AL Wildcard

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:24 am

I'm not sure what made me think of it, but I realized that in our 7 seasons, the AL Beast has won the WC 6 times, the only time JB, Pat or I didn't win the Wild Card was in 2002 when Josh won it. Look for Pat or I to make it 7 in a row this season, in spite of having 8 players on the DL at once just myself, Pat and I are right behind Andrew and I get 1/3 of my offense back this week.

The ALE is also the only division to still have 3 GM's who were in that same division in 2002. Pat didn't join the league until the end of April, but his team didn't have another owner before him.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:58 am

Looks to me like the GM's that have been around for a long time were able to take advantage of the inexperienced, fly-by-knight GM's during the leagues infancy, thus leaving a lopsided level of talent left for the other 25 teams to compete over.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:36 pm

You could argue that, although, Nick, Andrew, Aaron, Gabe, Nils, JP, Brennan and the recently departed Brett D were also members during that first season and have experienced mixed degrees of success, so when you look at it as a group it isn't quit the concentrated level of success. Not to pick on Nick, but he hasn't won anything since that first season. Even my own team has gone up and down several times in the standings.
JB does have voodoo powers though.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:27 pm

Mets wrote:Looks to me like the GM's that have been around for a long time were able to take advantage of the inexperienced, fly-by-knight GM's during the leagues infancy, thus leaving a lopsided level of talent left for the other 25 teams to compete over.

This is a pretty fair assessment of how talent shakes out the first few years in most leagues I've seen, though typically the talent gap eventually contributes to the league's collapse so the fact that the IBC survived speaks pretty highly of the quality of the original group of GMs and how diligently they worked early on to bring in new GMs who would stick it out and make it work. Still, if you look at the 3-5 team "minidrafts" we participated in regularly when I joined and there was pretty high annual turnover, it's pretty clear that most of the quality pitching was concentrated on a handful of teams. I recall it being near-impossible for each minidraft participant to grab one #2-caliber SP, let alone 4-5 starters who should even be in the big leagues. So the guys who've had the most success since then have prob been the Trader Bobs of the league (both old and new) who have shown they can flip a roster with a handful of quality bats surrounded by crap into more usable pieces and capable arms in a short period of time. Those who suck at the art of the deal (like me) just had to nab as much value as possible, then add/drop like crazy and hope draft picks pan out quickly. Though in retrospect, rather than running the likes of Danny Bautista, Deivi Cruz and Paul Wilson out there for the first few years, guys like Perryman have shown a more successful approach is prob to go prospec-crazy for a year or two then deal buckets of high-end talent for a few elite players to fill out the roster. That requires being a prospect whiz though, so not for everyone (or at least definitely not for someone who dealt Hanley Ramirez for Jason Kendall).

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:35 pm

I've got you beat, I dealt Hanley Ramirez for Charlie Zink... I'm telling you, JB has a voodoo doll...

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:01 pm

RedSox wrote:I've got you beat, I dealt Hanley Ramirez for Charlie Zink... I'm telling you, JB has a voodoo doll...

Bren, to top it off you gave up your first rounder to JB for a second rounder. So Hanley wasn't enough for Zink- JB had to move up a round too.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:22 pm

RedSox wrote:You could argue that, although, Nick, Andrew, Aaron, Gabe, Nils, JP, Brennan and the recently departed Brett D were also members during that first season and have experienced mixed degrees of success, so when you look at it as a group it isn't quit the concentrated level of success.

I would label everybody you just named successful. Nick, Aaron, Nils, and I all have won the WS. Andrew's been there, JP has been there, and Ropers had some big win teams if I remember correctly. So six of those eight named have either won or at least played in an IBC World Series. Sure, records have gone up and down, but that's true for everybody except JB. So, I think that plays a part in the "GMs who have been here longer have had an advantage" theory.

Not a big deal, but it just seems like almost all of the original GMs have had similar amounts of success.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:16 pm

Each of those teams also have very different philosophies. JP turns over his roster at least once a year. Gabe was in a bunch of minidrafts before he won his WS. Andrew, while he was here from day 1, spent a good 3 or 4 years stockpiling prospects and rebuilding. Nils has went the pitching and defense route his entire time. I maybe make 6 trades a year and have little roster turnover for the most part. So you can lump us together, but all of us have taken very different routes to our success

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:44 pm

Cubs wrote:
RedSox wrote:You could argue that, although, Nick, Andrew, Aaron, Gabe, Nils, JP, Brennan and the recently departed Brett D were also members during that first season and have experienced mixed degrees of success, so when you look at it as a group it isn't quit the concentrated level of success.
I would label everybody you just named successful. Nick, Aaron, Nils, and I all have won the WS. Andrew's been there, JP has been there, and Ropers had some big win teams if I remember correctly. So six of those eight named have either won or at least played in an IBC World Series. Sure, records have gone up and down, but that's true for everybody except JB. So, I think that plays a part in the "GMs who have been here longer have had an advantage" theory.

Not a big deal, but it just seems like almost all of the original GMs have had similar amounts of success.

I should have been more specific in saying that those teams have had varied degrees of success. i.e. Nick won the first title and has had less success then, Andrew struggled a LOT at first but has been very successful the last few years, so it hasn't been a consistent thing, as Aaron also noted. The thing is, if a GM isn't successful or hadn't at least been doing a solid job then they wouldn't have stuck around so it makes sense from that perspective as well that only the good/successful GM's would still be here.

JP, thanks for the reminder...
Seriously, he's got fucking voodoo dolls.

Phillies · Post by **Phillies** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:36 pm

i dont remember ever winning less than 80 games (could be wrong), i just cant get those few extra wins every year. next year, this will all change. i will be back on top.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:17 pm

Bren, every team, aside from that one JB runs, has been inconsistent, by your definition, which seems rather stringent. At any rate, the Wild Card will be out of the East this year.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:26 pm

No chance Twinkie, that WC is gonna be mine now that I FINALLY (see, there I go again with the Caps) have started getting guys back off the DL. Of course, it's only natural that I have to face JB right away...

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:41 pm

RedSox wrote:No chance Twinkie, that WC is gonna be mine now that I FINALLY (see, there I go again with the Caps) have started getting guys back off the DL. Of course, it's only natural that I have to face JB right away...

Pat will be adding Smoltz and Duch shortly himself.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:43 pm

Sadly I have no effing clue when Sheets or McGowan will return. Would be nice if Sheets had a team. The early info on McGowan was that he could be out til May/June, or out for the season (big mystery apparently). You know you're walking a fine line when you find yourself eagerly anticipating Cesar Jimenez's return so you can slot another lefty specialist w/ a starter durability rating into your rotation. Bummer.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:10 pm

I got 9 guys on the DL right now, including half my pen, my starting 2b and my #3 and 4 hitters, so I don't wanna hear it

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:44 pm

Cardinals wrote:I got 9 guys on the DL right now, including half my pen, my starting 2b and my #3 and 4 hitters, so I don't wanna hear it

Yes, plenty of DL to go around for all. I am likewise missing my #4 hitter, but the previous comments were about pitchers coming back to impact the race - hence my openly wondering when my front 2 would return. I have no idea what my total number of DL'd guys is or has been. I do know its a bummer that the few guys who were healthy enough last year to earn good projections are not this year, but them's the breaks I guess. Hopefully Sheets is healthy and has a contract at the ASB.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:13 am

I've got my second best hitter/catcher, #2 starter, guy who replaced my #2 starter as my #2 starter, right handed setup guy, and second baseman on the DL, plus my offensive SS and 5th starter I ended up cutting because they're gonna be out for as long as anyone can imagine anyway. We all have injury trouble. Also, Pat's not getting the Duke of Hurl back this year unless the real life A's somehow get into the pennant race. That being said, the AL Wild Card won't be coming out of the West