Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees
Tampa Bay Rays
Toronto Blue Jays
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Kansas City Royals
Minnesota Twins
Houston Astros
LA Angels
Oakland Athleticss
Seattle Mariners
Texas Rangers
Atlanta Braves
Miami Marlins
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Washington Nationals
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
Milwaukee Brewers
Pittsburgh Pirates
St. Louis Cardinals
Arizona Diamondbacks
Colorado Rockies
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco GiantsCoors Light Beer!
Coors Light Beer!
because people are really in favor of CPU or really against it. I'm not running teams anymore. Contraction will make the league more competitive and be better with more active teams. There are 3 teams open for sure and a few more that are really inactive. Even if I contract 4, I think there will still be a couple inactive teams.Originally Posted by giantsfan5689
The purpose of the poll was to gauge people's opinions. It served its purpose and despite the votes, contraction seems like the better option.
And the bottom line is I'm going to do what I feel is best for the league. It's not really in the league's best interest to have 3 - 4 open teams every year. It's not in the league's best interest to have people running multiple teams. It's not in the league's best interest to have the CPU make the open teams unattractive. And it will also be a pain in the ass trying to deal with potential trades with CPU teams. I think it's for the best. If someone doesn't agree, then they're free to leave (not saying you, just saying in general).
That sounds good Prov, I'll buy into that. At first I really wasn't into contraction, but I think you make a good case.
well, we'll try it. I will keep a backup copy of the league where it is on Friday night after the extensions / arbitration deadlines and after I roll it over to 2017. That way it if something gets messed up, we can go back to the start of 2017. After the Sunday deadline for check-in, I'll begin the work and see how it goes. Actually, I might be able to begin it before then with eliminating the open teams.
2017 World Series Champions here!
Here is my take on this. What happens when there becomes 3 or 4 open teams post contraction? Not right away obv but long term? Another contraction?
who says there will be more open teams? People come and go, but if there are fewer teams now, it will be easier to keep them full
hopefully, that doesn't happen. I don't think we've ever had more than 3 - 4 at a time max. If we eliminate 4, then I would hope that it wouldn't be more than 1 or 2 every now and then. One step at a time though I suppose. We'll start off with this and see what happens.
My aim here is to make the league smaller with active GMs. It should be more competitive and result in some nice rivalries.
The more I think about it the more I'm against the contraction idea.
It decreases the number of available teams should someone down the line come in and want to join the league.
And my more selfish reasoning is that I'll feel a lot better if I can dig San Diego out of the gutter without the aid of a contraction draft/more players added to the free agent pool.
That said, it's just my opinion and I'll go with whatever you choose to do because it's your league.
League Team years Record Wild Card Division Pennants Titles MSL San Diego Padres 2034-2059 2,217-1,995 1 6 3 1 TBL Arizona Diamondbacks 2005-2018 1,216-1,053 1 9 6 3 TSSL San Diego Padres 2015-2021, 2024-2028 1,017-928 0 7 3 2 TSSL Texas Rangers 2029-2033 396-414 0 0 0 0
as far as decreasing the number of teams for someone to want to join in, that is a problem I'd love to have. Every season there are open teams. It's a fact. I'd rather have people wanting to get in, then me begging people to join.
Your 2nd point really is moot because everyone would get something. Granted you'd get something better, but still. I don't expect a draft for the prospects to be that deep. Look at the White Sox, Brewers, and Dodgers for example. How many stud specs are there? At best the worse teams will get 2 good pieces. That doesn't mean they'll pan out though.
I just don't see what the point would be in getting rid of the teams when the CPU can just run them.
If that wasn't an option and it was a choice between contraction, auto-manage where they don't do DL, extensions, and signings, or you having that much more work I'd understand, but we have an option for the teams to be ran the way someone normally would anyways.
But, as stated, if you do it then I'm cool with it. I won't argue the point any further than this post.
League Team years Record Wild Card Division Pennants Titles MSL San Diego Padres 2034-2059 2,217-1,995 1 6 3 1 TBL Arizona Diamondbacks 2005-2018 1,216-1,053 1 9 6 3 TSSL San Diego Padres 2015-2021, 2024-2028 1,017-928 0 7 3 2 TSSL Texas Rangers 2029-2033 396-414 0 0 0 0
Has the stability problem been resolved concerning contraction? I know it's caused some issues before. Also, if there are new reliable GMs available, would expansion be an option?
I'm not arguing. CPU is OK, but they make some stupid signings and do some stupid shit. They could make teams unattractive for someone to take over. Also, it would be a pain dealing with trades with CPU. I can turn up the trading difficulty, but what do I do if multiple send in an offer for the same players? Or if one person does, the CPU rejects it and then another person does and the CPU accepts it? The 1st person doesn't even get a chance to counter. And I don't want to picking and choosing which offers get entered first and such.
I know General has tested contraction for 4 - 5 seasons in SBSL on a separate file. I'll keep a backup of the league right up to the point of contraction that way if something goes wrong, we'll have it. I mean, I've done historical leagues on my own that had less teams and it was fine.
Expansion? I don't want to expand to have 5 - 6 open teams...
I mean, after contraction, can we, say, bring back those teams were we to find good GMs?
Posting Permissions
Register To Reply