Expansion Discussion Thread

[BaseballAddict32]

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.

[mikezone13]

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

[LT]

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.

[fhomess]

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)
• 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

[mstreeter06]

I really love these suggestions, Frank.

[mstreeter06]

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)

[BaseballAddict32]

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?

[Troyaof]

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.

[Ohio GM]

 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.


 
   

[mstreeter06]

This is my expectation as well

[LT]

 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...

[BaseballAddict32]

 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.

[LT]

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.

[mstreeter06]

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.

[LT]

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.