If number four is selected do the Angels come back into existence?
All BSL Owners Please Read
- Thread starter cjay101
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
After thinking this over I think I would be in favor of only keeping active managers on . If that means contraction then so be it. If we let teams manage two teams then eventually we could have 12 - 15 people running the whole league and that will certainly lead to hard feelings and more implications of unfair trading and collusion.
No matter what we have tried we can not attract more managers for some reason. I see several members looking at our threads all the time and keep hoping a couple of them will come on board but that does not happen. I have pm'd a few and tried to get them to give it a shot. I dont think the $20 is a problem but if it would help I would kick in to help pay that to get some new blood involved.
I hear what Matt is saying about contraction taking the fun away and I agree, but as a long term solution I am not sure that letting teams run multiple teams is a great idea either. I have voted for option 2 even though I dont like that idea that well either. If that is what Cory decides to do I would hope to have it in 4 divisions to add more possible playoff spots to keep the interest higher. No matter which way we go I will do my best to help out and will certainly go with the majority. Thanks for reading. Pat
No matter what we have tried we can not attract more managers for some reason. I see several members looking at our threads all the time and keep hoping a couple of them will come on board but that does not happen. I have pm'd a few and tried to get them to give it a shot. I dont think the $20 is a problem but if it would help I would kick in to help pay that to get some new blood involved.
I hear what Matt is saying about contraction taking the fun away and I agree, but as a long term solution I am not sure that letting teams run multiple teams is a great idea either. I have voted for option 2 even though I dont like that idea that well either. If that is what Cory decides to do I would hope to have it in 4 divisions to add more possible playoff spots to keep the interest higher. No matter which way we go I will do my best to help out and will certainly go with the majority. Thanks for reading. Pat
Since this is all fairly new to me, I cannot honestly say what is best. I will go along with whatever the majority rules. I'm enjoying myself playing in this league, but I feel I need a little more time before I can vote on something like this.
If contraction occurs, the draft order will be determined in a different fashion. The better teams will have a much harder time getting into the top picks.
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
If the divisions are modified, the same amount of teams will still make the post season, whether it be a double wildcard, etc.
I will look at the cash maximum. There are reasons we kept it low, but I could see justification for an increase in some cases. I will review it.
Strict rules will be fully incorporated if I decide to do the dual team model. The rules may even turn off people from wanting a 2nd team, but they will be necessary.
No, they are gone for the forseeable future.
I would love to bring the previously contracted teams back and have a full league of active owners. I have zero problems with people being gone for temporary reasons and letting me know. I really get ticked when people just vanish for whatever reason and then never check in again without a peep.
I don't want to contract teams, I am a purist at heart as well. That being said, I feel that a smaller league full of strong, active owners is much better than a scattered league with inactive teams. I am debating which way to go with this whole deal.
Da Buccos voted for #2.
Thanks!!
Thanks!!
Reds voted for option 4. Tough call, but the optimist in me thinks that allowing an owner to manage two teams would be a good solution - as suggested, with a lot of rules. I think teams would need to be in different leagues. Also, draft might have to be a little different (maybe auto-CPU pick for the owners second team?). Hopefully it would be temporary until permanent owners are found. Maybe try it for a couple of seasons to see how it goes and then contract if there are flaws or we can't find permanent owners?
Either way is fine though. It was a tough call, but I would like to think owners here would do the right thing for both teams and there wouldn't be too much conflict of interest.
Eric
Either way is fine though. It was a tough call, but I would like to think owners here would do the right thing for both teams and there wouldn't be too much conflict of interest.
Eric
Very much agreed. When I offered to run a second team, I am willing to do so for as long as needed. But not in hopes of forever having 2 teams. I am just thinking it lessens the load on Cory, and still maintains teams that we can hopefully find owners for. The whole concept of this league is to be as close to real, and we keep reducing teams, that is going to be lost. I think this is a way of maintaining the league in it's entirety. As I said, more of a foster parent until a true "parent" is found for the team. And it also opens up keeping the team on a competetive level. Not bragging in any way, but just stating that if I were running a foster team in the NL, I am going to do my best to make it a team someone would like to take over. And I know some don't like me, and so be it, and maybe think it makes it one less team that trades will be hard for, but you know what, those teams aren't making trades now. Rules are important, but I don't think anyone is out to cheat the league out of anything. I just don't want to see this league do what the first did, and get to the point of folding, and to keep contracting teams is slowly doing it. It is far easier to contract teams I think than it would be to expand the league. And if you contract now, and good owners are found, then it will be tough to move forward. That is why I think the "foster team" is a better solution.
The foster parent\owner idea is solid with proper rules in place. Nobody's going try to work the system and we have a pretty trust worthy core of owners who just want what's best for the league.
Also with contraction is going to come re-alignment.. I would rather see someone take over the Padres/Giants then see 2 more team from the NL West disappear and Arizona is in AL West from the last contraction.. I would recommend that Dennis(Indians) take over the Padres/Giants, he is a good owner that needs a better team than the one he inherited. Then Seattle and Cleveland could be contracted, just my opinion if option 2 wins!!! That is why option 4 keeps our game more like real life MLB, and foster teams available for future owners to join the league.
If the multiple-team route is the way we go, I will take a list of all interested and arbitrarily assign owners as such.
This poll went up at 9:30 on Saturday morning. I have 19 of the 26 owner-fied teams responded in 36 hours. Not horrible for a weekend.
The sim deadline was Friday at noon, now Sunday at 7:00ish I had 5 teams not export, excluding the Mariners and Giants who have no owner. Subtract White Sox, Orioles, and Yankees who had various reasons not to, that leaves 2 more teams that didn't export in a nearly 5 day period.
The sim deadline was Friday at noon, now Sunday at 7:00ish I had 5 teams not export, excluding the Mariners and Giants who have no owner. Subtract White Sox, Orioles, and Yankees who had various reasons not to, that leaves 2 more teams that didn't export in a nearly 5 day period.
Is Go Daddy working tonight>?
I should just not upload this sim I ran to spite your constant annoyance.
READ: IT'S GETTING OLD
I'm interested in a second team if you're making a list...
Eric
Eric
Twins have cast their vote.
Went with Option #1 - reason being that as mentioned, it is cyclical in finding owners. I would hate to downsize the league again and than have an upswing in ownership requests and not have teams available.
If that is not possible, than I would say allow multiple team ownership, as there are several owners active enough to enjoy two teams worth of fun and that would hold teams open until owners are found.
Went with Option #1 - reason being that as mentioned, it is cyclical in finding owners. I would hate to downsize the league again and than have an upswing in ownership requests and not have teams available.
If that is not possible, than I would say allow multiple team ownership, as there are several owners active enough to enjoy two teams worth of fun and that would hold teams open until owners are found.
Brewers voted. I essentially voted against contraction because in my mind it was a major debacle last time. I was an average team at the time and something like 5 teams jumped ahead of me. Certainly left a bad taste in my mouth.
Chris
Chris
Similar threads
Sponsors
