View Poll Results: How many players should teams be allowed to protect?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • 15 players

    1 5.88%
  • 20 players

    1 5.88%
  • 25 players

    15 88.24%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 68

Thread: Expansion Draft Question

  1. #1
    Let's Roll CrazyEights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    6,314
    MLB ERA
    3.70

    Expansion Draft Question

    I've been working on my protective list, and I should have no problem protecting everyone that I want and even some that I don't care about. 25 players seems like a lot to protect for the 1st round. With 25 guys, teams are able to protect almost their entire team and top 10 spects. I for one have 3 of my top 10 spects already on my roster. I'm afraid that teams will be protecting all of their players of value including entire bullpens, utility players and fringe spects. If that happens, then the expansion teams will struggle to field a team with even decent players. Should we change amount of players that we can protect. I'd rather change it 15 or 20, but I'll leave it up vote.

  2. #2
    Rookie Jamoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    149
    Rookie ERA
    1.82
    25 seems fine to me. It leaves a few quality players unprotected. But looking back at some real expansion drafts, they didn't exactly pick up studs. These teams should suck for a few years.

  3. #3
    MVP Raphictor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    779
    AA ERA
    3.71
    I'm having trouble deciding who to give spots to on my 25 man protection list. There are still between 5-10 players I'd like to keep around. I don't think the expansion teams will have a hard time fielding a decent team. Hell, they may beat out Alaska, Chicago and the other teams that fail to win even 40 games.
    SBSL- Brooklyn Cyclones
    I am a proud member of the Anti-Rocksports Alliance.

  4. #4
    Just a Gigolo DiamondDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Posts
    5,001
    MLB ERA
    4.92
    I like 25 personally.... you can protect such a good amount... but not everything... you have to make choices.... I could easily keep 30 and still want to protect more... the good teams will be hurt by this, leveling out the playing field... the expansion teams will not instantly be good, but they should not be anyway.... lesser teams can protect all the farm and some decent talent, and then hit things in FA or trades....

    I don't see this as a huge issue
    Give Me a Bottle of Anything and a Glazed Donut, To Go....

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyder
    no parents I have ever seen is THIS FREAKING STUPID.

  5. #5
    Let's Roll CrazyEights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    6,314
    MLB ERA
    3.70
    It isn't a huge issue. Like I said though... I'm leaving it up to you guys. I personally think protecting 20 would be better. Even then, the expansion teams wouldn't be "good", but they wouldn't be horrible either.

  6. #6
    Just a Gigolo DiamondDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Posts
    5,001
    MLB ERA
    4.92
    I don't thin they will be horrible.. but I don't expect themn to be average, nor do I think they should be... they will be concentrating on creating a future for their new franchises... IMHO expansion teams should be 90 game losers
    Give Me a Bottle of Anything and a Glazed Donut, To Go....

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyder
    no parents I have ever seen is THIS FREAKING STUPID.

  7. #7
    MVP Raphictor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    779
    AA ERA
    3.71
    We ought to call ourselves the "We care too much about the little team and want to **** with the good team league". Expansion teams aren't supposed to be good. They'll be good enough to compete with our lesser teams and take advantage of the tens of "competitive" additions our league has to make them better. It won't be more than 2 seasons before they are among the league's mediocre ranks like the Washington Wildcats.
    SBSL- Brooklyn Cyclones
    I am a proud member of the Anti-Rocksports Alliance.

  8. #8
    ha ha ha. Always trying to take a punch at me, eh? Well, you just wait. I'd kick your ass every damn season, if I was in a division with you.

  9. #9
    MVP Raphictor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    779
    AA ERA
    3.71
    All you had to do was stop running away from me and we'd be in the same one. I got removed from the NL Central because it was too stacked, then you move away to Washington to avoid the East. What next, you're gonna quit?

    Just joshin' with ya
    SBSL- Brooklyn Cyclones
    I am a proud member of the Anti-Rocksports Alliance.

  10. #10
    Let's Roll CrazyEights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    6,314
    MLB ERA
    3.70
    Quote Originally Posted by Raphictor
    They'll be good enough to compete with our lesser teams and take advantage of the tens of "competitive" additions our league has to make them better.
    You might be right, but I just don't see that happening. Even protecting 20 players, the expansion teams would be far from good. 25 players is fine with me, but I think 20 would give the expansion teams a chance to build for their future. I'm not even concerned about them being competetive now... I just don't seeing any good spects being available, but I may be wrong.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Raphictor
    All you had to do was stop running away from me and we'd be in the same one. I got removed from the NL Central because it was too stacked, then you move away to Washington to avoid the East. What next, you're gonna quit?

    Just joshin' with ya

    Haha. So funny. Funny stuff. If only you really knew why I moved to the west.

    Yah i'm sure your joshing with me.





    Yes, I know he is joking with me. Raphictor is just a lil *****. You suck. Brooklyn sucks.

  12. #12
    MVP Raphictor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    779
    AA ERA
    3.71
    Crazy, we could just protect 2 more players after round 1 and none after round 2. It would increase the draft pool by just that much.
    SBSL- Brooklyn Cyclones
    I am a proud member of the Anti-Rocksports Alliance.

  13. #13
    MVP Raphictor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    779
    AA ERA
    3.71
    Quote Originally Posted by RockSports17
    Haha. So funny. Funny stuff. If only you really knew why I moved to the west.

    Yah i'm sure your joshing with me.
    I do know. You wanted to hook up with Slyder and make an easy division!! Knew it!!

    SBSL- Brooklyn Cyclones
    I am a proud member of the Anti-Rocksports Alliance.

  14. #14
    yup. You know it.

  15. #15
    Guess Who's Back missionhockey21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    18,014
    MLB ERA
    1.56
    Blog Entries
    8
    Expansion teams are getting the short end of the stick, but that's what is supposed to happen. If you want to balance it out without screwing over teams who have traded top talent to get the prospects of their farm, then allow all three expansion teams to create one player (with limits determined by you) to bolster their farm and give them one true piece they can start to build around or whatever.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •