IMPORTANT: OOTP 20 and Expansion to 32 Teams

[Ted]

That said, Kyle hasn't made the playoffs. So I guess per that measure Huntsville sucks.

Actually, Kyle not making it back in (the playoffs) is one of the reasons I'm concerned. For a long time, I've felt that there's kind of a critical mass of talent that you can get to in this league, and once you get there, it's relatively easy to maintain . You just have to move old assets for young ones. OR don't trade your draft picks ever and participate in IFA (which is what I do). Once you get below that "mass" of talent, it's hard to reaquire. Players age and lump, so you are losing talent to attrition while trying to build it. Huntsville wasn't awful when Kyle got back, but was getting there. Kyle is really good. Our GMs are excellent. While there is a skill differential among us, there isn't a one of us that couldn't win handily in a typical OOTP league. When a guy like Stever, who is above average in this group is hitting a wall, it makes me wonder if we've made it too hard to turn a franchise around. Not to keep naming names, but look at Charm City. They've been atrocious for a bit now, but actively and well managed during that period. It just seems like they should be better by now. I feel like a good, involved GM should be able to turn around a team in 4 seasons max, but that doesn't seem to be happening in quite a few places. Writing the previews, I've been saying the same things about the same teams for like 5-6 seasons now. Maybe the middle third of the league varies, but that's about it.

Regarding Recte's statement that he could turn around any franchise in the league, it doesn't mean much to me. He's one of the best, and dedicates a ton of time to this. Is that the standard we want? You can only win if you spend 20 hours a week on this, AND are really good?


Anyway, like I said, not trying to be a problem. Expansion is not some horrible evil and is not the only factor. I also agree that in the long run, 32 teams is better than 30. I know some of this is being looked at and has been addressed. It just don't want to see us become another OOTP league where everything is rigged to keep the top teams on top. There are too many of those.

[RonCo]

I think you have too short of a time frame for what it's going to take to truly build a team here.

CCJ - Brandon ripped his team to the bone, except for Winson, which (Winson's signing) turns out to have been a major mistake--as Brett S and you and Fred and Randy are always quick to note, the best way to destroy the foundation of a team is to sign a really bad, really expensive, really long term contract...CCJ is perhaps current exhibit A for that lesson. He's literally building from scratch while paying for that mistake. It will take even a spectularly brilliant GM several seasons to recover from that. Brandon is very good, but he can't go from 0 to 200 in this league that quickly. Three seasons is not enough. (I'll note that my own Lucas McNeill is threatening to be exhibit B on this front). If he crashes and burns the only thing that _might_ save me is the last two vesting years.

Kyle and Huntsville is an interesting case. I have huge respect for Kyle, but I think he has two issues that worked against him. (1) His system isn't as rock-solid as he thinks it is--and he's a hardcore system guy. When I was in his division I was ready to take him on, and I'm pretty sure YS9 would have come out on top. Example: Brooklyn is 12-8 against Huntsville in the two seasons that Stats Plus keeps. Now, Brooklyn is very good, but part of that is because Alan understand how to beat a team that plays the LHB/LHP card to excess. More importantly, (2) Kyle stepped away and back just as the rating process was shifting. I think he made a couple of assessment mistakes that detracted. That said, he still had playoff quality teams that just didn't make the playoffs, partially because now that we've increased the number of teams without increasing playoff spots, that competition is tougher. I think we're seeing Kyle start to step back and reassess rating schemes--something that going to relative ratings probably added to.

[RonCo]

Increased Arb prices and high FA demands of this version will make staying on top even that much harder, BTW.

[Bumstead]

That said, Kyle hasn't made the playoffs. So I guess per that measure Huntsville sucks.

Regarding Recte's statement that he could turn around any franchise in the league, it doesn't mean much to me. He's one of the best, and dedicates a ton of time to this. Is that the standard we want? You can only win if you spend 20 hours a week on this, AND are really good?


Anyway, like I said, not trying to be a problem. Expansion is not some horrible evil and is not the only factor. I also agree that in the long run, 32 teams is better than 30. I know some of this is being looked at and has been addressed. It just don't want to see us become another OOTP league where everything is rigged to keep the top teams on top. There are too many of those.

While the whole debate over Kyle is entertaining, I agree with Ted here. I don't see the need to change just to change to change to change...So now, Boise in whatever season it is has to worry about losing players while they are still trying to build their own way out of expansion? Seems "interesting" I guess.

For those of you that can spend 20 hours a week on this, congratulations. I'm going to spend 2-3 hours per week on this and that may be combined with my other 2 leagues...I can compete. I'm not afraid of that but I would think the league would be looking to add some parity. I honestly have no idea why this league would expand other than to have 16 teams in each conference. I don't and won't spend enough time on it to figure it out quite honestly.

[bcslouck]

Gut says no to expansion this early, though if it's in 2040, that's 5 years after the last one and 12 after the EBA one. I think the teams created from the EBA shouldn't really factor in. I know my team is a mess but is after a solid run and making a Landis. Just had our foot on the pedal the whole time. The other 3 are in good shape. Now the last one the teams are still making their way toward the top. Only been 3 seasons so maybe by then they'll be good to go. When looking at the time it doesn't seem too early. But it still feels too early.

[usnspecialist]

Gut says no to expansion this early, though if it's in 2040, that's 5 years after the last one and 12 after the EBA one. I think the teams created from the EBA shouldn't really factor in. I know my team is a mess but is after a solid run and making a Landis. Just had our foot on the pedal the whole time. The other 3 are in good shape. Now the last one the teams are still making their way toward the top. Only been 3 seasons so maybe by then they'll be good to go. When looking at the time it doesn't seem too early. But it still feels too early.

we (the GB) took feedback from the last one with a lot of people basically saying they felt ambushed by expansion and would have planned their teams differently if they had known it was coming. We always knew that we were going to announce 2 seasons out in order to give people time to plan their rosters and how they are going to deal with guys.

[Bumstead]

OOh...triple post...takes talent...

[Bumstead]

The real question is, regardless of how Boise is affected (since we are GM # what (?) for just this team since the last expansion), do you have committed GM's that will actually stick around for 32 teams? Otherwise, you will start rolling these new "expansion" teams and we may as well just head right back to contraction...

[bcslouck]

we (the GB) took feedback from the last one with a lot of people basically saying they felt ambushed by expansion and would have planned their teams differently if they had known it was coming. We always knew that we were going to announce 2 seasons out in order to give people time to plan their rosters and how they are going to deal with guys.

And I appreciate that. Maybe that's why it feels early despite knowing it's not for another 2 seasons. I don't know where certain teams will be by then. Maybe it'll be fine. We went 7 between the last two expansions. I wonder if doing 7 again would be better.

[usnspecialist]

The real question is, regardless of how Boise is affected (since we are GM # what (?) for just this team since the last expansion), do you have committed GM's that will actually stick around for 32 teams? Otherwise, you will start rolling these new "expansion" teams and we may as well just head right back to contraction...

Finding committed GMs is always a challenge, but even in my short time here i have noticed that this place is like a candle and GMs are the moths. Even when they leave they seem to find their way back to it....

[GoldenOne]

I havent been around all that long still (5th season now - boy home time flies) but I feel like there has been more "old timer" GMs that have left the league than newer GMs in that timeframe. The newer ones that havent been able to stick - I almost feel like they couldnt keep up with the pace that the league moves at. I know there are times when life gets busy for me and I am just hopeful to get 10 minutes to make some small changes and export in time.

[Bumstead]

The real question is, regardless of how Boise is affected (since we are GM # what (?) for just this team since the last expansion), do you have committed GM's that will actually stick around for 32 teams? Otherwise, you will start rolling these new "expansion" teams and we may as well just head right back to contraction...

Finding committed GMs is always a challenge, but even in my short time here i have noticed that this place is like a candle and GMs are the moths. Even when they leave they seem to find their way back to it....

I may be one of those moths, but in Boise's case I'm a little late to the "light." I know the expectation is UMEBA will keep the BBA going with potential GM's. I also remember many times when EBA was devoid of GM's that were not already GM's in the BBA. It's something to think about.

[bcslouck]

I also want to add that I don't really care if people think they can take an expansion team and win with it quick or in a time period. That adds nothing to this discussion and really shouldn't matter or factor in at all. I know that was said a couple days ago but I haven't been around and wanted that point to be known from at least myself.

[udlb58]

That said, Kyle hasn't made the playoffs. So I guess per that measure Huntsville sucks.

Huntsville does suck

[agrudez]

So I guess per that measure Huntsville sucks.

You won't hear me arguing!

[agrudez]

When a guy like Stever, who is above average in this group is hitting a wall, it makes me wonder if we've made it too hard to turn a franchise around.

I don't think that's a great barometer. For one, I'm not as in the weeds as I have been in the past (evidenced by my sparse writing during this tenure). I'm not proactively hunting for trades (ie. I've been looking for a SP since last trade deadline without a bite) or waiver wire surfing like I used to. I have also been more conservative in the retool than normal - opting to keep more prospects than I have jettisoned (and I think it's paid off as I believe I have one of the better systems in the league at the moment - with a critical mass of talent in the high minors, specifically). For example, Cochrane miraculously surviving my tenure thus far (even though he isn't even a guy I covet *that* much). Even then, though (and I'm not specifically trying to keep beating this excuse, but it's poignant for the topic), if Yelainen was 75% of what he SHOULD HAVE BEEN and STILL SHOULD BE we'd have at least a couple wildcard berths. When your "big" trade acquisition of your tenure for no reason starts playing like a replacement level player it's a big blow. Not only do you have an underperforming player, but you also have lost what you acquired him for.

But anyway, back on topic... is SOP just going to be to expand ever other season? We just had one. Seems weird to do it again so soon. I'm generally pro having more teams (because more teams = more articles = more trade partners = more forum conversations... and, really, isn't that what the league is all about?), but Ted is right - we haven't "normalized" from the last one yet.

[Bumstead]

When a guy like Stever, who is above average in this group is hitting a wall, it makes me wonder if we've made it too hard to turn a franchise around.

I don't think that's a great barometer. For one, I'm not as in the weeds as I have been in the past (evidenced by my sparse writing during this tenure). I'm not proactively hunting for trades (ie. I've been looking for a SP since last trade deadline without a bite) or waiver wire surfing like I used to. I have also been more conservative in the retool than normal - opting to keep more prospects than I have jettisoned (and I think it's paid off as I believe I have one of the better systems in the league at the moment - with a critical mass of talent in the high minors, specifically). For example, Cochrane miraculously surviving my tenure thus far (even though he isn't even a guy I covet *that* much). Even then, though (and I'm not specifically trying to keep beating this excuse, but it's poignant for the topic), if Yelainen was 75% of what he SHOULD HAVE BEEN and STILL SHOULD BE we'd have at least a couple wildcard berths. When your "big" trade acquisition of your tenure for no reason starts playing like a replacement level player it's a big blow. Not only do you have an underperforming player, but you also have lost what you acquired him for.

But anyway, back on topic... is SOP just going to be to expand ever other season? We just had one. Seems weird to do it again so soon.

I could trade you Mace whenever you get ready...

[usnspecialist]

Stever in response to your expansion question, I would be surprised if we get past 32.

[Ted]

When a guy like Stever, who is above average in this group is hitting a wall, it makes me wonder if we've made it too hard to turn a franchise around.

I don't think that's a great barometer. For one, I'm not as in the weeds as I have been in the past (evidenced by my sparse writing during this tenure). I'm not proactively hunting for trades (ie. I've been looking for a SP since last trade deadline without a bite) or waiver wire surfing like I used to. I have also been more conservative in the retool than normal - opting to keep more prospects than I have jettisoned (and I think it's paid off as I believe I have one of the better systems in the league at the moment - with a critical mass of talent in the high minors, specifically). For example, Cochrane miraculously surviving my tenure thus far (even though he isn't even a guy I covet *that* much). Even then, though (and I'm not specifically trying to keep beating this excuse, but it's poignant for the topic), if Yelainen was 75% of what he SHOULD HAVE BEEN and STILL SHOULD BE we'd have at least a couple wildcard berths. When your "big" trade acquisition of your tenure for no reason starts playing like a replacement level player it's a big blow. Not only do you have an underperforming player, but you also have lost what you acquired him for.

But anyway, back on topic... is SOP just going to be to expand ever other season? We just had one. Seems weird to do it again so soon. I'm generally pro having more teams (because more teams = more articles = more trade partners = more forum conversations... and, really, isn't that what the league is all about?), but Ted is right - we haven't "normalized" from the last one yet.

I've thought about this some more, given your comments and Brandon's about your particular teams situations. Also, Ron has made some good points. I'm not so sure that expansion is even the biggest cause of what i consider to be a class split among the teams into three pretty clear tiers. (Always in contention, sometimes in contention, never in contention). I think these groups stay fairly consistent over any given 10 year stretch. Ron pointed at a 5-8 season standard for teams that have had the door slam on them like Charm City, for example. I think the high end of that seems too long, but it's possible we've always been this way. I don't really know what a "normal" league would be like either.

On the other hand, I've rather enjoyed making the playoffs almost every season for a decade. I just don't think I'm that good. Largely I've won because I picked pitching before it became really sparse (got lucky) and I'm utterly relentless when it comes to getting the best possible extensions. I probably asked Gracia what he wanted 30-40 times, made 10 ish offers, and got him to accept one probably in the 5th percentile or so of his asking range. That's the high end for number of offers for me, but I'm closer to those numbers on all the key players on my roster than I am to say 10 or less.

[agrudez]

I'm not so sure that expansion is even the biggest cause of what i consider to be a class split among the teams into three pretty clear tiers. (Always in contention, sometimes in contention, never in contention). I think these groups stay fairly consistent over any given 10 year stretch.

The biggest culprit is the trading environment in the league. We all know who the sharks and minnows are in this league. When multiple teams are habitually giving up good players in trade for bad players they are going to be bad. When multiple teams are habitually giving up bad players in trade for good players they are going to be good. And the practice outlined above has been normalized because we have enough minnows to sustain the sharks which causes trade valuation league-wide to fundamentally shift (after all, why would a shark pay fair price for something NOW when they have already gotten one over on so many minnows - and know that the next big bite is just around the corner).

The problem is then compounded because being an active member of the community increases your odds of both being a shark AND being invited onto the GB. So, without naming any names whatsoever, we almost always have a few sharks on the GB at any given time. That means that conversations on fixing the environment at that level probably won't get off the ground. So, you turn the conversation to the grass roots level (ie. trying to educate the minnows on their minnow-ness). Problem there is that being an active member of the community increases your odds of both being a shark AND being a well thought of member of the community whose opinion the minnows should respect. So now we have a subset of sharks teaching the minnows that they are actually RIGHT to be a minnow and should continue doing so.

And every time you bring the subject up, some sharks try to gaslight the topic by flipping it to you being a jerk for calling a minnow a minnow. Because active exploitation is way less of an offense than constructive criticism.