't expand this year, but agree to do it at the end of the 2014 season. You mean to tell me some of you would hold back on trying to amass enough talent to win simply so some of your talent doesn't go to an expansion team? You wouldn't play all out trying to win in 2014?

ding! ding!

Oct 17, 2013 9:34:18 GMT -5 Go Beatniks! said:

I'll pass along any applications that get returned and await your responses.

I, for one, wish the concerns around expansion had been aired before we started advertising spots. Feels to me like perhaps we've strung a few folks along and as this is a hobby kind of thing (for me at least) it feels (for me at least) kind of shabby.

Oct 17, 2013 9:34:18 GMT -5 Go Beatniks! said:

* Protect 14 players from your team that are 14, 15, 16 (or in the case of Stanton) 17 contracts.
* Mx players do not count toward your 14, nor can they be selected in the expansion. They are automatically protected and will remain on your pre-winter waiver roster.
* Any other players currently on your roster who has a 14, 15, or 16 contract is unprotected for the expansion
* Any player on your roster with a ! contract, MUST be among your 14 protectees.
* Assuming full expansion to 12 teams, a maximum of four of your unprotected players can be selected in the expansion draft. Once four of your players have been taken, the rest of the unprotected players will be returned to your pre-winter waivers roster.

This seems like a fair summary of what has been floated so far. I wish I'd had this sort of opportunity coming in my second time instead of inheriting a team that had obviously been neglected and lacked any real valuable pieces.

Oct 17, 2013 9:34:18 GMT -5 Go Beatniks! said:

The loss of the Astros thins the talent pool as it is.

I think this perhaps overstates things a bit.

[kennruby]

Yeah, there's not much on the Astros, but it's still 40 fewer players to choose from, and there were at least a few guys on there (either as prospects or serviceable fantasy players) that were taking up valuable roster spots that are no longer there.

I think the thing that has bothered me about this is that the conversation went from "maybe we'll expand next year" (in April) to "anyone want to expand?" in September (which I thought seemed like an ok idea) to "Ok, you can only protect 14" in October which I didn't like as much.

That's partially on me, as I should have imagined that I wouldn't be able to keep every one of my players if we expanded, but I mistakenly thought the expansion draft would be AFTER winter waivers, when the eligible players would be among the ones that were cut from when we cut down to 23. When I think of the guys available for my expansion draft in 2003-2004, it certainly doesn't seem like there were many players that anyone would've wanted to keep, but I guess there were a few (WARNING: 2004 article forthcoming!) like Jason Bay and Aramis Ramirez.

I definitely think there is a HUGE difference between protecting 14 in October and doing your final roster cutdown in March. Injuries, job changes, and the ability to trade with your leaguemates can all make the difference. Sure, all those things will still be there, and it's not like you won't get to choose among your 19th-to-40th ranked players to cut down to 23 for WW, but I don't agree that "well, you have to cut down to 15 anyway, might as well do it now" is a valid argument for expansion.

Just looking at my roster, I presume I'd lose guys like Darin Ruf, Khris Davis, Pedro Strop, etc. Do those guys move the needle for a potential new expansion team? Probably not, so there's no real reason for me to get too bent out of shape personally about how my team will be changed, but they surely would be on my 23-man winter roster in a regular offseason, I wouldn't expose them to WW, and I'd wait as long as I could to see if they win significant jobs in the spring. If so, and I *still* don't have room for them, I'd try to trade them. Maybe in April those guys are worthless again.

I'm sure I'll have more to say, but I have to get back to work! Thanks everyone for your comments, and thanks to Rich for what you do to keep the league healthy. I hope you don't think I'm attacking you at all, because that's not my intention. I just want to make sure that the CFCL (which is important to me as well) stays as good as we all know it is.

[kennruby]

Hey...just for poops and giggles, here's an article I wrote way back in 2004 for RotoWire. I thought it was apt and maybe entertaining, though it's not as relevant as I hoped, since this wasn't an expansion draft at all (which I didn't realize until I started reading this). I love the old names (Alex Cintron was someone I thought might be good!), and the fact that I owned Eric Young Sr. that year and now own his son this year.

Anyway, enjoy.



After years of dominating your old league, you've decided to join a new league where you don't know anyone. The new season is coming, and somehow you have to get a lot of players on your team. When a new owner takes over an abandoned team, he has to make something out of the players left behind.

In most cases, the team was abandoned for a good reason.

And it wasn't because it was good.

If you're lucky, your team has a few good players on it. Hopefully the former owner traded his stars for some good keepers. Still, it's probably not going to be much.

With all that negativity out of the way, it's time for you to see what you can do with your roster. In some cases (usually when a league is expanding and not when one owner is taking over for another), other owners leave players unprotected that you can choose for your team. Again, there's usually a good reason why those players are available, and it's not because it's a $3
player who will get 30 stolen bases. More like a $30 player who will get three.

When I joined the 12-team, NL-only, CFCL, I wasn't lucky enough to have one of those kind of expansion drafts. I was joining the league at the same time as a guy named Ted, and he and I were supposed to draft among the 46 players left behind by the two abandoned teams.

There wasn't a whole lot to get excited about. There were some big names of course, like Helton and Sosa, but they were exorbitantly overpriced. There were a few sort-of-ok-maybe-good-priced guys like Aramis Ramirez ($13), Alex Cintron ($10), Lyle Overbay ($5), and Randy Wolf ($13). These aren't guys and prices you would want to build a championship team around, but it was a start. There were several decent rookies and prospects, most of whom excited Ted more than they excited me. Plenty of AL guys who we couldn't keep anyway. Mostly though, it was just crap.

There were a few players I really wanted, but Ted had the first pick and I figured he'd get the guy I wanted most - Kip Wells at a buck. It turns out right from the start that Ted and I had different strategies. He used his brain and I didn't.

***

Thanks to MapQuest, I arrived at Eduardo's about 20 minutes late. Fortunately, the guys already there - David, Ted, and Matt - hadn't ordered the pizza yet and weren't too outwardly upset at my lateness. I walked in with the briefcase I brought to my old drafts, as well as my good-luck charm, and I already seemed out of my depth.

It seemed to take forever to start, but I felt prepared. I had my list of players, salaries, rankings, etc., and this was just a two-team, 46-player draft. How hard could it be? I just hoped that Ted wouldn't take Wells.

He didn't. He took a $7 Jason Bay. Matt and David nodded in agreement of the "obvious" first pick. Why then, did I have Bay ranked 7th on my draft list? What was I thinking? I jumped on Wells for $1 and was happy that I had decent pitching. Ted took Guillermo Mota at $5. In a league that counts saves+holds as a category, that's a great pick. I decided I wanted more pitching, so with my second pick I took Wolf. I kept taking pitchers, and Ted kept taking players with a future. I felt sick.

At this point, the pizza had already been sitting on our table for at least five minutes. The waitress already gave us funny looks before, but she didn't understand why four young men wouldn't be snarfing the thing down. She offered to heat it up for us. None of us looked up.

When Ted took Jeff Francoeur and Bryan Bullington with his fifth and sixth picks, I suddenly realized how easily I was out-managed. I'd forgotten my own advice: I AM NOT GOING TO WIN THIS YEAR, and Ted knew it and didn't care who he took as long as he had a bright-looking future. Yeah, he took Jeff Bagwell and Jason Kendall eventually, but at that point what was left?

I decided I wanted known quantities in a foolish attempt to compete this year. I figure I won't have the worst team in the league, and I'll have plenty of pitching to choose from for my roster cuts. I always like to have good pitching staffs, but maybe I went overboard early (seven of my first 12 picks were pitchers). Guys like Duaner Sanchez, Tomo Ohka, Ryan Wagner, Rheal Cormier...anything can happen to them in spring training. They might be worth the price.

I also took Sosa and Helton. When you're rebuilding, it's not the worst thing in the world to have some guys like that. You can always trade them to someone who wants hitting, meanwhile you'll have a good hitter on your team. I doubt anyone will take them off my hands right now, so I haven't decided if I want to spend nearly a fifth of my budget on one player I'll want to trade.

I'm counting on Cintron, Overbay, and Ramirez to have good years, because there isn't much else on this team that will hit for me that is affordable. I think they'll all be at least worth their prices. If I get $50 worth of value out of the $28 I spend on them, I'll be ecstatic.

As for my top four pitchers (Wells, Wolf, Cormier, and Wagner), who also totaled $28, I hope to get $50 out of them. Maybe I'd overrated Wagner, but he could close OR be a top set-up guy this year, making him valuable either way.

And that's really what you have to do...find anyone you can take chances on. Most of those players won't pan out, but if you find a few out of nowhere, you can compete. That's not too different from anything else you do in fantasy baseball, but it's never more important than when you're picking the building blocks of your franchise.

Ted's strategy was to take youth and boring-but-reliable players who might turn a slight profit (guys like Ty Wigginton at $7 and Jack Wilson at a buck). I, only the other hand, took foolish chances in the hopes that I could win right away, even though deep down I know I have no chance. Still, I remember being in this position three years ago, when I felt I had to rebuild, so I spent a few bucks at my auction on guys like Pujols, Oswalt, Berkman, and Gagne. Hey, it can happen again, can't it?

My final 23, and it ain't pretty: Kip Wells ($1), Randy Wolf ($13), Alex Cintron ($10), Rheal Cormier ($5), Ryan Wagner ($9), Justin Huber ($5), Lyle Overbay ($5) , Oscar Villarreal ($5), Aramis Ramirez ($13 - under contract), Todd Helton ($49), Horacio Ramirez ($3), Tomo Ohka ($10), Sammy Sosa ($48), J.D. Closser ($2), Duaner Sanchez ($5), Alex Gonzalez ($15) (the one who sucks in Florida, not the one who sucks in Chicago), Bo Hart ($5), Mike Williams ($5), Wily Mo Pena ($10), Eric Young ($19), Benito Santiago ($1), Rondell White ($10), Sidney Ponson ($34).

The good news is that I don't have to keep many of these guys. I can start my league fresh. I'll keep Wells and a handful of other players, but otherwise I'll have a lot of money to spend at the auction. The draft at Eduardo's is just something to keep us busy in the winter. The real fun starts at the auction, which I'll cover in the next essay [KENN'S NOTE in 2013: I don't think there ever was a next essay]

[Go Beatniks!]

Oct 17, 2013 10:46:05 GMT -5 kennruby said:

Yeah, there's not much on the Astros, but it's still 40 fewer players to choose from, and there were at least a few guys on there (either as prospects or serviceable fantasy players) that were taking up valuable roster spots that are no longer there.

Mostly just a bit of Astros bashing because it is slightly easier than Cubs bashing and I'm truly lazy.

---

More generally I'm still a little confused about a few things related to how this is playing out. Whether or not we expand, I don't care a great deal. As I told Rich via email, I was leaning toward expansion, mostly for old time's sake. Maybe it was because I was in the last expansion draft myself, I was very aware of how these new rosters would be filled out.

Letting three new owners pick from the remains of the Danger's roster (which, honestly, there is some value there) plus a collection of the 15th best (not counting M contracts) players or worse from every roster doesn't seem like a giant sacrifice. We would need to give the new franchises a little something in the way of help. This league is already pretty rigidly stratified. It takes some creative dealing, solid drafting, and a fair bit of luck to move up in the standings. We don't want to bring on new owners only to have them be completely discouraged by the crap hand they were dealt, leaving us to fill spots again next season.

So the arguments I'm hearing against expansion are:
1) Available player pool greatly diminished
2) Some teams would be more affected than others from an expansion draft

Neither of these seem like earth shattering revelations so I'm just a bit confused as to why these weren't raised on Draft Day or after Rich floating the trial balloon at the end of the season. Either of these would have been a much more relevant time to discuss this. Now we've got applications out to people who are under the impression we're expanding. Perhaps the mechanics of the expansion should have been ironed out before the vacancies were announced. On the other hand, with the resounding 'meh' that was the expansion discussion prior to now, expansion seemed like a done deal.

As for the damage being wrecked upon those juggernaut teams in the league, remember that a sizeable minority of owners will be at a disadvantage with regards to CFCL experience and looking to rebuild almost out of the gate. That's some easy pickings that you more savvy owners can feed on in the coming season.

So, again, I'm not on fire with the need to play twelve team, single league, fantasy baseball. I would lean that direction if push came to shove. But a lot of the resistance to expansion seems a little late in the process to me. I know that in the past I've been a bit adversarial when it comes to discussing the direction of the league so, please, take my tone with a grain of salt. Having said my piece, I'm going to step back and see what others might have to say. I will finish with this however:

It seems to me that we have a few different questions before us.
1) Replacing Scott--which we're very much in agreement about I think
2) Adding two additional owners--a question that isn't as settled as it once seemed
3) How to bring these additional owners into the league

Before we go much further down this path, perhaps we need to hold another vote on (2) now that at least one vote would seem to be changed and other concerns have been more openly stated?

[Go Beatniks!]

Oct 17, 2013 10:57:03 GMT -5 kennruby said:

Anyway, enjoy.

I very much did. Thanks!

[kennruby]

Thanks Nick! Needless to say, I got last place that year.

As for your three items at the end, I say this:
1) Definitely replace the 10th owner with one of the candidates. I'd add that we should forgive any long-term contracts signed if necessary (so the new owner isn't stuck with Barney and McCann, for example)
2) We vote again on whether to expand to 11 or 12 as well. My current vote would be no.
3) If it turns out we DO decide to expand, I think the way it's been presented is ok. I obviously don't love it, but what I don't love about it is what makes me want to vote "no," but I can certainly go along with it if that's how we decide to do it.

As a fourth item, and one I would support, would be deciding and documenting that we *could* expand for the 2015 season. Knowing full well now what we're getting ourselves into before the 2014 season even begins would at least put us all on the same playing field.

[mcoulter2008]

In answer to Nick's query, those concerns against expansion were likely not raised because the parameters of an expansion draft were not laid out, either in the constitution nor prior to the season.

The effect on the player pool and team's current rosters was an unknown. So the resistance is only late in that the knowledge of the parameters of the draft and the effect it would have on teams was equally late.

I certainly am not necessarily anti-expansion. But when I plunk down $120 a year for this, and devote my Sundays and other times in running the league site and processing rosters, it becomes slightly more than a "hobby" to me.

As for my comment being singled out as "unseemly," I have worked very hard over the past several years to acquire assets that should not just arbitrarily be excised from my team without examining all the parameters and making sure that the process is fair to all owners.

Mock if you will the lack of talent on the Astros, but the fact that each team in a 12-team league would likely have to devote 11 roster spots to players who are either on mx contracts, still in school or another country or out of the league entirely seems to me to be stretching the talent pool a bit thin.

I entered the league as an expansion team, culled together picking THIRD out of three teams from a pile of three barren teams, ending up with an mx contract of Jay Bruce and precious little else. From that rubble, I've built a deep roster of which I am naturally going to be protective.

[Demreb]

Here's an update and some clarification. The CFCL (Coulter For the Clowns League) will not be expanding for the 2014 season. I don't think at this point we could get a majority vote in favor of expansion and that's fine.

I have sent out one application to two guys who expressed interest in joining the league as co-owners. I will let their application sing their praises as the potential replacement for the Danger.

I did not send out applications to the other two interested parties. Their interest in the league and in baseball in general was huge last I heard, but what I didn't want was to send out three applications saying "We definitely want to replace the Danger and MAY expand, but may not."

While all three interested parties could make excellent owners I have a strong feeling the entity receiving the most votes would be the two guys I sent the application to. So then we would have two other guys who could feel like they were part of a bait and switch. Didn't want that on any level, but certainly not if a year or two from now someone else resigns and I go back to them and say "Hey, wanna do it again? You might get in this time."

If the application that is out comes back and can't get approval from the league then I will send out an application to one of the other two and go from there.

Since we're not expanding we don't have to go much further with this thread. But I will say there seems to be A TON of selective memory going on.

I brought expansion up at the draft. I brought it up a couple of times during the season and even sent out an e-mail where I did the math for everyone, including addressing the fact that the Astros had left the league thanks to Bud-Dumber. I'm reading comments that the National League having fewer teams and us thinking about expanding to 12 teams is a novel idea.

Between the conversation (which really wasn't a conversation at the draft since there was NO feedback) and the e-mail - not one person responded with an opinion, a question or a comment. And by the way, just so we can have the math right, if the CFCL did expand to 12 teams, that would mean that there are 480 roster spots (active and reserved). There are 15 National League teams with 25 man rosters, making 375 major league players available to us. That means there are 105 CFCL roster spots to fill (480 [CFCL] - 375 [National League] = 105). Divide 105 by the twelve potential CFCL teams and that means that, on average a CFCL team would have 8.75 non-Major League players on their reserve roster.

If you all want to continue talking about the possibility of expansion and laying out a plan so everyone can build the perfect roster so that you can receive the least negative impact should an expansion draft occur, feel free.

Me? I'm focusing on the fun stuff like Winter Waivers where I can see what gems the Clowns and Bulls have left available for me to unjustly steal since for the last several years I have been lazily tending to my team and not acquiring valuable assets.

[MGrage]

Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean, that got out of hand fast.

Can we all just take a minute and ease off the personal attacks before something gets said that leads to further resentment? Isn't this how we lost Kelly & Bruce a few years back?

I don't think shutting this discussion completely down now is the answer either. All we're doing is kicking the can down the road and next year, we'll be in the same spot as we are now. Has the CFCL ever had 12 teams in a 15 team NL? I don't think it has.

[kennruby]

Oct 18, 2013 3:54:25 GMT -5 MGrage said:

Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean, that got out of hand fast.

Yes, but this is kind of a big deal.

By the way, I'm no constitutional scholar, but I thought I'd include this from the constitution:

ARTICLE XX. Governance
The CFCL is governed by a Committee of the Whole consisting of all team owners. The Committee of the Whole may designate as many League officials as from time to time it deems appropriate. CFCL co-founders David Mahlan and Rich Bentel will fill permanent offices in the League Front Office.

Executive Committee
Every year, prior to the beginning of the Auction Draft, the Committee of the Whole elects by popular vote an Executive Committee composed of three team owners in good standing. The Executive Committee has the authority to interpret playing rules and to handle all necessary and routine League business. All decisions, rulings, and interpretations by the Executive Committee are subject to veto by the Committee of the Whole. Rule changes, pronouncements, and acts of whimsy are likewise subject to veto by majority vote of the Committee of the Whole.

In the case of revisions to the Constitution, the following process is used to approve or reject the proposed changes:


After the Executive Committee has discussed and decided on a proposed change to the rules, an e-mail will be sent to all owners describing the proposed change and the reasoning behind it.

This e-mail will signify the beginning of a voting period during which all CFCL teams may vote to approve or reject the proposed change.

The voting period will last until Noon on the third day after the e-mail is sent (unless the Executive Committee feels the matter is time-sensitive and needs to speed up the timetable).

Teams with multiple owners will receive only ONE vote to represent the team.

Franchises that do not respond with a vote will be counted as having submitted a Yea vote on all issues.

A clear majority (half the franchises +1) is required in order for the proposal to be approved. Proposals that end it a tie vote will be considered defeated.

The above voting procedure applies only to changes or additions to the Constitution. Cases in which the Executive Committee is merely interpreting or clarifying existing rules do not require a league-wide vote (though they are still subject to rejection by the league as a whole if someone calls for a vote).

By the way, I got the above from "http://home.comcast.net/~dmahlan/constitution/const-fm.htm," which I suppose is outdated (how would I know). There is now a PDF on the site (http://home.comcast.net/~dmahlan/constitution/const.pdf) that is different. Maybe that's one of the problems of the constitution...there are at least two floating around. I'm going to assume that the PDF one is the more current one. I will post the PDF version in the following post.

[kennruby]

And here's the one from the PDF:

ARTICLE XXI. Governance
The CFCL is governed by a Committee of the Whole consisting of all team owners. The Committee of the Whole may designate as many League officials as from time to time it deems appropriate.

Executive Committee
Every year, prior to the beginning of the Auction Draft, the Committee of the Whole elects by popular vote an Executive Committee composed of three team owners in good standing.

NOTE: The owner receiving the fourth-highest vote total shall serve as an alternate Executive Committee member. The alternate should receive all Executive Committee communications and can take part in discussion, but does not have a vote unless one of the three formal members has to recuse himself from the ruling at hand.

The Executive Committee has the authority to interpret playing rules and to handle all necessary and routine League business. All decisions, rulings, and interpretations by the Executive Committee are subject to veto by the Committee of the Whole. Rule changes, pronouncements, and acts of whimsy are likewise subject to veto by majority vote of the Committee of the Whole.

In the case of revisions to the Constitution, the following process is used to approve or reject the proposed changes:

After the Executive Committee has discussed and decided on a proposed change to the rules, an e-mail will be sent to all owners describing the proposed change and the reasoning behind it.

This e-mail will signify the beginning of a voting period during which all CFCL teams may vote to approve or reject the proposed change.

The voting period will last until Noon on the third day after the e-mail is sent (unless the Executive Committee feels the matter is time-sensitive and needs to speed up the timetable).

Teams with multiple owners will receive only ONE vote to represent the team.

Franchises who do not respond with a vote will be counted as having submitted a Yea vote on all issues.

A clear majority (half the franchises +1) is required in order for the proposal to be approved. Proposals that end in a tie vote will be considered defeated.