All BSL Owners Please Read

[cjay101]

Regarding the future of the league, I need your input. Obviously, the final decision will be mine as I have to deal with the technical side of many of these, but I would like your HONEST feedback regarding the following.

We have an empty team and owner activity issue. About 85% of the league is great. The other 15% is empty or inactive, which bogs down the league substantially from a competitive and fun standpoint.

I have come up with four solutions, I ask you to vote for the one you are most in favor of, please leave comments in addition. Don't vote the party line or what someone else says, do what YOU think is the best route for the league to take.

1. Leave everything the way it is. Keep searching for managers.
2. Contract the league to 24 teams from 28 currently (2 leagues, 2 divisions of 6 teams each). The contracted teams would have players drafted like the previous draft.
3. Contract the league to 26 teams from 28 currently (2 leagues, 3 divisions of 4/4/5 teams each). The contracted teams would have players drafted like the previous draft.
4. Allow owners to manage more than 1 team (large amount of rules to follow). I would take a count of who wants a 2nd team and the ownership would be drawn at random.

My personal opinion, although it is the most work, would be #2. We have continually struggled to find owners for just a handful of teams. We have a great base to work with, but are always just a handful shy of active owners for whatever reason (activity in these leagues is cyclical, always has been...I'm pushing 20 years in sim leagues). I am not a proponent of multiple teams for owners, but am leaving it on the table for discussion.

 

[kendalld99]

Blue Jays have voted for #4 and is more than willing to take on another team... Biggest rule change would be no trading between the two teams owned..

I also feel the loss of 4 more teams will just make the league weaker and cause more owners to possibly leave. What teams are in question for termination?

 

[Konel07]

Dodgers vote for #4

 

[dlackey]

What teams are looking at being terminated? Guessing Seattle is one. From the options listed above i believe i would go with #2 but if it would keep it at the norm i would be willing to take on another team if possible. I'm good with what everyone else wants but if i had to vote i would vote #2 which i did.

Dennis

 

[HeboAlan]

I would vote for #2 if we are going to do one. It sucks having inactive teams its not hard to drop a message to Cory or Nick. Let them know if something came up but months at a time with no exports or activity is ridiculous. We have enough strong active owners if we weed out a few that we can't find managers for & the couple teams who fell off the face of the earth the parody would be better I believe. I am for sure against running more then 1 team just don't like it

 

[cjay101]

As it stands now, Seattle and San Francisco are completely open without an owner.

San Diego hasn't checked in all season, and the fourth team is pending the last few activity tests. I haven't heard from him since around opening day.

Orioles, Yankees, and White Sox are all active, just have various reasons not to be exporting right now. There is absolutely no way I would remove an owner who is active in the league for any reason.

 

[kendalld99]

I would vote for #2 if we are going to do one. It sucks having inactive teams its not hard to drop a message to Cory or Nick. Let them know if something came up but months at a time with no exports or activity is ridiculous. We have enough strong active owners if we weed out a few that we can't find managers for & the couple teams who fell off the face of the earth the parody would be better I believe. I am for sure against running more then 1 team just don't like it

I know why you don't like option #4, but think about having another owner that is active in the trading market now owning that team.. Just opens up the market more rather then 4 more teams folding and the stronger teams getting stronger though the draft.. That is my feeling about option #2.

I remember everyone having a cow when I got the #1 pick last time and took SP Martinez..

 

[Konel07]

Second that kendall

 

[tglg]

I vote for option #4. I would be willing to take a 2nd team, and agree that there could be no trading between those teams, or even shady flips to one team, and then a trade done again to bring him to one's 2nd team. I think it would be more viable to go that route than contract teams. It would in essence lessen the load on Cory to control all the moves for those teams, while keeping the option open to bring in new ownership. I for one will take a team, control it, and if a new owner is found, would relinquish it and be happy to have helped. Possibly like foster parents (no offense to those who do it were raised, just making an analogy). I would prefer it to be a NL team if I were to take a team, so I would have no vested interest in what the other team does to benefit my primary team. I think that should go for all 2 team owners. I know Kendall is a great owner, but I really don't want him running Seattle, lol. I was kinda bothered by the idea of Cory, who is great at this, basically running half of my division. And he signed several players who I wanted to teams within my division, but I never said anything. But if a team runs a team within their own league, it leaves an owner to be questioned, IMO.

With that said, me being an AL owner, I would be more than happy to take over SF or SD. Gives me a West Coast monopoly and a chance to compete with Pat on a regular basis, lol. In conclusion, I think this option could ease the burden on Cory, keep the league active and interesting, and maintain the amount of teams that we could still add new blood for those who wish to join. It may be that our timing just isn't right for new owners. I know at one time I had an owner that was looking to join, but he doesn't do cards, but ultimately, the timing wasn't right. But I know there have to be some gamers out there that would really be into this, and it is just finding the right ones. Even if they may not be card traders, but if they join the bench and become active BSL mainstays, might be worth while.

 

[abncal]

I think I actually prefer opt #3 because I think it would keep the playoffs closer to what we're doing now. I tink opt #2 would make it quicker but a little less interesting as I'd assume we would not have a divisional series rd. If opt #4 is in fact chosen I'll put my name in the hat to run 2 teams... cause I love this stuff

 

[gp2001red]

I have voted for #2. Finding new GM's for this absolutely fun league has been unbelievably difficult. Even though I love this game, it has become obvious that I am not very good at judging talent when putting a good team on the field so would certainly not want to stink up the place with more than one team under my control. Now if we could get Go Daddy to co-operate and fix their issues!! I feel like I'm starting to have withdrawal problems.

 

[kendalld99]

I like the idea Tony(Foster owners).. You take SF and I could do SD and a new rivalry begins for us!! SF has the pitching, and SD has the hitting!! Plus the Dodgers/Rockies in the mix, makes for great entertainment...

 

[Konel07]

Dibbs on Seattle! Both of you should defenitly stay out of the nl west

 

[dlackey]

I vote for option #4. I would be willing to take a 2nd team, and agree that there could be no trading between those teams, or even shady flips to one team, and then a trade done again to bring him to one's 2nd team. I think it would be more viable to go that route than contract teams. It would in essence lessen the load on Cory to control all the moves for those teams, while keeping the option open to bring in new ownership. I for one will take a team, control it, and if a new owner is found, would relinquish it and be happy to have helped. Possibly like foster parents (no offense to those who do it were raised, just making an analogy). I would prefer it to be a NL team if I were to take a team, so I would have no vested interest in what the other team does to benefit my primary team. I think that should go for all 2 team owners. I know Kendall is a great owner, but I really don't want him running Seattle, lol. I was kinda bothered by the idea of Cory, who is great at this, basically running half of my division. And he signed several players who I wanted to teams within my division, but I never said anything. But if a team runs a team within their own league, it leaves an owner to be questioned, IMO.

With that said, me being an AL owner, I would be more than happy to take over SF or SD. Gives me a West Coast monopoly and a chance to compete with Pat on a regular basis, lol. In conclusion, I think this option could ease the burden on Cory, keep the league active and interesting, and maintain the amount of teams that we could still add new blood for those who wish to join. It may be that our timing just isn't right for new owners. I know at one time I had an owner that was looking to join, but he doesn't do cards, but ultimately, the timing wasn't right. But I know there have to be some gamers out there that would really be into this, and it is just finding the right ones. Even if they may not be card traders, but if they join the bench and become active BSL mainstays, might be worth while.

Very well said. I to if chosen to take a 2nd team would give it up to a new owner if one came available.

Dennis

 

[RHauch]

I am for number two (with some slight changes) but voted for number four (of the choices listed). See next paragraph for my thoughts. I think it would be the best for the league. Going down to fewer teams and divisions would make it tougher for anyone to make the Playoffs. Definitely not having every team active on a regular basis is bad for the league as well.

I know it might be a lot of work but how about 6 divisions of four teams instead of 2 divisions of 6 teams? It is still 24 teams and then you have a one in four chance of winning the division. I would hate to lose playoff spots in the league.

On a side note, I would like to see the cap on the amount of money an owner can keep raised. That would help with Free Agency for some owners. I have money to spend (and it could have been more) but I have to lose some every year as we have a cap. I tried very hard to get Free Agents the past two years but they signed for less to play for another team.

Arizona Diamondbacks

 

[redsguy]

Rays voted for #2.

 

[redsoxfan1979]

I like option 2 but I also would like to offer to take another team if that option is chosen.

 

[chaplain11]

Contraction is best in my opinion. The talent could be used by all teams instead of being squandered on non-owners and/or inactive owners. Plus it gets rid of that many more bottom dweller type players hanging around. I am also a traditionalist and prefer the two division leagues anyway. If other owners are allowed multiple teams there definitely should be some rules in place to prevent stacking for sure, but I would prefer to just dump some teams.

I too have offered fair-market or higher contracts in many cases to have players sign elsewhere for less money as well. I just have no fan loyalty so have to really overpay if I want star players; but with a small market team I just can't do that AND field a respectable team with my budget. Having a larger stash of cash would help off-set that for sure.

 

[Meliah]

In my opinion contraction is such a bad choice it makes me want to reconsider still running a team if it happens again. One of the main reasons I initially loved this game was how it paralleled the real game, the more we keep taking away teams the more it ruins the game. Now better players last longer in the draft and free agency, pretty soon teams can rebuild faster thanks to less team options for free agents or drafting. I didn't bust my butt rebuilding for 7 seasons to get my pitching staff to watch someone else do it in half the time. Personally, I think it would be fun to run a team in the AL and NL, better than contracting at the very least.

I really love this game, please don't ruin it for me

I vote #4.

 

[stephj24]

Sorry I haven't been active for the past two sims. Our shore house that we rented this year didn't have stable wifi and I didn't want to chance something happening to the export.

I could see number 4 working out, however I believe there would have to be stringent rules put in place before I completely agreed to it. I agree with Matt regarding contraction; if we continue to contract the competitiveness of the league will dwindle and then at some point we may not have a league.

So my answer for now is #4 provided there are strict rules in place, otherwise #2.

Steph