AFBL Forum
Winter Meetings => 2017 Expansion Discussion => Topic started by: mstreeter06 on October 31, 2013, 10:21:21 pm
-
Hey guys!
I want to try to keep things organized in terms of discussions for the 2015 season and discussions about our upcoming expansion plans.
I'll start posting any discussions/thoughts about expansion here so we can keep our thoughts together without missing anything.
Be sure to voice your opinions here if you have any thoughts/suggestions/concerns!
---
Confirmed Future Expansion Owners:
Paul Nicholls - NDK-Paul (on board for phase 2 of expansion down the line)
Lawrence Tabachnick - LT (current IL owner taking over 1 expansion franchise)
Frank Esselink - fhomess
Matthew Katz - BaseballAddict32
Marek Singeling - Empayes (took over Oregon vacancy)
Steve Waugh - Steve Wunda
Pete Grassi - peteg9699
-
Where We Stand (1/14/14):
-4 expansion franchise owners decided and locations selected (ID, WA, VA, GA)
-expanding for the 2017 season
-Expansion Draft protection list rules and specifics announced here (http://www.afblbaseball.com/forum/index.php/topic,420.0.html)
2016 Offseason Gameplan
- Finish 2016 Playoffs
- Announce 2016 Season Awards and Postseason MVP
- Sim game to 1/1/2017
- Relocate Arizona to New Mexico and California to Maryland; realign AFBL into 4 5-team divisions (FL West, FL East, PL North, PL South)
- Protection Lists from current 16 teams are due around this time
- Expansion Draft on 1/5/2017 (game date); draft will be held on the Forum or in Statslab
- Free Agent Draft on 1/15/2017 (game date) for 4 Expansion Teams; 5 rounds with expansion teams picking 4 times per round in reverse serpentine order as the Expansion Draft.
- Sim to Spring Training and resume normal sim schedule to begin 2017 with 20 teams with interleague play enabled for this single season.
I'll keep this updated as needed (likely weekly).
-
Items Needed To Be Decided On (1/14/14):
-Nothing at the moment!
-Expansion Draft order has been decided
-League timeline leading up to expansion decided
-Expansion Draft protection list rules decided
-Expansion Draft process decided
-Expansion team supplemental FA Draft decided
I'll keep this updated as needed.
-
4 Expansion Franchises:
Idaho Steelheads (Lawrence, LT)
(http://www.afblbaseball.com/afbl/images/idaho_steelheads_84868C_042E5C.png)
Washington Resonance (Frank, fhomess)
(http://www.afblbaseball.com/afbl/images/Washington_Resonance_212121_6D2FB4.png)
Virginia Diamond Club (Steve, Steve Wunda)
(http://www.afblbaseball.com/afbl/images/virginia_diamond_club_E7DECF_F2BF52.png)
Georgia Titans (Pete, peteg9699)
Logo TBD
AFBL 2017 Realignment:
California moves to Maryland; Arizona moves to New Mexico; Washington and Idaho will join the Frontier League; Virginia and Georgia will join the Patriot League; AFBL moves to two 5-team divisions per league.
Here is how the AFBL will realign starting in 2017...
(http://www.afblbaseball.com/afbl/images/2017realignment20-2divisions.PNG)
-
Here are a couple of things I did during the NPBL's expansion...
1. We extended the draft by a few rounds for a few years to replenish everyone's minors. So, if say every team loses 10 players, you add 2 rounds to the draft for 5 years. With expansion a few seasons away, you can even do this before the expansion comes to prepare everyone for the losses, so to speak.
2. Pullbacks; if you get to protect back 2 or 3 more players every time you lose 1, it allows for more strategy and involvement than just having everybody protect X number and that's it.
Just to keep all things expansion related in here as we begin preparation.
-
Preliminary approved AFBL expansion franchise locations have been added. The league has decided that some states are feasible to host a major league franchise.
-
Can the expansion teams go into states where our minors are?
So I've got a minors team in Delaware, will I need to relocate my minor league team or will it be fine in there if someone wants to expand into the might state of Delaware :)
-
Can the expansion teams go into states where our minors are?
So I've got a minors team in Delaware, will I need to relocate my minor league team or will it be fine in there if someone wants to expand into the might state of Delaware :)
In your case, the NJ affiliate in Delaware will be fine as Delaware wasn't approved as a potential home to an expansion team. In addition to New Jersey, the only other franchises with minor league affiliates outside of the major league team's home state are Arizona and Ontario.
Arizona's minor league team in Nevada and New Mexico are at a potential risk to find a new location to call home. This is only if one of the four expansion franchise would like to call Nevada or New Mexico home.
Ontario's minor league affiliate in Vancouver is only at risk if we ever have an owner desire to expansion/relocate to British Columbia in the future but this would need league approval first. I can't imagine this being an issue but just a note if it ever does become one.
If this is the case, I'll discuss with the teams involved.
-
Can the expansion teams go into states where our minors are?
So I've got a minors team in Delaware, will I need to relocate my minor league team or will it be fine in there if someone wants to expand into the might state of Delaware :)
In your case, the NJ affiliate in Delaware will be fine as Delaware wasn't approved as a potential home to an expansion team. In addition to New Jersey, the only other franchises with minor league affiliates outside of the major league team's home state are Arizona and Ontario.
What other states are off the agenda for expansion? I notice a few more white spaces ;)
-
Can the expansion teams go into states where our minors are?
So I've got a minors team in Delaware, will I need to relocate my minor league team or will it be fine in there if someone wants to expand into the might state of Delaware :)
In your case, the NJ affiliate in Delaware will be fine as Delaware wasn't approved as a potential home to an expansion team. In addition to New Jersey, the only other franchises with minor league affiliates outside of the major league team's home state are Arizona and Ontario.
What other states are off the agenda for expansion? I notice a few more white spaces ;)
I have them listed in the 3rd post of this thread. I wonder if I need a separate thread? I'd like to keep all expansion related discussion in just 1 thread so everything is in 1 place.
Most states without a ML team are approved for expansion except those with low state total populations (~1.5 million or less).
-
How are locations selected? Do we list what we want or is it first come first serve? Of those states Nevada is the most interesting to me because of Vegas. Not sure what the proper procedure is for this.
-
How are locations selected? Do we list what we want or is it first come first serve? Of those states Nevada is the most interesting to me because of Vegas. Not sure what the proper procedure is for this.
It'll be a first come, first serve situation. I'll need to coordinate with Arizona's owner (Troy) who has their AAA team in Las Vegas. Stay tuned!
UPDATE: Arizona (Troy) will be alright with relocating their AAA Las Vegas franchise. Details in an announcement coming in the next few weeks. Nevada is yours if you want it
-
Thanks Troy. I definitely want Nevada. Can Pete Rose be my manager or would temptation be too great? Seriously appreciate it. Should be a lot of fun and there is a lot that I can do with Nevada themes for teams.
-
West Virginia objects to East Virginia being considered, as they will soon become a sub state to the mountain Kingdom, I mean state.
-
Who wants to live in Virginia anyway? ;)
-
Who wants to live in Virginia anyway? ;)
the West part is pretty nice :)
-
We have found our 4th future expansion owner, Marek Singeling. Marek is joining us from the Netherlands which adds another location throughout the world that the AFBL represents. We have members in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, UK, and now the Netherlands. This is one of the great things about online leagues in OOTP.
As the Commish, I'm excited to begin to take the next steps in the expansion process. Please vote for which year we will expand and voice your opinion about any of the details if you have any thoughts.
Thanks guys!
-
We have found our 4th future expansion owner, Marek Singeling. Marek is joining us from the Netherlands which adds another location throughout the world that the AFBL represents. We have members in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, UK, and now the Netherlands. This is one of the great things about online leagues in OOTP.
As the Commish, I'm excited to begin to take the next steps in the expansion process. Please vote for which year we will expand and voice your opinion about any of the details if you have any thoughts.
Thanks guys!
Who's our UK rep matt?
-
We have found our 4th future expansion owner, Marek Singeling. Marek is joining us from the Netherlands which adds another location throughout the world that the AFBL represents. We have members in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, UK, and now the Netherlands. This is one of the great things about online leagues in OOTP.
As the Commish, I'm excited to begin to take the next steps in the expansion process. Please vote for which year we will expand and voice your opinion about any of the details if you have any thoughts.
Thanks guys!
Who's our UK rep matt?
Expansion owner Paul (NDK-Paul)
-
Nice - are all expansion owners able to vote for the end of season awards? I hope they can so that they can get to know some the guys in the league.
-
Nice - are all expansion owners able to vote for the end of season awards? I hope they can so that they can get to know some the guys in the league.
Absolutely! I strongly encourage participation from our future expansion owners in addition to our current owners. I consider our 4 expansion owners as members of the league so only makes sense for them to vote as they see fit!
-
With voting in Statslab, I need to figure out how to create our expansion guys without a team in the game. I plan to test in my test league tonight. I'm thinking that I can create them as new human managers in the game then not assign a team to them?
UPDATE: I created our 4 future owners in the game before the FCS and then ran Statslab with them in the SQL dump. I don't see any of them as login options in Statslab. Any thoughts anyone?
-
The Illinois owner (Lawrence, LT on the forum) has approached me about taking one of the expansion teams when we expand in either 2017 or 2018. So he will have 1 of the 4 expansion franchises with 1 of the future owners taking over the Illinois franchise when we expand. I'll go down the order in who joined first about who wants to stay as an expansion team or take over the Illinois franchise with Marek being the fallback to take over if the other 3 don't want to take the IL franchise.
That being said, if there are any other current owners that are interested in taking over an expansion team then hand over the team when we expand to one of the expansion owners please let me know or post here as soon as possible.
The order of 1st choice to decide to take over IL when we expand is Paul, Frank, Matthew, Marek.
Whomever takes control of the Illinois franchise will be given the opportunity to relocate the team to a different state without the 1 year penalty. The same goes for any other teams abandoned by their current owners.
Thanks guys!
-
This is all turning out to be very interesting process
-
How good is the Illinois franchise? Just curious even though I am definitely loving the direction of the Nevada franchise and where I can take it. Will be a process but its cool to be building something from scratch. And we are working on partnerships with businesses to sell luxury boxes for their biggest clients to come enjoy games as well. Whales I believe they call them ;)
-
How good is the Illinois franchise? Just curious even though I am definitely loving the direction of the Nevada franchise and where I can take it. Will be a process but its cool to be building something from scratch. And we are working on partnerships with businesses to sell luxury boxes for their biggest clients to come enjoy games as well. Whales I believe they call them ;)
Whoever does take over the Illinois franchise (stay in IL or relocation) will be taking over an upcoming, exciting roster. A legitimate 1-2 punch with Wallace and Zhu and powerful youngster OF Thomas.
-
How good is the Illinois franchise? Just curious even though I am definitely loving the direction of the Nevada franchise and where I can take it. Will be a process but its cool to be building something from scratch. And we are working on partnerships with businesses to sell luxury boxes for their biggest clients to come enjoy games as well. Whales I believe they call them ;)
I think it is a good squad. We did struggle with injuries in 2015 and that really hurt us early in the year.
The 1-2 pitching punch of Wallace and Zhu, Neal had a strong rookie year and there are several pitching prospects close. We have an excellent closer in Jacobs, and two top closer prospects on the horizon.
As for hitting, we have a ton of power, Gonzalez (38 HR), Thomas (42), Sackett (33). OF Hammond had 24 jacks and missed a lot of time. The shortstop, Jackson, hit close to .300 and is 24 years old. The catcher is solid, if unspectacular.
The farm system is rated #2 at this time and I have 2 extra picks so far in this draft, so will add 9 new guys (at least) to the system.
I just want to start from scratch and see what I can do.
-
How good is the Illinois franchise? Just curious even though I am definitely loving the direction of the Nevada franchise and where I can take it. Will be a process but its cool to be building something from scratch. And we are working on partnerships with businesses to sell luxury boxes for their biggest clients to come enjoy games as well. Whales I believe they call them ;)
I think it is a good squad. We did struggle with injuries in 2015 and that really hurt us early in the year.
The 1-2 pitching punch of Wallace and Zhu, Neal had a strong rookie year and there are several pitching prospects close. We have an excellent closer in Jacobs, and two top closer prospects on the horizon.
As for hitting, we have a ton of power, Gonzalez (38 HR), Thomas (42), Sackett (33). OF Hammond had 24 jacks and missed a lot of time. The shortstop, Jackson, hit close to .300 and is 24 years old. The catcher is solid, if unspectacular.
The farm system is rated #2 at this time and I have 2 extra picks so far in this draft, so will add 9 new guys (at least) to the system.
I just want to start from scratch and see what I can do.
Wow that is tempting to want that team especially if they were allowed to be move to Nevada. Will see what the guys ahead of me say.
-
I've voted for the 2017 expansion, along the same lines of thinking that an extra season for the new owners to wait could be a little painful for them.
Since I live in Baltimore, I've been thinking of a possible relocation for the club over to Maryland. That would probably necessitate a switch of sub-league as well to the PL if we're keeping the regional lines. If the club moved to coincide with expansion, though, the FL would be getting an odd number of expansion teams to fill the vacancy our departure would cause (unless there's an existing PL club moving to the FL). I could also just stay in the FL with the rebranded team until a good time comes to move us to the PL.
-
I've voted for the 2017 expansion, along the same lines of thinking that an extra season for the new owners to wait could be a little painful for them.
Since I live in Baltimore, I've been thinking of a possible relocation for the club over to Maryland. That would probably necessitate a switch of sub-league as well to the PL if we're keeping the regional lines. If the club moved to coincide with expansion, though, the FL would be getting an odd number of expansion teams to fill the vacancy our departure would cause (unless there's an existing PL club moving to the FL). I could also just stay in the FL with the rebranded team until a good time comes to move us to the PL.
I'm leaning toward this reasoning for 2017 as well. I'm all for getting everyone involved as soon as possible without compromising the league as it currently is. I believe that the AFBL will be alright with expanding in 2017 but I'm going to leave the voting open for a little longer.
Like we discussed in PM, I'm alright with California relocating to Maryland. If we need to realign when we expand, we will. This is my reasoning to have time relocate when we expand so we can avoid more realignment down the road. If the CA franchise does want to relocate to MD then send me another PM confirming this and then you can announce the team's intentions in a Team Press Release to open play in MD in 2017. Thanks!
-
With voting in Statslab, I need to figure out how to create our expansion guys without a team in the game. I plan to test in my test league tonight. I'm thinking that I can create them as new human managers in the game then not assign a team to them?
UPDATE: I created our 4 future owners in the game before the FCS and then ran Statslab with them in the SQL dump. I don't see any of them as login options in Statslab. Any thoughts anyone?
Make sure StatsLab is configured to allow logins for non-GM's (main admin page).
As for relocation destinations, I don't really have a strong preference. If none of us want Illinois, does the team move elsewhere?
-
With voting in Statslab, I need to figure out how to create our expansion guys without a team in the game. I plan to test in my test league tonight. I'm thinking that I can create them as new human managers in the game then not assign a team to them?
UPDATE: I created our 4 future owners in the game before the FCS and then ran Statslab with them in the SQL dump. I don't see any of them as login options in Statslab. Any thoughts anyone?
Make sure StatsLab is configured to allow logins for non-GM's (main admin page).
As for relocation destinations, I don't really have a strong preference. If none of us want Illinois, does the team move elsewhere?
I'll check on the setting to allow logins for non-GM's, thanks Frank! That worked, thanks Frank! Any way to remove old GMs from the available logins? If not, no big deal.
Paul let me know that he'd prefer to start from scratch with an expansion team. If you want to take over the Illinois franchise when we expand, then you'd take over the team and have the chance to relocate and/or rebrand the team name. Since you were 2nd to join of the 4 future owners, it's now up to you. If you'd prefer to start fresh with an expansion, I understand.
-
I am going to put my expansion franchise in Idaho. No real reason for choosing Idaho other than it is different.
-
I am going to put my expansion franchise in Idaho. No real reason for choosing Idaho other than it is different.
Approved!
-
Quick update... (Updated 11/8/13)
Definite Expansion Team Owners:
Lawrence (LT) - Idaho *current IL owner*
Paul (NDK-Paul) - Georgia
Frank (fhomess) - Washington
Matthew (BaseballAddict32) - Nevada
Confirmed 2016/2017 Owner Updates:
Marek (Empayes) - becomes new Oregon now in 2016
Raymond (RaySwalleyGM) - takes over Illinois franchise as is in 2017
Once we finalize locations of the the 4 expansion teams and where everyone will be playing in 2017, we can then start discussing any needed (likely) realignment and how to do so. Thanks guys!
-
California confirms that they will relocate to Maryland.
Here's how the league potentially looks with 18 teams and 2 expansion team locations TBD... Once we have all 20 teams set to where they'll be playing in 2017, we'll begin to decide how we'll realign the two leagues.
(http://www.afblbaseball.com/afbl/images/afblrelocation18.PNG)
-
I'll need all new expansion team locations and mascot, minor league affiliate locations at least, major league team's stadium name/type/capcity/dimensions/factors by Opening Day 2016 which I'm targeting for November 18th at 6am CT.
This will be the same for Arizona's plans for their move east to New Mexico and also California's plans to travel from the left coast to the right coast to Maryland.
Thanks guys!
-
We have our 4 Expansion Team GMs lined up, Marek (Empayes) will take over for Oregon right now, Raymond (RaySwalleyGM) will take over Illinois in 2017 when LT takes over his Idaho expansion team.
Thanks guys!
-
Paul just emailed me to say that he'll be announcing that his Expansion franchise will call Georgia home in the next few days.
-
Frank messaged me that he will be calling Washington home for his Expansion franchise.
We will still need official team press releases announcing the necessary information from Georgia and Washington by Monday, 11/18.
Thanks!
-
Now that we know the location of all 4 expansion franchises and any relocation of the current franchises, we can begin to discuss of how we will realign the league.
We have 2 options...
1.) Two sub leagues of 10 teams (no divisions)
(http://www.afblbaseball.com/afbl/images/2017realignment20-nodivisions.PNG)
2.) Two sub leagues of two divisions of 5 teams
(http://www.afblbaseball.com/afbl/images/2017realignment20-2divisions.PNG)
Please vote in this thread and discuss any thoughts or opinions on this! Thanks!
-
Are we keeping to 4 playoff spots - and if so how will these be decided if in divisions (automatic 2 per division or division winners and 2 others with best records so 3 teams from one division could make it?)
-
Are we keeping to 4 playoff spots - and if so how will these be decided if in divisions (automatic 2 per division or division winners and 2 others with best records so 3 teams from one division could make it?)
We currently have 3 spots per league (division champs plus 2 wildcards).
I would be fine keeping 3 teams per league or adding a 4th playoff team since there will be 2 extra teams per league.
Also is it possible schedule-wise to have a balanced schedule with no divisions and two subleagues of 10 teams or will we have to move to 2 divisions of 5 teams in each subleague?
2017 will be played with interleague play which is another wrinkle in the schedule making for next year.
Any thoughts guys?
-
Are we keeping to 4 playoff spots - and if so how will these be decided if in divisions (automatic 2 per division or division winners and 2 others with best records so 3 teams from one division could make it?)
We currently have 3 spots per league (division champs plus 2 wildcards).
I would be fine keeping 3 teams per league or adding a 4th playoff team since there will be 2 extra teams per league.
Also is it possible schedule-wise to have a balanced schedule with no divisions and two subleagues of 10 teams or will we have to move to 2 divisions of 5 teams in each subleague?
2017 will be played with interleague play which is another wrinkle in the schedule making for next year.
Any thoughts guys?
I'm all for adding a 4th playoff team per league - then there is no bye in the playoffs. I prefer the 2 division winners plus 2 wildcards who can come from either division.
This means I prefer to have 2 divisions per sub-league, it builds up greater rivalries.
-
Are we keeping to 4 playoff spots - and if so how will these be decided if in divisions (automatic 2 per division or division winners and 2 others with best records so 3 teams from one division could make it?)
We currently have 3 spots per league (division champs plus 2 wildcards).
I would be fine keeping 3 teams per league or adding a 4th playoff team since there will be 2 extra teams per league.
Also is it possible schedule-wise to have a balanced schedule with no divisions and two subleagues of 10 teams or will we have to move to 2 divisions of 5 teams in each subleague?
2017 will be played with interleague play which is another wrinkle in the schedule making for next year.
Any thoughts guys?
I'm all for adding a 4th playoff team per league - then there is no bye in the playoffs. I prefer the 2 division winners plus 2 wildcards who can come from either division.
This means I prefer to have 2 divisions per sub-league, it builds up greater rivalries.
I agree with mikezone13
-
Are we keeping to 4 playoff spots - and if so how will these be decided if in divisions (automatic 2 per division or division winners and 2 others with best records so 3 teams from one division could make it?)
We currently have 3 spots per league (division champs plus 2 wildcards).
I would be fine keeping 3 teams per league or adding a 4th playoff team since there will be 2 extra teams per league.
Also is it possible schedule-wise to have a balanced schedule with no divisions and two subleagues of 10 teams or will we have to move to 2 divisions of 5 teams in each subleague?
2017 will be played with interleague play which is another wrinkle in the schedule making for next year.
Any thoughts guys?
I'm all for adding a 4th playoff team per league - then there is no bye in the playoffs. I prefer the 2 division winners plus 2 wildcards who can come from either division.
This means I prefer to have 2 divisions per sub-league, it builds up greater rivalries.
I argee with this because it lets the first team heal from injurys and then our rivalries will bulid up because games will be a must win in some divisions
-
me too. 2 leagues, 2 divisions each and all 4 division champs make it plus two wild cards from each league regardless of division.
-
Yeah I think Divisions and 4 playoff spots would be the easiest and best way to set it up.
For what my 2 cents is worth haha.
-
I would actually prefer to keep the 3 playoff teams per league with a bye for the league winner. I prefer smaller playoffs and feel like the road to climb from the bottom of a large division to a playoff contender should be harder to make in one season.
However, if we're going to have 4 playoff teams, then I prefer the two division format with the top two teams from each division making it. That keeps the rivalries within the division, and while it lets a potentially weaker 2nd place team into the postseason, I think the rivalry aspect is worth it.
-
I would actually prefer to keep the 3 playoff teams per league with a bye for the league winner. I prefer smaller playoffs and feel like the road to climb from the bottom of a large division to a playoff contender should be harder to make in one season.
However, if we're going to have 4 playoff teams, then I prefer the two division format with the top two teams from each division making it. That keeps the rivalries within the division, and while it lets a potentially weaker 2nd place team into the postseason, I think the rivalry aspect is worth it.
This is the boat I'm in too. I'm doing some testing in the game with a test league to see what are options could be with 20 teams.
-
To me its natural to give a division winner a playoff spot but a weak division should not get 2 spots if the other division has 3 teams with better records. To me its division winner and two best wild card records in terms of the ideal format.
-
To me its natural to give a division winner a playoff spot but a weak division should not get 2 spots if the other division has 3 teams with better records. To me its division winner and two best wild card records in terms of the ideal format.
I agree with this statement 100%.
-
To me its natural to give a division winner a playoff spot but a weak division should not get 2 spots if the other division has 3 teams with better records. To me its division winner and two best wild card records in terms of the ideal format.
I agree with this statement 100%.
Ditto
-
To me its natural to give a division winner a playoff spot but a weak division should not get 2 spots if the other division has 3 teams with better records. To me its division winner and two best wild card records in terms of the ideal format.
I agree with this statement 100%.
Ditto
I agree
-
I'm more than happy to go with the majority, but I've never quite understood the point of divisions if you give playoff spots to the top 4 teams anyway.
-
Maybe I am not understanding. I thought it was 8 teams who make the playoffs. All the division winners + wildcards
-
Maybe I am not understanding. I thought it was 8 teams who make the playoffs. All the division winners + wildcards
You're right Troy, the discussion regarding 4 has just been 4 per sub-league, so yes 8 in total.
-
Maybe I am not understanding. I thought it was 8 teams who make the playoffs. All the division winners + wildcards
You're right Troy, the discussion regarding 4 has just been 4 per sub-league, so yes 8 in total.
So could you do a division winner and 3 wildcards sure but it's nice to win a division and this way more teams are a 'champion' Also 8 out of 20 is plenty and when we go up another 4 it'll still be enough
-
Just been looking at those divisional alignments...
FL West looks like a straight battle between Colorado and Oregon for years with 3 expansion teams moving in there.
PL South also looks relatively "easy", one expansion team (Georgia), Kentucky and the California guys moving to Maryland.
Whereas the PL North and FL West will be known as the home of the original franchises - well Pennsy (yes two n's) and New Mexico will have moved but you get what I mean.
The "protected lists" and size of these lists are going to be crucial during expansion - I can see some really tough decisions having to be made.
-
Just been looking at those divisional alignments...
FL West looks like a straight battle between Colorado and Oregon for years with 3 expansion teams moving in there.
PL South also looks relatively "easy", one expansion team (Georgia), Kentucky and the California guys moving to Maryland.
Whereas the PL North and FL West will be known as the home of the original franchises - well Pennsy (yes two n's) and New Mexico will have moved but you get what I mean.
The "protected lists" and size of these lists are going to be crucial during expansion - I can see some really tough decisions having to be made.
That is a concern for me as a Commish in terms of fairness with the new expansion teams (fine with the just Colorado GM haha).
I'm thinking about going with Interleague Play for a few seasons after 2017 to attempt to balance out the competition with the original 16 against the expansion teams. Any thoughts?
-
Just been looking at those divisional alignments...
FL West looks like a straight battle between Colorado and Oregon for years with 3 expansion teams moving in there.
PL South also looks relatively "easy", one expansion team (Georgia), Kentucky and the California guys moving to Maryland.
Whereas the PL North and FL West will be known as the home of the original franchises - well Pennsy (yes two n's) and New Mexico will have moved but you get what I mean.
The "protected lists" and size of these lists are going to be crucial during expansion - I can see some really tough decisions having to be made.
That is a concern for me as a Commish in terms of fairness with the new expansion teams (fine with the just Colorado GM haha).
I'm thinking about going with Interleague Play for a few seasons after 2017 to attempt to balance out the competition with the original 16 against the expansion teams. Any thoughts?
I had this idea regarding schedules and keeping the 162 game season:
30 Inter League games (1 x 3 game series against each of the 10 teams)
72 Intra Division games (6 x 3 game series against each of the 4 other teams)
60 Intra League games (4 x 3 game series against each of the 5 other teams)
This would be a great way to ensure that Intra Divsion games mean "more", but also ensures that 80% of games are played in your own division. This approach would likely help balance out what you called "fairness" as when the divisions are combined in a sub-league the talent is pretty close.
I also had one other idea - when expanding we should allow Luis Bravo (got put in jail) and Antonio Espinosa (CEI) back into the league - i.e unretire them and allow the expansion teams to battle it out for these guys too.
-
I think our options in terms of realignment and playoff teams are...
1.) Two subleagues of 10-teams (no divisions) -> League champs (1st round byes) plus two Wildcards -> 3 playoff teams per subleague
2.) Two subleagues of 10-teams (no divisions) -> League champs plus three Wildcards (either League Champ plays lowest WC OR a best-of-3 series between the last two WCs as a play-in [is this possible?]) -> 4 playoff teams per subleague
3.) Two subleagues of two 5-team divisions -> Division champs plus two Wildcards (Win% of rest of subleague) -> 4 playoff teams per subleague
4.) Two subleagues of two 5-team divisions -> Division champs (1st round byes) plus four Wildcards (Win% of rest of subleague) -> 6 playoff teams per subleague
5.) Two subleagues of two 5-team divisions -> Division champs (1st round byes) plus three Wildcards (Win% of rest of subleague) (bottom 2 WCs play best of 3 series to play top WC) -> 5 playoff teams per subleague (not sure if this is possible)
Thoughts or other suggestions?
-
I'm for option 3.
-
I'm for option 3.
I believe my preference is Option 3 followed by Option 1.
I had this idea regarding schedules and keeping the 162 game season:
30 Inter League games (1 x 3 game series against each of the 10 teams)
72 Intra Division games (6 x 3 game series against each of the 4 other teams)
60 Intra League games (4 x 3 game series against each of the 5 other teams)
This would be a great way to ensure that Intra Divsion games mean "more", but also ensures that 80% of games are played in your own division. This approach would likely help balance out what you called "fairness" as when the divisions are combined in a sub-league the talent is pretty close.
I also had one other idea - when expanding we should allow Luis Bravo (got put in jail) and Antonio Espinosa (CEI) back into the league - i.e unretire them and allow the expansion teams to battle it out for these guys too.
I like this setup
-
I think our options in terms of realignment and playoff teams are...
1.) Two subleagues of 10-teams (no divisions) -> League champs (1st round byes) plus two Wildcards -> 3 playoff teams per subleague
2.) Two subleagues of 10-teams (no divisions) -> League champs plus three Wildcards (either League Champ plays lowest WC OR a best-of-3 series between the last two WCs as a play-in [is this possible?]) -> 4 playoff teams per subleague
3.) Two subleagues of two 5-team divisions -> Division champs plus two Wildcards (Win% of rest of subleague) -> 4 playoff teams per subleague
4.) Two subleagues of two 5-team divisions -> Division champs (1st round byes) plus four Wildcards (Win% of rest of subleague) -> 6 playoff teams per subleague
5.) Two subleagues of two 5-team divisions -> Division champs (1st round byes) plus three Wildcards (Win% of rest of subleague) (bottom 2 WCs play best of 3 series to play top WC) -> 5 playoff teams per subleague (not sure if this is possible)
Thoughts or other suggestions?
Option 3 is best for me.
-
3
-
I'm thinking about going with Interleague Play for a few seasons after 2017 to attempt to balance out the competition with the original 16 against the expansion teams. Any thoughts?
If you keep a balanced schedule within sub leagues, it shouldn't matter much. You just might see less parity in the Frontier League for a bit.
-
Just been looking at those divisional alignments...
FL West looks like a straight battle between Colorado and Oregon for years with 3 expansion teams moving in there.
PL South also looks relatively "easy", one expansion team (Georgia), Kentucky and the California guys moving to Maryland.
Whereas the PL North and FL West will be known as the home of the original franchises - well Pennsy (yes two n's) and New Mexico will have moved but you get what I mean.
The "protected lists" and size of these lists are going to be crucial during expansion - I can see some really tough decisions having to be made.
That is a concern for me as a Commish in terms of fairness with the new expansion teams (fine with the just Colorado GM haha).
I'm thinking about going with Interleague Play for a few seasons after 2017 to attempt to balance out the competition with the original 16 against the expansion teams. Any thoughts?
The FL has been a league with 3 domminent teams every year and this yer only 3 teams above .500 but also WELLL above this year, so with the PL more even and competative Interleague play with expandstion will help alot
-
I've been doing a ton of testing with a test version of our league to see how a few OOTP features handled two ideas I have for our league...
1st Thought
AFBL Playoffs -> I've tested a season with our proposed 2 leagues of 2 divisions with 5 teams... Two Division Champs plus #1 WC earn 1st round byes for the best-of-3 series between the #2 & #3 WCs. *5 playoff teams seeded by Win%; Highest Win% Division Champ is 1 seed*
Wildcard Play-In Series (1-1-1 format)
FL/PL #5 @ FL/PL #4 in Best-of-3 series
Wildcard Series (2-3-2 format)
Winner of FL/PL #4/5 @ FL/PL #1 (Division Champ with highest Win%)
FL/PL #3 (top Wildcard spot) @ FL/PL #2 (Division Champ with lower Win%)
LCS & FCS as usual
Anyone like this plan? If not we still need to decide on how to handle the playoffs with 20 teams.
-
2nd Thought
The other idea that I've been doing the most testing with over the past week or so is the newer feature of College and High School feeder leagues which would be where our draft pool would come from instead of the random and current situation of the game generating a draft pool when specified (75 days before in our case).
Here is the excerpt from the OOTP Manual about Feeder leagues...
A feeder league feeds players into its parent league. Feeder leagues have minimum and maximum age limits for players, and once players exceed their age maximum, the players go into the draft pool for their parent league. When a new season starts in a feeder league, the rosters are filled up again with players of the minimum age. As older players get drafted (or become free agents if undrafted), younger players get added automatically for the following season. Each feeder league can feed players into only one league, and you cannot have a 'daisy chain' of feeder leagues. That is, you can't have a high school league that feeds into a college league that feeds into a professional league.
There are two types of feeder leagues: college and high school. These two types behave identically. The names, like league levels, are mainly just for categorization.
Important: Feeder leagues are not meant to simulate real-world college and high school baseball. There is no early entry into the draft, recruiting, redshirting, or similar staples of college and high school baseball.
Feeder leagues add immersion, providing a draft pool full of players with several years of statistical history leading up to the draft, in addition to scouting reports. This gives general managers much more information on which to base draft decisions. This is particularly helpful in leagues that allow the trading of draft picks, because GMs can make intelligent decisions about how strong a particular draft class looks by scouting and researching the draft class in advance.
Feeder leagues behave very similarly to minor leagues. Players in feeder leagues have minor league contracts and share all the rules of the parent league.
Players in a feeder league will appear in the first-year player draft pool of the major league once they are no longer eligible for their feeder league. Your first-year player draft will also be supplemented with enough fictional players to fill out the draft, if necessary. High school players who are not drafted may continue on to college, or may become free agents. College players who are not drafted may become free agents.
In my test league I had the following settings for the High School Feeder League...
Rules
Age max 18
Age min 15
Players will mostly be 19 when they enter the draft.
Options
created age min 15
created age max 15
All new players enter as freshman and will play until they reach 18. By default new players can enter at any age that is allowable in your league so some guys get 4 years playing time some get 1. My preference is all get 4 years but it is realistic some guys just do not take up HS baseball until their junior or senior year.
Two leagues of 10-teams make up the 20-team AFBL High School League
50-game Balanced Schedule with no Interleague Play includes ASG
In my test league I had the following settings for the College Feeder League...
Rules
Age max 18
Age min 21
Players will mostly be 19 when they enter the draft.
Options
created age min 18
created age max 18
All new players enter as freshman and will play until they reach 21. Same as HS feeder league that there will be players that enter late and not have a full 4 years in the college feeder league
Two leagues of 10-teams make up the 20-team AFBL College League
100-game Balanced Schedule with no Interleague Play includes ASG
Both HS and College leagues have Default Player Origin of USA and CANADA with 10% random origin.
~~
I've tested into the 202x's and have found that the draft pools are a good mix of HS and College players with the expected amount of elite talent/potential-talent at the top of the draft pools.
I'm fairly certain that we'll enable this feature for this season in 2016 so we can begin to utilize this feeder to have more useful info come draft days.
Any thoughts or opinions?
-
Not a fan of byes in the playoffs - we have this in another league I play and last playoffs every team who had the bye lost their first playoff series.
I'm not sure if the game penalised them by giving the players some "rust" for not playing for 7-10 days - but it was a big coincidence.
-
Not a fan of byes in the playoffs - we have this in another league I play and last playoffs every team who had the bye lost their first playoff series.
I'm not sure if the game penalised them by giving the players some "rust" for not playing for 7-10 days - but it was a big coincidence.
In that above playoff setup it would be a 3 game series so it would be about 5 or 6 days off but I understand the concern. It's really just a thought. Maybe like the current MLB setup of a 1-game playin for the final 2 of 3 wildcards?
I'm totally fine with just 4 teams (Two Division Champs then 2 Wildcards based on Win%).
-
4 out of 10 or 8 out of 20 is a nice number - keeps it even and simple.
-
Altho I am in favor of anything that complicates things for New Jersey :P ;)
-
Altho I am in favor of anything that complicates things for New Jersey :P ;)
Feel the love in this thread ;)
-
Altho I am in favor of anything that complicates things for New Jersey :P ;)
I still get irritated when I see this... then realize im WV here :)
-
Altho I am in favor of anything that complicates things for New Jersey :P ;)
I agree with this 100% plus it gives that lucky team a chance to play in a playoff game for the 4th spot
-
AFBL will go ahead with the two-divisions of five teams per league setup for the 2017 and beyond with 14 votes cast.
-
Vote for how the AFBL will format its playoffs with 20 teams. Any thoughts/opinions? Thanks!
-
Bump for our continued discussion for expansion and currently how we'll format our playoffs.
-
just wanted to drop the topic of expansion draft in here. how many players can be protected and such and what rules will apply so as this season quickly develops expansion teams can do some advance scouting. after not paying the scouting department the big bucks for nothing LOL
-
Items Needed To Be Decided On (11/19/13):
-number of protected players per team?
-auto-protect players with less than X Pro Service Years?
-limit of picks from a single team?
-actual draft process?
-is there a need to generate extra free agents or draft picks to help fill out minors? Teams technically don't need a full roster in each minor league level. If so, how should we go about doing this (add to FA pool after Expansion Draft and Amateur Draft? Separate FA Draft?)
I'll keep this updated as needed.
Here's what I'm thinking about but still is up for discussion...
Amount of protected player per team? 10-20 range
Auto-protect players with less than X Pro Service Years Off or 1
Limit of players picked per team? 10-15 range
Actual draft process? Still TBD but protection lists exported in the game (maybe?) then held in the forum with a Google Spreadsheet to keep track of the protection list and player pullbacks after a selection from that team
In the NPBL, they had a system that allowed a team to pull back 2-3 players after a player was selected in the Expansion Round. It's a good point that allows the 16 current teams some strategy to protect additional players after losing someone.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
-
For the "pullback" option- how does that work in real time? Would every pick need to be followed by a window where the original team could pull a player back? If so, that could take a long time...
-
For the "pullback" option- how does that work in real time? Would every pick need to be followed by a window where the original team could pull a player back? If so, that could take a long time...
I need to check with Chappy about how this happened when NPBL went through this. I wasn't involved when it happened so I'm curious too haha.
-
For the "pullback" option- how does that work in real time? Would every pick need to be followed by a window where the original team could pull a player back? If so, that could take a long time...
I need to check with Chappy about how this happened when NPBL went through this. I wasn't involved when it happened so I'm curious too haha.
Matt - the whole threads are still there for the drafting process when we did it in the NPBL.
-
For the "pullback" option- how does that work in real time? Would every pick need to be followed by a window where the original team could pull a player back? If so, that could take a long time...
The way we did the draft in the NPBL, the expansion teams could only pick one person from each team ( i.e. you could only lose one per round). Then there would be a tread for each team to protect two more players, and round two would happen.
Below were the rules:
===============================
?Each division will add 1 team, so the FFL and GEL will each be made up of 2 7-team divisions.
?The new teams will begin play in the 2027 season.
?The amatuer draft will be extended to 5 rounds (generate 6) for the 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030 and 2031 seasons. There will be an adjustment made to the incoming talent so that we won't have too many talented players in the league afterwords.
?The expansion teams will first be opened to current owners, before being offered to the general public. If more than 4 current owners want expansion teams, we would assign the teams based on who has the longest NPBL tenure. Owners will be announced late 2026, most likely just after the trade deadline.
?The expansion teams will only draft from teams in their respective league, and each current team will lose 5 players, giving each expansion team 30 players + their 5 draft picks and any signed free agents.
?The expansion teams will pick between the non-playoff and playoff teams during the 2027 amatuer draft.
?Each current team would protect 15 players, then 3 more after each of the remainding 'rounds'. Each team would lose exactly one player per 'round'. The number of pullbacks could be adjusted on a team-by-team basis if the club has fewer than 32 eligible players, but in the end, each team will lose exactly 5 players.
?Players drafted in 2023 or later and have fewer than 172 days (1 year) of Big-League Service will not be eligible for the draft.
?The expansion draft (there will really be two, one per league) will consist of 5 rounds, with each team losing 1 player per round. Who picks first in each round would look like this:
Round 1 - Team X
Round 2 - Team Y
Round 3 - Team Y
Round 4 - Team X
Round 5 - Team Y
-
Items Needed To Be Decided On (11/19/13):
-number of protected players per team?
-auto-protect players with less than X Pro Service Years?
-limit of picks from a single team?
-actual draft process?
-is there a need to generate extra free agents or draft picks to help fill out minors? Teams technically don't need a full roster in each minor league level. If so, how should we go about doing this (add to FA pool after Expansion Draft and Amateur Draft? Separate FA Draft?)
I'll keep this updated as needed.
Here's what I'm thinking about but still is up for discussion...
Amount of protected player per team? 10-20 range
Auto-protect players with less than X Pro Service Years Off or 1
Limit of players picked per team? 10-15 range
Actual draft process? Still TBD but protection lists exported in the game (maybe?) then held in the forum with a Google Spreadsheet to keep track of the protection list and player pullbacks after a selection from that team
In the NPBL, they had a system that allowed a team to pull back 2-3 players after a player was selected in the Expansion Round. It's a good point that allows the 16 current teams some strategy to protect additional players after losing someone.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
I am against pullback players. It destroys teams drafting from players they think they can get. Only to after teams behind them picked, lose that player. Expansion teams are already playing catch up. To have the draft disrupted by taking a guy and being told no, you can't have him later is IMO anyway disruptive to any strategy for the drafting teams. Easier to just protect 2-3 more players.
-
I like what Ohio GM posted, well some aspects any way.
- No team loses more than player per round
- Guys with less than 1 ML service year are protected
- All current teams lose the same amount of players across the expansion draft
- Each current team would protect 15 players, then 3 more after each of the remaining 'rounds'.
On matt's original post, 10 protected players is too few, while 20 protected players is too many start with as there will just be a big bunch of unprotected relievers :)
I also like the idea in addition to the service time clause that anyone aged 25y/o or over and NOT on the 25 man roster is fair game. So this means if you have some guys in their late 20's in the minors who are actually decent ML level, they get in the draft pool regardless of service time.
-
Here was the way Baseball did it in 1997 :
====================
Similar to the 1992 expansion draft, both expansion teams selected 35 players.[4] The draft was divided into three rounds. Each team would select 14 players in round 1, 14 players in round 2, and 7 players in round 3. Tampa Bay general manager Chuck LaMar and Arizona general manager Joe Garagiola, Jr. oversaw their teams' selections.
The Devil Rays and Diamondbacks could pick any player not on the protected lists of the 28 other teams, although no team could lose more than one player in a given round. The protected list for each team consisted of:
For the first round, 15 players from the rosters of their entire organization?both their 40-man roster, plus all minor league affiliates.[4]
Each team could add three more players to its protected list after each round.[4]
In addition to the above, players chosen in the 1996 and 1997 amateur drafts were automatically protected, plus players who were 18 or younger when signed in 1995.
Players who were free agents after the end of the 1997 season need not be protected.
As with the 1992 expansion draft, the order was determined by a coin toss. The winner of the toss could choose either: (a) The first overall pick in the expansion draft or (b) allow the other team to pick first and receive both the second and third overall expansion draft picks and the right to pick first in the subsequent rounds of the expansion draft. Tampa Bay won the toss and chose to select first.
-
I like what Ohio GM posted, well some aspects any way.
- No team loses more than player per round
- Guys with less than 1 ML service year are protected
- All current teams lose the same amount of players across the expansion draft
- Each current team would protect 15 players, then 3 more after each of the remaining 'rounds'.
On matt's original post, 10 protected players is too few, while 20 protected players is too many start with as there will just be a big bunch of unprotected relievers :)
I also like the idea in addition to the service time clause that anyone aged 25y/o or over and NOT on the 25 man roster is fair game. So this means if you have some guys in their late 20's in the minors who are actually decent ML level, they get in the draft pool regardless of service time.
Here was the way Baseball did it in 1997 :
====================
Similar to the 1992 expansion draft, both expansion teams selected 35 players.[4] The draft was divided into three rounds. Each team would select 14 players in round 1, 14 players in round 2, and 7 players in round 3. Tampa Bay general manager Chuck LaMar and Arizona general manager Joe Garagiola, Jr. oversaw their teams' selections.
The Devil Rays and Diamondbacks could pick any player not on the protected lists of the 28 other teams, although no team could lose more than one player in a given round. The protected list for each team consisted of:
For the first round, 15 players from the rosters of their entire organization?both their 40-man roster, plus all minor league affiliates.[4]
Each team could add three more players to its protected list after each round.[4]
In addition to the above, players chosen in the 1996 and 1997 amateur drafts were automatically protected, plus players who were 18 or younger when signed in 1995.
Players who were free agents after the end of the 1997 season need not be protected.
As with the 1992 expansion draft, the order was determined by a coin toss. The winner of the toss could choose either: (a) The first overall pick in the expansion draft or (b) allow the other team to pick first and receive both the second and third overall expansion draft picks and the right to pick first in the subsequent rounds of the expansion draft. Tampa Bay won the toss and chose to select first.
I like some sort of combination between these two processes for our expansion draft...
-No team loses more than 1 player per round
-Players with less than 1 ML service year are auto-protected (add an age limit plus not on 25-man roster provision?)
-Players selected in the (?2014 and?) 2015 Amateur Draft are auto-protected
-Current teams can lose no more than ?10? players (TBD, should every current team lose the same amount of players?)
-Current teams protect 15 players (?then 2-3 more after each Expansion Draft Round?)
-
i dont understand the 2-3 more every round. you protect 15, that leaves 10 or less players at most on a 25 man roster available. now you eliminate guys who are protected by default because they are rookies. some teams might only have 5 or 6 eligible players for expansion teams to draft (plus the service rule eliminates minor leaguers mostly). you go a round or two in and there is nobody left to pick if you remove 3 more every round. or any more. i mean all of the options are basically stacking the deck where it'd take 4 or 5 years to field a roster and probably double to contend. the math has to be considered here. nobody is being left to be taken and you have 4 teams that need to fill 125 roster spots including minor leagues. maybe there should be a supplemental amateur draft for expansion teams.
the problem with the MLB example is you had 2 expansion teams and 28 major league teams. you are fielding 4 teams from 16 here. the numbers do not match. only solution is some other source of players for expansion teams.
-
the problem with the MLB example is you had 2 expansion teams and 28 major league teams. you are fielding 4 teams from 16 here. the numbers do not match. only solution is some other source of players for expansion teams.
Completely agree with this part. We are expanding by 25%, which means the league also needs an influx of players - 4 extra teams means 500 players needed to fill the ML and minor league rosters for each organisation. We only have just over 100 FA's - this is the issue that most needs to be dealt with, where do these extra players "suddenly" come from.
I see something as follows:
- No team loses more than 1 player per round
- Each round is made up of 16 picks (4 picks per expansion team)
- That means every round every existing team loses one player
- Expansion draft goes for 10-15 rounds - this means each team loses 10-15 players, and each expansion team drafts 40-60 players
- The four expansion teams then have a FA draft for X rounds from the existing FAs AND some new random FA's that are produced that are all aged under 25y/o but with no super stars created so that each expansion team gets to an organisation size of at least 70-80 players and can then gradually build through FA and drafting
-
the problem with the MLB example is you had 2 expansion teams and 28 major league teams. you are fielding 4 teams from 16 here. the numbers do not match. only solution is some other source of players for expansion teams.
Completely agree with this part. We are expanding by 25%, which means the league also needs an influx of players - 4 extra teams means 500 players needed to fill the ML and minor league rosters for each organisation. We only have just over 100 FA's - this is the issue that most needs to be dealt with, where do these extra players "suddenly" come from.
I see something as follows:
- No team loses more than 1 player per round
- Each round is made up of 16 picks (4 picks per expansion team)
- That means every round every existing team loses one player
- Expansion draft goes for 10-15 rounds - this means each team loses 10-15 players, and each expansion team drafts 40-60 players
- The four expansion teams then have a FA draft for X rounds from the existing FAs AND some new random FA's that are produced that are all aged under 25y/o but with no super stars created so that each expansion team gets to an organisation size of at least 70-80 players and can then gradually build through FA and drafting
this is an excellent list.
-
I am against pullback players. It destroys teams drafting from players they think they can get. Only to after teams behind them picked, lose that player. Expansion teams are already playing catch up. To have the draft disrupted by taking a guy and being told no, you can't have him later is IMO anyway disruptive to any strategy for the drafting teams. Easier to just protect 2-3 more players.
Pullbacks aren't teams pulling a player back after he is picked. Pullbacks are teams being allowed the opportunity to protect additional players after a pick from their team is made. For example, if a team left both of their catchers unprotected and one of them is taken, they would use a pullback on the other one so that they don't lose both catchers in the draft. Generally speaking, when pullbacks are in play, more players are initially unprotected.
I like some sort of combination between these two processes for our expansion draft...
-No team loses more than 1 player per round
-Players with less than 1 ML service year are auto-protected (add an age limit plus not on 25-man roster provision?)
-Players selected in the (?2014 and?) 2015 Amateur Draft are auto-protected
-Current teams can lose no more than ?10? players (TBD, should every current team lose the same amount of players?)
-Current teams protect 15 players (?then 2-3 more after each Expansion Draft Round?)
I'm not so sure about this combination of protections. I think the service time clause will result in too few players being made available who can actually play at the major league level. I also think that existing teams as well as expansion teams should be given a choice about the types of players that are protected and drafted. Some teams may prefer to protect major leaguers while some may prefer to protect prospects.
I would suggest the following for consideration:
- Existing teams may initially protect up to 30 players across their organization with the following conditions:
- Teams may protect up to 15 players on their major league roster
- Teams may protect up to 10 players from their top prospects page (e.g. OOTP HTML page (http://www.afblbaseball.com/afbl/reports/news/html/teams/team_73.html))
- Teams may protect no more than 20 players between their major league roster and top prospects page combined
- Expansion teams may draft any unprotected player
- No team loses more than 1 player per round
- Existing teams may protect 2 additional players after each draft round, from anywhere in the organization at that point
- No additional FA draft/process required
This would allow good teams the option to protect more of their active roster, and (re)building teams the opportunity
-
I really love these suggestions, Frank.
-
Although I think the parts about the top prospects and limit of protected players between ML roster and top spects would be too complicated.
I'm leaning toward...
15-20 players protected by current teams
auto protect players that are 22 and younger (plus maybe players with 1 ML pro service year?)
current teams will lose 1 player per round and have the option to protect 2 more players not originally protected.
serpentine draft style of expansion teams (random generation)
-
Although I think the parts about the top prospects and limit of protected players between ML roster and top spects would be too complicated.
I'm leaning toward...
15-20 players protected by current teams
auto protect players that are 22 and younger (plus maybe players with 1 ML pro service year?)
current teams will lose 1 player per round and have the option to protect 2 more players not originally protected.
serpentine draft style of expansion teams (random generation)
will a supplemental talent pool be made available? i ask because if those are the rules current teams will basically be unaffected and expansion teams will be 80% current unsigned free agents, aka 1 stars with zero minor leagues. i mean whose left? you start out with at most 5-10 men available from the 25 man roster and constantly remove more each round. you cannot draft anyone with less than one year of major league service so prospects are not available. you'll get a few crumbs from the roster. there has to be a supplemental talent pool if this much effort is being made to keep current rosters untouched. a purely for expansion team pool of talent. other wise there is no point to fielding an expansion team in 2017. you may as well wait 5 seasons and build your roster in the meantime through drafts and free agency until you have a roster to play with.
i hope the tone doesn't come off wrong but based on the math there is a real concern here. whose left to pick?
-
I agree that if 22 and under are all protected and 20 over that are protected but even on my team, which is pretty young, it would leave 30 players. I don't think you should get to protect more over the 20 + 22 and younger.
-
Curious on what the expectation of how competive the expansion teams expect to be comming into the first season. Drawing on what happened in the NPBL:
The Four Teams first Year -
Losses Wpct
124 .235
104 .358
106 .346
104 .358
. 500 record in:
6 years
12 years
11 years
9 years
Playoffs in:
10 years
6 years
10 years ( sub 500 team, made playoffs and won Champ )
9 years
I think my point is that those teams had to wait to build by the draft, not from taking the low level talent of the current teams.
-
This is my expectation as well
-
Curious on what the expectation of how competive the expansion teams expect to be comming into the first season. Drawing on what happened in the NPBL:
The Four Teams first Year -
Losses Wpct
124 .235
104 .358
106 .346
104 .358
. 500 record in:
6 years
12 years
11 years
9 years
Playoffs in:
10 years
6 years
10 years ( sub 500 team, made playoffs and won Champ )
9 years
I think my point is that those teams had to wait to build by the draft, not from taking the low level talent of the current teams.
Agreed, I think the concern is that the new teams will have enough players to field a ML squad and a couple of farm teams for depth and the possibility to trade for picks...
-
Curious on what the expectation of how competive the expansion teams expect to be comming into the first season. Drawing on what happened in the NPBL:
The Four Teams first Year -
Losses Wpct
124 .235
104 .358
106 .346
104 .358
. 500 record in:
6 years
12 years
11 years
9 years
Playoffs in:
10 years
6 years
10 years ( sub 500 team, made playoffs and won Champ )
9 years
I think my point is that those teams had to wait to build by the draft, not from taking the low level talent of the current teams.
Agreed, I think the concern is that the new teams will have enough players to field a ML squad and a couple of farm teams for depth and the possibility to trade for picks...
Exactly. If I wanted to win now I would have taken over Illinois when offered. But its one thing to build. Its another to have insignificant number of players to even fill a franchise because we're told teams won't have to allow 60% of their roster or any of their prospects to be picked and then remove 2 more guys for every round. Before long, say 3 or 4 rounds in, there is nobody left to pick from. So based on real math its ok to start a team with 4 picks and maybe 25 unsigned free agents? Please explain where from that one can fill 125 roster spots at 5 levels of teams? Not with super stars, with anyone. Anyone with less than a year of major league service off limits, for some that plus protecting 15 might leave 5-8 guys before they start pulling people back. The math does not work for filling spots.
This is why I embrace Mike's idea of a different player pool that isn't loaded, just solid. That way you fill expansion teams without wrecking current ones.
-
Exactly. If I wanted to win now I would have taken over Illinois when offered. But its one thing to build. Its another to have insignificant number of players to even fill a franchise because we're told teams won't have to allow 60% of their roster or any of their prospects to be picked and then remove 2 more guys for every round. Before long, say 3 or 4 rounds in, there is nobody left to pick from. So based on real math its ok to start a team with 4 picks and maybe 25 unsigned free agents? Please explain where from that one can fill 125 roster spots at 5 levels of teams? Not with super stars, with anyone. Anyone with less than a year of major league service off limits, for some that plus protecting 15 might leave 5-8 guys before they start pulling people back. The math does not work for filling spots.
This is why I embrace Mike's idea of a different player pool that isn't loaded, just solid. That way you fill expansion teams without wrecking current ones.
I like the idea of a 15 round expansion draft - each existing team loses 1 player per round. Perhaps the existing franchises can protect 30 players in their organizations, up front (that should not hurt any of those teams and protect their top prospects), but no pulling players back after each round. This gives each new team 60 players to work with. It will also move the draft along as the only bottlenecks will be the 4 new team owners.
If we follow that up with a 20 round FA draft, each new team gets 80 players to start their organizations with. We can fill the rest of our lower minors with draft choices in the 2 or 3 years following 2017.
I think this ensures that nobody loses their hard work putting a team together, but will expose some decent second tier talent for expansion franchises (call them 4A players) that can help while they build through the draft.
-
Exactly. If I wanted to win now I would have taken over Illinois when offered. But its one thing to build. Its another to have insignificant number of players to even fill a franchise because we're told teams won't have to allow 60% of their roster or any of their prospects to be picked and then remove 2 more guys for every round. Before long, say 3 or 4 rounds in, there is nobody left to pick from. So based on real math its ok to start a team with 4 picks and maybe 25 unsigned free agents? Please explain where from that one can fill 125 roster spots at 5 levels of teams? Not with super stars, with anyone. Anyone with less than a year of major league service off limits, for some that plus protecting 15 might leave 5-8 guys before they start pulling people back. The math does not work for filling spots.
This is why I embrace Mike's idea of a different player pool that isn't loaded, just solid. That way you fill expansion teams without wrecking current ones.
I like the idea of a 15 round expansion draft - each existing team loses 1 player per round. Perhaps the existing franchises can protect 30 players in their organizations, up front (that should not hurt any of those teams and protect their top prospects), but no pulling players back after each round. This gives each new team 60 players to work with. It will also move the draft along as the only bottlenecks will be the 4 new team owners.
If we follow that up with a 20 round FA draft, each new team gets 80 players to start their organizations with. We can fill the rest of our lower minors with draft choices in the 2 or 3 years following 2017.
I think this ensures that nobody loses their hard work putting a team together, but will expose some decent second tier talent for expansion franchises (call them 4A players) that can help while they build through the draft.
I am intrigued with the 'Free Agent Option' available now. Maybe we could add some history and create an international league that is separate from AFBL but folds or something and we absorb their players in a FA Draft or similiar? Thoughts?
I'm also all for going with 30 players protected per team and going with a 15 round expansion draft as well with or without the option for current teams to protect additional players.
-
Exactly. If I wanted to win now I would have taken over Illinois when offered. But its one thing to build. Its another to have insignificant number of players to even fill a franchise because we're told teams won't have to allow 60% of their roster or any of their prospects to be picked and then remove 2 more guys for every round. Before long, say 3 or 4 rounds in, there is nobody left to pick from. So based on real math its ok to start a team with 4 picks and maybe 25 unsigned free agents? Please explain where from that one can fill 125 roster spots at 5 levels of teams? Not with super stars, with anyone. Anyone with less than a year of major league service off limits, for some that plus protecting 15 might leave 5-8 guys before they start pulling people back. The math does not work for filling spots.
This is why I embrace Mike's idea of a different player pool that isn't loaded, just solid. That way you fill expansion teams without wrecking current ones.
I like the idea of a 15 round expansion draft - each existing team loses 1 player per round. Perhaps the existing franchises can protect 30 players in their organizations, up front (that should not hurt any of those teams and protect their top prospects), but no pulling players back after each round. This gives each new team 60 players to work with. It will also move the draft along as the only bottlenecks will be the 4 new team owners.
If we follow that up with a 20 round FA draft, each new team gets 80 players to start their organizations with. We can fill the rest of our lower minors with draft choices in the 2 or 3 years following 2017.
I think this ensures that nobody loses their hard work putting a team together, but will expose some decent second tier talent for expansion franchises (call them 4A players) that can help while they build through the draft.
I am intrigued with the 'Free Agent Option' available now. Maybe we could add some history and create an international league that is separate from AFBL but folds or something and we absorb their players in a FA Draft or similiar? Thoughts?
I'm also all for going with 30 players protected per team and going with a 15 round expansion draft as well with or without the option for current teams to protect additional players.
We can add auto protection of the 2016 draft choices (so they do not count towards the 30 protected players). Still should leave enough players to go around for the new teams and not destroy the existing clubs.
-
I think that (?2014?) 2015 and 2016 Ammy Draft picks will protected
-
I think that (?2014?) 2015 and 2016 Ammy Draft picks will protected
Makes sense. In that case, I think 30 protected players and no pull backs will work.
-
Everyone under 22 so that should cover a draft class or two.
-
Exactly. If I wanted to win now I would have taken over Illinois when offered. But its one thing to build. Its another to have insignificant number of players to even fill a franchise because we're told teams won't have to allow 60% of their roster or any of their prospects to be picked and then remove 2 more guys for every round. Before long, say 3 or 4 rounds in, there is nobody left to pick from. So based on real math its ok to start a team with 4 picks and maybe 25 unsigned free agents? Please explain where from that one can fill 125 roster spots at 5 levels of teams? Not with super stars, with anyone. Anyone with less than a year of major league service off limits, for some that plus protecting 15 might leave 5-8 guys before they start pulling people back. The math does not work for filling spots.
This is why I embrace Mike's idea of a different player pool that isn't loaded, just solid. That way you fill expansion teams without wrecking current ones.
I like the idea of a 15 round expansion draft - each existing team loses 1 player per round. Perhaps the existing franchises can protect 30 players in their organizations, up front (that should not hurt any of those teams and protect their top prospects), but no pulling players back after each round. This gives each new team 60 players to work with. It will also move the draft along as the only bottlenecks will be the 4 new team owners.
If we follow that up with a 20 round FA draft, each new team gets 80 players to start their organizations with. We can fill the rest of our lower minors with draft choices in the 2 or 3 years following 2017.
I think this ensures that nobody loses their hard work putting a team together, but will expose some decent second tier talent for expansion franchises (call them 4A players) that can help while they build through the draft.
I am intrigued with the 'Free Agent Option' available now. Maybe we could add some history and create an international league that is separate from AFBL but folds or something and we absorb their players in a FA Draft or similiar? Thoughts?
I'm also all for going with 30 players protected per team and going with a 15 round expansion draft as well with or without the option for current teams to protect additional players.
We can add auto protection of the 2016 draft choices (so they do not count towards the 30 protected players). Still should leave enough players to go around for the new teams and not destroy the existing clubs.
I am good with that. If we get to around 80 its a solid start. A few drafts in you fill the rest out. All I ask is we not be handicapped in terms of numbers. 80 is realistic and solid. Few years of depth and a few years of quality building are fair.
-
Agree, each expansion teams needs 60-80 players to be able to give it a shot at building an organisation.
They shouldn't be winning the league inside 5 years either, but they have to have the building blocks to be able to be competitive in the future.
One other thought to remember, and we debate this in another league I'm in. As it's a fictional league we have to stop thinking that everything "must run like real life" we have our own unique league with our own history and our own rules - so we shouldn't be trying to ensure an expansion team can't win inside 5 years just because it's what we expect from MLB expansion franchises.
-
As it's a fictional league we have to stop thinking that everything "must run like real life" we have our own unique league with our own history and our own rules - so we shouldn't be trying to ensure an expansion team can't win inside 5 years just because it's what we expect from MLB expansion franchises.
This is a really good point. In the end, it's really about how much disruption to existing teams are we willing to tolerate. This league moves along pretty quickly, but in a slower paced league, 10 seasons to contention could seem like an eternity. I am in one league that completes less than 3 seasons annually. I'm good with the general consensus at this point.
-
I love all the points and discussion. It really is helpful to find the right combination of ideas to get the expansion draft planned out.
Here's what I'm thinking for the timeline of events leading up to Expansion...
-finish 2016 season (regular, playoffs, awards, Ammy Draft)
-roll to 1/1/2017
-relocate AZ to NM & CA to MD; realign AFBL into 4 5-team divisions (FL West, FL East, PL North, PL South)
-push 'Expand league and schedule Expansion Draft' function in the game
-current teams submit Protection Lists
-30 players protected
-players that are 22 or younger on 1/1/2017 are auto-protected
-draft picks from 2014, 2015, and 2016 are auto-protected
-not sure if we'll have current teams get a chance to protect extra players (maybe for the first 5 rounds?)
-Expansion Draft on 1/5/2017
-15 rounds to allow Expansion Teams to end up with 60 players, each current team losing no more than 1 player per rd
-Free Agent Draft on 1/15/2017
-5 rounds with just Expansion Teams picking in serpentine reverse order of Expansion Draft to allow the 4 teams to add 20 additional players to bring total to 80
-sim up to beginning of Spring Training 2017 then back to normal sim scheduel
Any thoughts?
-
We have to be care full because the guy i drafted rookie this year has 4 pro years some how? and the Cali guy who was the 2nd overall pick has 2 ML years and 4 pro years as well but he was a new player this year.
-
We have to be care full because the guy i drafted rookie this year has 4 pro years some how? and the Cali guy who was the 2nd overall pick has 2 ML years and 4 pro years as well but he was a new player this year.
Good pick up - there are some weird things going on with ML service years then for sure. We need to be careful and get protected lists AND lists of those with/without ML/pro service sorted early so any discrepancies can be related back to drafted years.
-
We have to be care full because the guy i drafted rookie this year has 4 pro years some how? and the Cali guy who was the 2nd overall pick has 2 ML years and 4 pro years as well but he was a new player this year.
Good pick up - there are some weird things going on with ML service years then for sure. We need to be careful and get protected lists AND lists of those with/without ML/pro service sorted early so any discrepancies can be related back to drafted years.
Absolutely. I'll have an official Google Spreadsheet with the protected players before we begin drafting for this reason. This way we can be sure to have the right players protected and available.
-
We have to be care full because the guy i drafted rookie this year has 4 pro years some how? and the Cali guy who was the 2nd overall pick has 2 ML years and 4 pro years as well but he was a new player this year.
Good pick up - there are some weird things going on with ML service years then for sure. We need to be careful and get protected lists AND lists of those with/without ML/pro service sorted early so any discrepancies can be related back to drafted years.
Absolutely. I'll have an official Google Spreadsheet with the protected players before we begin drafting for this reason. This way we can be sure to have the right players protected and available.
And also this might effect some of the players in the future if we decided to go to financial league
-
That's something that won't happen
-
That's something that won't happen
Agree, while I like the financial aspect, it's actually completely different strategy in a league without it.
-
That's something that won't happen
Agree, while I like the financial aspect, it's actually completely different strategy in a league without it.
Great saves me from worrying aboput it My solo league plaue one online league with money is enough
-
I love all the points and discussion. It really is helpful to find the right combination of ideas to get the expansion draft planned out.
Here's what I'm thinking for the timeline of events leading up to Expansion...
-finish 2016 season (regular, playoffs, awards, Ammy Draft)
-roll to 1/1/2017
-relocate AZ to NM & CA to MD; realign AFBL into 4 5-team divisions (FL West, FL East, PL North, PL South)
-push 'Expand league and schedule Expansion Draft' function in the game
-current teams submit Protection Lists
-30 players protected
-players that are 22 or younger on 1/1/2017 are auto-protected
-draft picks from 2014, 2015, and 2016 are auto-protected
-not sure if we'll have current teams get a chance to protect extra players (maybe for the first 5 rounds?)
-Expansion Draft on 1/5/2017
-15 rounds to allow Expansion Teams to end up with 60 players, each current team losing no more than 1 player per rd
-Free Agent Draft on 1/15/2017
-5 rounds with just Expansion Teams picking in serpentine reverse order of Expansion Draft to allow the 4 teams to add 20 additional players to bring total to 80
-sim up to beginning of Spring Training 2017 then back to normal sim scheduel
Any thoughts?
Weird, I thought I posted this, but cannot find it now. I swear I have not been drinking (yet)...
I don't think existing teams should be allowed to protect additional players following the expansion rounds. I believe that protecting 30 in addition to the under 22s gives everyone a solid base and most teams won't lose anyone of significance to present or future plans.
Using my current roster as an example, I have several decent AAA outfielders who are 25-27 who may or may not get protected. None really factor into future plans, but any could be useful on a ML roster.
I won't fight this point too hard if the majority disagree, but I think the pickings will be slim with the way things are set up (and rightly so).
-
I love all the points and discussion. It really is helpful to find the right combination of ideas to get the expansion draft planned out.
Here's what I'm thinking for the timeline of events leading up to Expansion...
-finish 2016 season (regular, playoffs, awards, Ammy Draft)
-roll to 1/1/2017
-relocate AZ to NM & CA to MD; realign AFBL into 4 5-team divisions (FL West, FL East, PL North, PL South)
-push 'Expand league and schedule Expansion Draft' function in the game
-current teams submit Protection Lists
-30 players protected
-players that are 22 or younger on 1/1/2017 are auto-protected
-draft picks from 2014, 2015, and 2016 are auto-protected
-not sure if we'll have current teams get a chance to protect extra players (maybe for the first 5 rounds?)
-Expansion Draft on 1/5/2017
-15 rounds to allow Expansion Teams to end up with 60 players, each current team losing no more than 1 player per rd
-Free Agent Draft on 1/15/2017
-5 rounds with just Expansion Teams picking in serpentine reverse order of Expansion Draft to allow the 4 teams to add 20 additional players to bring total to 80
-sim up to beginning of Spring Training 2017 then back to normal sim scheduel
Any thoughts?
this seems like were protecting waaaaay too many players. if everyone under 22 is protected, Im not sure we should be able to protect more than 20, with 30 you can even protect your AAAA chaff..... the expansion teams will be Awful.
-
Possibly. Would bumping that age to 21 or 20 be something worth looking into?
-
Possibly. Would bumping that age to 21 or 20 be something worth looking into?
I would say no, make people chose between their ML players and their prospects :) not have both. maybe run a dummy list for your team? if you protect 3o players and cut out all under 22 (or 20) will there be any players over 1.5 stars available?
-
Hmm what about combining the two ideas?
20 players protected by current teams with players 20 and younger on 1/1/2017 auto-protected?
UPDATE: Do we need to auto protect more than the 2016 Ammy Draft? 2015? 2014?
-
I think we are fine with 20 protected and all under 22. No pull backs, no adds. Just 20+ 22 and under.
Its to the point that we are over thinking this.
-
I think we are fine with 20 protected and all under 22. No pull backs, no adds. Just 20+ 22 and under.
Its to the point that we are over thinking this.
So under 22 or 22 and under?
-
I think we are fine with 20 protected and all under 22. No pull backs, no adds. Just 20+ 22 and under.
Its to the point that we are over thinking this.
eh, I kinda agree on the overthinking... but it depends on how long it will take the expansion teams to be relevant. protecting 20 players means they will have the chance to pick out MRs and 4th OFs....
-
I think we are fine with 20 protected and all under 22. No pull backs, no adds. Just 20+ 22 and under.
Its to the point that we are over thinking this.
eh, I kinda agree on the overthinking... but it depends on how long it will take the expansion teams to be relevant. protecting 20 players means they will have the chance to pick out MRs and 4th OFs....
Out of those MR/4th OF there will be a small amount of guys who become ok regulars/starters. But it will take 5+ seasons for expansion teams to be relevant IMO. I think the news that the expansion teams are not part of the 2016 amateur draft sets them back a touch.
-
Not to mention they will draft 1st in 2017 (and probably a couple seasons after that :P) I guess it depends on how fast you want them to be competitve.
How about this I went and looked up MLB rules and they use: "major league teams may protect 15 players prior to the draft." and then also protect any with less than 3 years experience which we are kinda doing with the 22 and under rule. So what if we did 15 + all players 22 and under. That puts 5 more MLB players out per team which is an extra 80 players. 40 per team which will likely be starters right off.
-
I won't fight this point too hard if the majority disagree, but I think the pickings will be slim with the way things are set up (and rightly so).
(http://www.movieactors.com/photos-stars/slim-pickens-blazingsaddles-5.jpg)
"What in the wide, wide world of sports is a-goin' on here?"
-
I won't fight this point too hard if the majority disagree, but I think the pickings will be slim with the way things are set up (and rightly so).
(http://www.movieactors.com/photos-stars/slim-pickens-blazingsaddles-5.jpg)
"What in the wide, wide world of sports is a-goin' on here?"
lol
-
Possibly. Would bumping that age to 21 or 20 be something worth looking into?
I would say no, make people chose between their ML players and their prospects :) not have both. maybe run a dummy list for your team? if you protect 3o players and cut out all under 22 (or 20) will there be any players over 1.5 stars available?
well said.
-
I agree with the above I have a few Major league players that just dont fit in to my plans but are young enough to still be good looking for maybe the first few seasons of a expantion team
-
I agree with the above I have a few Major league players that just dont fit in to my plans but are young enough to still be good looking for maybe the first few seasons of a expantion team
Which one above? Nevada's?
-
also, in reality, any decent player picked is gonna get traded before the first season :)
-
also, in reality, any decent player picked is gonna get traded before the first season :)
+1
-
If we keep it simple, it will likely work best.. check this concept out...
1. All players drafted in 2015 and 2016 amateur drafts are auto protected, UNLESS they have ML service time (then they have to be included in the protected 20 players in point 2)
2. Each existing team can protect 20 other players
3. No existing team can lose more than ONE player per round AND every existing team loses one player per round (16 picks per round, 4 picks per expansion team per round)
4. This is optional... all players aged 20 and under on January 1st 2017 are auto-protected so long as they don't have any ML service time
What this means is that IF every existing team protected 20 guys on their current 25 man ML roster there would be 80 current ML level guys available for drafting, that's equal to 20 players per expansion team, plus all of the AAA and AA guys not drafted in 2015 and 2016.
What will likely happen is that some teams will also choose to protect some guys drafted in 2013 and 2014 so more ML level talent will be available.
This does three things:
1. Gives existing teams a choice to protect youth, current talent or a mix
2. Ensures there is enough ML level talent available for the expansion teams to use as trade bait or to build with
3. Ensures those 21-25 year old guys yet to make it in the big leagues are given a shot with an expansion team - it would be good to see some of these guys grow and become stars, and it will happen
I highly recommend keeping the protection simple so that everyone understands it.
Edit: I just ran this approach on my organisation and there would be handfuls of 1.5 to 2.5* players available, some veterans but also some guys who are nearly ready for the Majors. Some real diamonds for the right expansion team GMs - I expect others would protect less on their current 25man roster than me as well.
-
I really like this concept, Mike!
-
If we keep it simple, it will likely work best.. check this concept out...
1. All players drafted in 2015 and 2016 amateur drafts are auto protected, UNLESS they have ML service time (then they have to be included in the protected 20 players in point 2)
2. Each existing team can protect 20 other players
3. No existing team can lose more than player per round AND every existing team loses one player per round (16 picks per round, 4 picks per expansion team per round)
4. This is optional... all players aged 20 and under on January 1st 2017 are auto-protected so long as they don't have any ML service time
What this means is that IF every existing team protected 20 guys on their current 25 man ML roster there would be 80 current ML level guys available for drafting, that's equal to 20 players per expansion team, plus all of the AAA and AA guys not drafted in 2015 and 2016.
What will likely happen is that some teams will also choose to protect some guys drafted in 2013 and 2014 so more ML level talent will be available.
This does three things:
1. Gives existing teams a choice to protect youth, current talent or a mix
2. Ensures there is enough ML level talent available for the expansion teams to use as trade bait or to build with
3. Ensures those 21-25 year old guys yet to make it in the big leagues are given a shot with an expansion team - it would be good to see some of these guys grow and become stars, and it will happen
I highly recommend keeping the protection simple so that everyone understands it.
Edit: I just ran this approach on my organisation and there would be handfuls of 1.5 to 2.5* players available, some veterans but also some guys who are nearly ready for the Majors. Some real diamonds for the right expansion team GMs - I expect others would protect less on their current 25man roster than me as well.
excellent idea.
-
If we keep it simple, it will likely work best.. check this concept out...
1. All players drafted in 2015 and 2016 amateur drafts are auto protected, UNLESS they have ML service time (then they have to be included in the protected 20 players in point 2)
2. Each existing team can protect 20 other players
3. No existing team can lose more than ONE player per round AND every existing team loses one player per round (16 picks per round, 4 picks per expansion team per round)
4. This is optional... all players aged 20 and under on January 1st 2017 are auto-protected so long as they don't have any ML service time
What this means is that IF every existing team protected 20 guys on their current 25 man ML roster there would be 80 current ML level guys available for drafting, that's equal to 20 players per expansion team, plus all of the AAA and AA guys not drafted in 2015 and 2016.
What will likely happen is that some teams will also choose to protect some guys drafted in 2013 and 2014 so more ML level talent will be available.
This does three things:
1. Gives existing teams a choice to protect youth, current talent or a mix
2. Ensures there is enough ML level talent available for the expansion teams to use as trade bait or to build with
3. Ensures those 21-25 year old guys yet to make it in the big leagues are given a shot with an expansion team - it would be good to see some of these guys grow and become stars, and it will happen
I highly recommend keeping the protection simple so that everyone understands it.
Edit: I just ran this approach on my organisation and there would be handfuls of 1.5 to 2.5* players available, some veterans but also some guys who are nearly ready for the Majors. Some real diamonds for the right expansion team GMs - I expect others would protect less on their current 25man roster than me as well.
count me in
-
If we keep it simple, it will likely work best.. check this concept out...
1. All players drafted in 2015 and 2016 amateur drafts are auto protected, UNLESS they have ML service time (then they have to be included in the protected 20 players in point 2)
2. Each existing team can protect 20 other players
3. No existing team can lose more than ONE player per round AND every existing team loses one player per round (16 picks per round, 4 picks per expansion team per round)
4. This is optional... all players aged 20 and under on January 1st 2017 are auto-protected so long as they don't have any ML service time
What this means is that IF every existing team protected 20 guys on their current 25 man ML roster there would be 80 current ML level guys available for drafting, that's equal to 20 players per expansion team, plus all of the AAA and AA guys not drafted in 2015 and 2016.
What will likely happen is that some teams will also choose to protect some guys drafted in 2013 and 2014 so more ML level talent will be available.
This does three things:
1. Gives existing teams a choice to protect youth, current talent or a mix
2. Ensures there is enough ML level talent available for the expansion teams to use as trade bait or to build with
3. Ensures those 21-25 year old guys yet to make it in the big leagues are given a shot with an expansion team - it would be good to see some of these guys grow and become stars, and it will happen
I highly recommend keeping the protection simple so that everyone understands it.
Edit: I just ran this approach on my organisation and there would be handfuls of 1.5 to 2.5* players available, some veterans but also some guys who are nearly ready for the Majors. Some real diamonds for the right expansion team GMs - I expect others would protect less on their current 25man roster than me as well.
Works for me!
-
I have released the Expansion Draft and Protection List rules in the Expansion Draft Thread (http://www.afblbaseball.com/forum/index.php/topic,420.0.html). The post is sticky'd and locked for a reason so we avoid the rules being lost in discussion and keep it up top. Any questions/discussions concerning the expansion process should be made here or in an email/PM to myself. Thanks!
-
I have a few players who are listed as having 1 or 2 days of ML service. Now there is no way they have ML service. The only explanation I can come up with is that they were part of spring training. This really shouldn't count as having ML service should it? Just looking at their stats and they clearly haven't played a regular season game at the ML level.
I'm just trying to clarify this situation.
-
I have a few players who are listed as having 1 or 2 days of ML service. Now there is no way they have ML service. The only explanation I can come up with is that they were part of spring training. This really shouldn't count as having ML service should it? Just looking at their stats and they clearly haven't played a regular season game at the ML level.
I'm just trying to clarify this situation.
If they've been on your 25man roster they will be listed as having service time (i.e. they could've spent 1 day on your 25 man, not played any innings and then got demoted to the minors) - i.e. every day they were on your roster counts, not sure if ST time counts as ML service time in our league or not.
If it does prove to be an error I'm sure the protection rules can be changed to those "20y/o or under at Jan 1st 2017 with less than 10 days ML service time" or something like that.
-
I'm all for that Mike. 10 days or less of ML service time would be fine with me.
I want as little confusion as possible. Thanks for noticing that detail Jason!
-
Paul informed me that he doesn't have the time to properly commit to the expansion team and the league. I believe I have a replacement for the final expansion franchise. Stay tuned!
Georgia might be denied a team again. Lost the prospective owner for the inaugural season and possibly again here ;D.
-
Virginia will be the final Expansion Team instead of Georgia. This will also not change our realignment and new division setups.
Everyone welcome Steve Waugh (Steve Wunda here on the forum) as our newest and final Expansion owner!
-
Virginia will be the final Expansion Team instead of Georgia. This will also not change our realignment and new division setups.
Everyone welcome Steve Waugh (Steve Wunda here on the forum) as our newest and final Expansion owner!
awww, a new minor league team! They can play in my Rookie ball stadium!
-
Virginia will be the final Expansion Team instead of Georgia. This will also not change our realignment and new division setups.
Everyone welcome Steve Waugh (Steve Wunda here on the forum) as our newest and final Expansion owner!
Not this Steve Waugh? Aussie cricket captain and star player. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Waugh) :D
-
Virginia will be the final Expansion Team instead of Georgia. This will also not change our realignment and new division setups.
Everyone welcome Steve Waugh (Steve Wunda here on the forum) as our newest and final Expansion owner!
awww, a new minor league team! They can play in my Rookie ball stadium!
Oh snap 8)
-
Virginia will be the final Expansion Team instead of Georgia. This will also not change our realignment and new division setups.
Everyone welcome Steve Waugh (Steve Wunda here on the forum) as our newest and final Expansion owner!
awww, a new minor league team! They can play in my Rookie ball stadium!
Oh snap 8)
And a new rivalry is born!
-
Virginia will be the final Expansion Team instead of Georgia. This will also not change our realignment and new division setups.
Everyone welcome Steve Waugh (Steve Wunda here on the forum) as our newest and final Expansion owner!
awww, a new minor league team! They can play in my Rookie ball stadium!
Oh snap 8)
And a new rivalry is born!
I have no rivals! I am imortal
-
Expansion Draft Protection Lists due on MONDAY, January 6th!
-
We now have our 4 expansion franchise logos decided. See them in this post in the beginning of this thread... http://www.afblbaseball.com/forum/index.php/topic,327.msg2634.html#msg2634
-
I'm working on getting the final protection lists done for each franchise and then will be getting a spreadsheet ready of all available players for the upcoming expansion draft. Stay tuned.
The top post for each team will be the final list for players that are protected either in the 20-man list or auto-protected from '15 & '16 draft classes along with players that haven't turned 21 on 1/1/2017 plus with 10 or fewer ML ABs.
-
start the expansion draft now!!!``
-
start the expansion draft now!!!``
This! If all rosters are final, lets get it going and then you can start adjusting after the playoffs!
-
start the expansion draft now!!!``
This! If all rosters are final, lets get it going and then you can start adjusting after the playoffs!
Patience guys. I'm working on a spreadsheet with available players. Plus we had water pipes bust in our townhouse late afternoon yesterday so I've been dealing with that.
-
Matt, I assume you'll sim in-game until the players have retired at the end of 2016, just in case anyone retiring is on the protection lists this will give everyone a chance to add replacement players to their protected lists.
-
Matt, I assume you'll sim in-game until the players have retired at the end of 2016, just in case anyone retiring is on the protection lists this will give everyone a chance to add replacement players to their protected lists.
Yeah that's another reason. I probably should pause on my spreadsheet since player ratings and such will be slightly different once we rollover to 2017.
This will be a long offseason but it'll be worth it in the long run as we continue to grow as a league. I assure you guys that we'll move as briskly as possible while giving everyone enough time to make adjustments and their selections. Thanks again to everyone for making this an awesome league!
-
For expansion drafters when will we know the draft order and how is that going to be determined?
-
For expansion drafters when will we know the draft order and how is that going to be determined?
This is next on my list along with getting the available players spreadsheet finished.
I'll likely use an actual coin flip or online randomizer to determine the draft order. The draft will go in a serpentine order as well.
The expansion team FA Draft will use the opposite draft order for that draft.
-
great!
-
I haven't seen or heard from Matthew Katz who is scheduled to be leading the expansion Nevada Dons franchise. I have an email sent to him this morning. If I don't hear from him by tomorrow afternoon, we'll have to QUICKLY fill his spot.
Stay tuned!
-
Is tomorrow afternoon the start of the Exp draft. Time enough for Frank to get the draft built in Statslab and such I am assuming?
-
Is tomorrow afternoon the start of the Exp draft. Time enough for Frank to get the draft built in Statslab and such I am assuming?
If the Nevada owner is present and still in then I can be ready to go then. If not, I am guessing we need a few days to get a new owner...
-
We'll likely start the Expansion Draft on the forum but likely not until Wednesday at the earliest.
-
Yeah I want to be sure we have 4 expansion owners before we start
-
Does anyone have a buddy to potentially take over the 4th franchise before I advertise on social media and the OOTP forum?
-
Does anyone have a buddy to potentially take over the 4th franchise before I advertise on social media and the OOTP forum?
What's happened to Nevada? Especially after he got those cool logos and uniforms ;)
-
Does anyone have a buddy to potentially take over the 4th franchise before I advertise on social media and the OOTP forum?
What's happened to Nevada? Especially after he got those cool logos and uniforms ;)
That was my thought. Mike spent the time to make Unis and now they wont even be used!
-
Does anyone have a buddy to potentially take over the 4th franchise before I advertise on social media and the OOTP forum?
What's happened to Nevada? Especially after he got those cool logos and uniforms ;)
That was my thought. Mike spent the time to make Unis and now they wont even be used!
Yeah frustrating. I haven't seen or heard from him in over 40 or so days. Holding out hope he'll respond to my emails by tomorrow afternoon before I move on.
-
Does anyone have a buddy to potentially take over the 4th franchise before I advertise on social media and the OOTP forum?
What's happened to Nevada? Especially after he got those cool logos and uniforms ;)
That was my thought. Mike spent the time to make Unis and now they wont even be used!
Might have to adjust my minors to be the Dons if that happens, those uniforms were nice - not quite as funky as the 'Danger' though :D
-
Does anyone have a buddy to potentially take over the 4th franchise before I advertise on social media and the OOTP forum?
What's happened to Nevada? Especially after he got those cool logos and uniforms ;)
That was my thought. Mike spent the time to make Unis and now they wont even be used!
Yeah frustrating. I haven't seen or heard from him in over 40 or so days. Holding out hope he'll respond to my emails by tomorrow afternoon before I move on.
Weird - I'd give him a good chance to get back in, he seemed very keen at the start.
-
Does anyone have a buddy to potentially take over the 4th franchise before I advertise on social media and the OOTP forum?
What's happened to Nevada? Especially after he got those cool logos and uniforms ;)
That was my thought. Mike spent the time to make Unis and now they wont even be used!
Might have to adjust my minors to be the Dons if that happens, those uniforms were nice - not quite as funky as the 'Danger' though :D
We may lose a bunch but we are gonna look damn good doing it
-
Does anyone have a buddy to potentially take over the 4th franchise before I advertise on social media and the OOTP forum?
What's happened to Nevada? Especially after he got those cool logos and uniforms ;)
That was my thought. Mike spent the time to make Unis and now they wont even be used!
Yeah frustrating. I haven't seen or heard from him in over 40 or so days. Holding out hope he'll respond to my emails by tomorrow afternoon before I move on.
Weird - I'd give him a good chance to get back in, he seemed very keen at the start.
I'd usually agree but I don't want to penalize the league with a waiting game. I haven't seen him log into the forum in nearly 2 months. I'll unfortunately move on if I don't have a response from him by tomorrow afternoon.
-
FYI IF (and I hope he comes back) Nevada ends up with a new owner who decides to move the team I am taking Las Vegas back as a minor league affiliate and IF Mike (NJ) decides to not rename a team the Dons, I will probably rename the gamblers to the Dons to utilize those fantastic logos.
-
FYI IF (and I hope he comes back) Nevada ends up with a new owner who decides to move the team I am taking Las Vegas back as a minor league affiliate and IF Mike (NJ) decides to not rename a team the Dons, I will probably rename the gamblers to the Dons to utilize those fantastic logos.
Fine by me, somehow I don't think the Dons nickname would work in New Jersey or Delaware.. lol
-
I believe we have found a 4th expansion owner. Stay tuned!
-
I believe we have found a 4th expansion owner. Stay tuned!
Wow, that was pretty quick...
-
I believe we have found a 4th expansion owner. Stay tuned!
Wow, that was pretty quick...
Yeah I put out a blitz on our post on the OOTP forum along with Twitter which included the @ootpbaseball account RTing me which was helpful.
We also have at least 1 and possibly 2 additional that showed some interest as well.
-
We are still getting final details together but everyone please welcome Pete Grassi as our 4th expansion owner!
I'm glad to get you on board and help you get situated. I'll be happy to give you as much time as needed to get acquainted before we get moving with the Expansion Draft!
Don't hesitate to ask any questions either to myself via email or here on the forum!
-
Awesome! Welcome, Pete!
-
Welcome and are you going to keep team in Nevada?
-
Welcome and are you going to keep team in Nevada?
Pete is working with several states to secure a bid. We'll see... ;D
-
Welcome Pete.
-
Welcome Pete. Look forward to you getting into the league.
-
Official announcement will be coming later but the 4th franchise will call Georgia home.
This will mean we will reshuffle the proposed divisions. Stay tuned for that change!
-
Here's what I'm thinking for our divisions with Georgia replacing Nevada...
FL West
Washington
Oregon
Idaho
Colorado
New Mexico
FL East
Texas
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
PL North
Ontario
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Ohio
PL South
Maryland
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
Georgia
-
you have minor league team listed.... just sayng!
-
you have minor league team listed.... just sayng!
No need to make fun of Virginia ;D
-
you have minor league team listed.... just sayng!
No need to make fun of Virginia ;D
yes need....
-
I had the question asked by Pete with Georgia about whether an expansion team could work out a deal with a current team that is interested trading for an expansion draft selection(s). I wouldn't be opposed to this but any deals would need to be confirmed by both teams as well as myself.
Here is the scenario if you need to see an example of this situation...
"Can expansion teams work out deals with current teams to make picks for them? For example, you see two players you like in the expansion draft and we work out a deal for me to select them for you with my#4 &5 pick?"
-
I had the question asked by Pete with Georgia about whether an expansion team could work out a deal with a current team that is interested trading for an expansion draft selection(s). I wouldn't be opposed to this but any deals would need to be confirmed by both teams as well as myself.
Here is the scenario if you need to see an example of this situation...
"Can expansion teams work out deals with current teams to make picks for them? For example, you see two players you like in the expansion draft and we work out a deal for me to select them for you with my#4 &5 pick?"
Seems reasonable to me, I know lots of those deals went on when MLB and NFL expanded.
-
I had forgotten about that. Yeah it's cool with me if we do have any deals go down.
Today's file will be later today. Actually have work to do today :).
-
This makes perfect sense to me.
-
As long as people don't hold up the draft for a trade. This offseason is going to be long enough as it is. Having said that... it will probably be me that does it.
-
I certainly won't hold up the draft because of a potential trade. That being said, check my trade block.... ;)
-
I don't see why there would be a hold up. Any owner of an existing franchise can approach and expansion team and say if player x is on the board at your pick would you trade him for player y/draft pick z.
-
That's my one hesitation but yeah that shouldn't be an issue assuming a trade is discussed on the side and in advance if necessary.
I'm thinking of a 4-8 hour draft slot window with the timer resetting after each pick.
Thoughts?
-
The tricky thing is since each existing team can only lose 1 player per round you can't be sure a guy will be available unless the team is on the clock and that guy is there and that players team has not lost a player in that round.
I think 4 hours should suffice - providing the clock stops at say 11pm eastern time...
-
I'd have the clock run likely from 8am-8pm CT like we did for the Ammy Draft
-
OK, 8-8 CT makes sense. You guys knocked out the Ammy draft quickly and as long as the 4 expansion owners are in North America and have access to a computer during the day, we should be able to hammer through this thing in good time.
The each team losing 1 player per round makes setting up the picks a bit easier too (on a per round basis) for auto picking...
-
I'm thinking of a 4-8 hour draft slot window with the timer resetting after each pick.
The each team losing 1 player per round makes setting up the picks a bit easier too (on a per round basis) for auto picking...
Auto picks off a draft list will likely not work very well since the auto list feature won't enforce the one player lost per team rule. I still suggest setting up the timer so that we keep the thing moving and give people time limits, but we should use the setting to disable auto picks. Maybe if a team is overdue and you are online, you can review the team's draft list and pick the next guy from a team that's appropriate.
-
The each team losing 1 player per round makes setting up the picks a bit easier too (on a per round basis) for auto picking...
Auto picks off a draft list will likely not work very well since the auto list feature won't enforce the one player lost per team rule. I still suggest setting up the timer so that we keep the thing moving and give people time limits, but we should use the setting to disable auto picks. Maybe if a team is overdue and you are online, you can review the team's draft list and pick the next guy from a team that's appropriate.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I was not sure if there was any built in logic to account for this...
-
The each team losing 1 player per round makes setting up the picks a bit easier too (on a per round basis) for auto picking...
Couldn't disagree more with this statement. Each team being limited to 1 lost player per round limits how much we can set up lists for autodrafting.
That being said, with a 4 hour window it should move fairly quickly.
-
The each team losing 1 player per round makes setting up the picks a bit easier too (on a per round basis) for auto picking...
Couldn't disagree more with this statement. Each team being limited to 1 lost player per round limits how much we can set up lists for autodrafting.
That being said, with a 4 hour window it should move fairly quickly.
If the auto draft could understand only 1 player per team picked per round, it would be easy. I did not know that was not a possibility.
-
Highly recommend setting up lists, if your timer countdown expires commish can look at your list and choose the highest listed player that meets the '1 pick per team' rule.
Or seeing as there is only 4 guys involved scheduling a live draft period of 2-3 hours on one day will really help move this along and will get through a round or two I would expect.
-
Yeah lists set up in Statslab or in an email to myself would be great if you know you'll be away from your computer to draft when you would be up.
With just 4 teams drafting we should be alright as long as the expansion teams are checking in at least daily to the site or via an email.
I'll be keeping tabs of teams that lose players each round to be sure current teams only lose 1 player per round.
-
I'm coordinating with the expansion teams to get together for a live draft at least 1 night this week to help us finish the draft this week.
-
If we're good with the plan of not adding any players to the FA pool, is there any reason we can't go ahead and start the FA draft on the forums? The talent in the FA pool isn't exactly world beating and the incumbant teams are currently restricted from claiming those guys. I'd suggest using the reverse order from the Expansion Draft. It won't be long before we get in sync with the two drafts so that teams are making picks in both places at the same time.
-
If we're good with the plan of not adding any players to the FA pool, is there any reason we can't go ahead and start the FA draft on the forums? The talent in the FA pool isn't exactly world beating and the incumbant teams are currently restricted from claiming those guys. I'd suggest using the reverse order from the Expansion Draft. It won't be long before we get in sync with the two drafts so that teams are making picks in both places at the same time.
That's a fantastic idea. Yes I'll create a thread for the FA Draft so we can get started. And yes, we'll go with the reserve order for this draft.
-
almost all of my guys are at the bottom of each round in the expansion draft jejej
-
almost all of my guys are at the bottom of each round in the expansion draft jejej
;D
-
another one ;D
-
Note to self do not trade for any texas minor leaguer older than 20. They are all shit.
-
And mostly on my team. lol
-
Draft is moving along nicely as is the FA draft. Looks like we'll be ahead of schedule to get into Spring Training for 2017 when we'll release our wrath on those in the Frontier League as well!!
-
I am absolutely shocked by some of the players I didn't lose.
-
Such as?
-
I am absolutely shocked by some of the players I didn't lose.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_oxyYysDVm8m6uR9Pa4ScJ_jP68HCa9jmfQ-2YBM2buWaVGVY)
-
I am absolutely shocked by some of the players I didn't lose.
Well you had so many of them ;)
-
Joe Hunter especially. I mean he's old and his obp ain't great but he has a decent war and vorp combined with good defensively. I also figured I'd lose at least 2 catchers. That's a start
-
I wasn't all that interested in many of the older guys. I was actually surprised at how early some of them were snapped up, but they could be good trade bait. First base was a reasonably loaded position with lots of guys that looked similar in my mind and I can only use so many guys with no defensive flexibility. The catcher situation I didn't notice as obviously. I liked your pitchers more than your hitters, but I think I felt that way with everyone. If I'm not mistaken, I think I had the highest number of pitchers compared to hitters of the 4 draftees.