Any AL GMs itchin to head east?

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:11 pm

Okay, I thought last year we had the whole "Nobody else moves unless its to get their favorite team" rule put into affect. Now Dan, I understand your plight, I had the exact same thing myself a few years ago, but seems to me that if you wanted out, you should've got out last winter. Nut up and beat them instead of looking for the easy way out

Rockies · Post by **Rockies** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:46 pm

Just to clear up confusion, I'm not particularly looking to move teams, but I'm willing to do so in order to help competitive balance, if thats what the goal of relocating GMs would be. I'm not asking to be moved or saying I want out of Texas. I'm down to help out, but I'm not looking to move just for the hell of it

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Explain to me how taking the 3 best teams and putting them in different divisions would help competitive balance. If JB was in the West he would be running away with the division instead of me, it's not like there would be a race between us. Same thing with any other division out there except the NLC. I also don't believe that ropers was rebuilding when the season started, but the time honored tradition in this league is that when your team falls off the table you make moves for prospects. Every sim that I did before this season had a good race between me and Seattle going into September, and also had the NLE much closer than its turning out to be. Sometimes it's just the vagaries of the sim and there isn't a ton we can do about it. But if the Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Reds and Cardinals were each in different divisions then there would have been 5 races pretty much decided before the season starts, with only one real race. Even now we have three fairly competitive races (NLW, NLC, ALE) going into September. Explain to me how having 1 race out of 6 divisions as opposed to 3 is a good idea, even supposing there was a way to move those big rosters around to other divisions without those GMs giving up their favorite teams. The decisions we make as a league need to have some weight to them, otherwise what's the point of even having a commish, ExCo or any rules whatsoever? We decided last year that there will be no more moving. If we want to adopt Z's rule suggestion (which isn't a terrible idea) then we should do so with this being the first of the 3 year freeze, to give that ruling some credibility. It's not like Dan didn't know what was going to happen at this time last year, it could have been dealt with then.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:38 am

To be honest, I didn't even realize that this had been covered last year. I was otherwise occupied for most of the offseason with more pressing matters (which led to me almost being booted for inactivity), so if it did register that I could move, I didn't notice or didn't give it much thought. So yes, it's my own fault that I didn't move last season.

That said, my point was that the disparity is so ridiculously great between the quality of teams in the divisions that it seems like we could have a string of seasons where 2 of the 4 or 5 best teams are practically guaranteed to miss the postseason, and in their place would be teams that don't have much of a chance against the league's top two teams in the playoffs. No, it wouldn't make sense to have one great team in each division, and watch them run away with it, but it would make sense to at least try to have two teams competing into september in each division, or even just a team with the slightest chance at all of making the wild card out of another division.

We're not talking about moving JB's team to the West or Central so he can run away with it, so the scenario you described doesn't really apply. We're talking about moving my team, which is closer in talent to the teams currently running away with their divisions than to the teams at the top of the ALE, in order to try to create a little more action in the divisional and wild card races. I'm not sure why this would be such a problem for people.

What happens when there's no divisional race and no real wild card race? Inactivity and disinterest. As I said before, there's no system of roster turnover to allow someone to quickly turn a bad team around (other than robbing new GMs), so it's a real bummer to put in a lot of work over three years slowly building up a contender and then watch dead playoff races in other divisions b/c of shitty luck as to who you've got in your division. It's not like this is mimicing real MLB either, b/c there is no free agency, so there's also not a reasonable expectation that top teams will drop off after a year or two. I can't recall ever seeing such a huge disparity in run differential between divisions. Ideally, I'd think we'd want a similar cross-section of top/middle/lower tier teams in each division. Obviously perfect competitive balance is not realistic, but extreme variations between the talent levels across divisions does seem like a fixable problem.

As for the "you can only move to your favorite team" rule. I'm not sure what the point of that is exactly. Aren't a good number of the GMs in this league Red Sox fans? So does that rule mean all those people are essentially precluded from moving under any circumstances b/c the Red Sox GM is almost certain to stay put for a long while?

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:46 am

Again, I like Z's idea, and I'd even add to it and have the Ex-Co consider each potential move specifically for its effect on competitive balance, sort of like a "competitive realignment" (as opposed to regional realignment) every 3 years or so. Whoever was making the decisions (Ex-Co or whoever) could present how the league would look for the next 3 seasons (which GMs are where), and if a GM no longer wants to move based on where they'll end up, then the necessary adjustments would be made. Nobody would be made to move unwillingly, so it would really only happen when the pieces fell into place a certain way and the situation called for it, as I think it does now.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:47 am

I got bored reading this whole thing.
There are two situations, as things stand, where a move is allowed.
One, when a GM's favorite team becomes available.
Two, to address competitive balance issues. Competitive balance isn't about shuffling teams around so there are 'good' and 'bad' teams in each division, that changes entirely too easily and quickly and shuffling teams all over the place all the time is a damn bad idea. Competitive balance is more of an issue of making sure that the quality of GM's is well distributed. if you look at the wins/losses of teams throughout the league, there does appear to be an imbalance, and a major one. If you look at the quality of the GM's, I think it's much closer to even and this is what we should base any consideration of moves on.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:01 am

Dan, I totally agree with your premise that divisional races make the league more interesting and stave off inactivity. That is why we CANNOT move the Yankees/Blue Jays/Red Sox/Reds/Cardinals around, precisely because if they were in separate divisions there would be no divisional race. I'd rather have 2 of the 5 best teams guaranteed to miss the playoffs than have 25 teams eliminated from contention before the season even starts.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:15 pm

Yes, the entire parapgraph makes my head hurt.

I'm pretty sure there are more then 4 teams willing or want to move - like I said, let's not just pussy foot around here. Get a full list, get your top choices in, and Gabe will handle the rest. I'm not sure how this doesn't make sense.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:53 pm

Royals wrote:I'm not sure how this doesn't make sense.

1. Because juggling the league every few years is a ridiculous idea.
2. Because suddenly disrupting the makeup of a division is flat out unfair to the division members. How would you like it if JB suddenly decided he wanted to be in Cleveland so he could have an easy shot at a playoff spot? Not too much I suspect.

From the way the ExCo has discussed it, everyone is going to stay where they are unless they can come up with a very compelling reason to move. Moving for the sake of moving is out of the question as is any kind of mass juggling session.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:48 pm

RedSox wrote:
Royals wrote:I'm not sure how this doesn't make sense.
1. Because juggling the league every few years is a ridiculous idea.
2. Because suddenly disrupting the makeup of a division is flat out unfair to the division members. How would you like it if JB suddenly decided he wanted to be in Cleveland so he could have an easy shot at a playoff spot? Not too much I suspect.

From the way the ExCo has discussed it, everyone is going to stay where they are unless they can come up with a very compelling reason to move. Moving for the sake of moving is out of the question as is any kind of mass juggling session.

Maybe you should re-think not reading those long boring posts, because they do contain a relevant point or two that addresses what you've just said here.

For one, there would never be a situation where JB just "decided he wanted to be in Cleveland so he could have an easy shot at the playoffs" because the Ex-Co would consider competitive balance first and foremost. In fact, if it were something planned to occur every few years, I'd hope that the moves would be driven by the Ex-Cos idea of what moves are in the interest in the league, rather than just to facilitate moves (even to someone's favorite team... which seems like a secondary goal to me). I'd hope that if some kind of huge talent disparity existed that whoever was in charge of considering competitive balance issues might even approach GMs and ask if they'd consider moving to even things out a bit.

"1. Because juggling the league every few years is a ridiculous idea."

Why exactly? We've got a competitive balance issue. It's clear that we're not going to impose a salary/FA system to allow teams to make quicker turnarounds, so why not go for the simplest solution? There's a talent disparity. So move the talent to fix the disparity, and look at it again in a couple of years. If there's no longer an issue, then there's no need for moves.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:42 pm

JB is an extreme example, but If I was a team in, say, the NLE who had been working towards competing next year, a decision that is going to be based at least partly on the makeup of the rest of the division and then another contending team, such as yours, was dumped into my division, I'd be pissed and I'd be damn right to be pissed.

The problem Dan is you're looking at player talent, which, admittedly I did too for a long time. If you consider the strength of the divisions based on the quality of the GM's there really isn't as much disparity in the divisions. Do we have situations where good teams aren't going to make the playoffs? Absolutely. But that happens in MLB as well. That's life. What, because some GM's can't compete in their own divisions they should get ounced around to another one where it will be easier? That's beyond being a joke.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:59 pm

RedSox wrote:JB is an extreme example, but If I was a team in, say, the NLE who had been working towards competing next year, a decision that is going to be based at least partly on the makeup of the rest of the division and then another contending team, such as yours, was dumped into my division, I'd be pissed and I'd be damn right to be pissed.

The problem Dan is you're looking at player talent, which, admittedly I did too for a long time. If you consider the strength of the divisions based on the quality of the GM's there really isn't as much disparity in the divisions. Do we have situations where good teams aren't going to make the playoffs? Absolutely. But that happens in MLB as well. That's life. What, because some GM's can't compete in their own divisions they should get ounced around to another one where it will be easier? That's beyond being a joke.

Nobody in the AL West has been vehemently building towards 08 from what I can see. Ropers was hit by the injury bug but I haven't seen a ton of effort (no offense to Ropers) to be building a team for 08. a move here and there but once he gets his injured players back he'll probably be fine.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:00 pm

Does it happen in MLB? Yes. But this is not MLB. There are no salaries, there's no free agency, there's a whole heck of a lot of differences. This is also not like the NL West a few years ago. The numbers are downright absurd, and I'm not sure why my request is being treated as so outlandish, because A) it's happened before a number of times, for much much less compelling reasons, and B) the evidence is so overwhelming that there is a competitive balance problem that it seems pretty simple. If you're worried about pissing off the AL West teams by dropping another contender in their division, well, pissing off GMs never stopped you before, so dealing with a competitive balance issue seems like kind of an odd place to start worrying about people's feelings. Maybe it's more appropriate to piss people off when imposing penalties for rejected trades, but this strikes me as bit of a bigger issue.

For the record, OF COURSE I want to be in an easier division. Who would want to be a 95 win team in a division with 3 100+ game winners? However, if Pat B (who's been here longer than me, and is better at it) wanted to move to the AL West for the same reasons, I'd shut up and deal with my own division because there wouldn't be a sensible reason for me to move OTHER than an easier path to the postseason.

Wow. This seemed like a pretty obvious fix to me that would help keep it fun for everyone. Simple problem, simple solution.

We've got GMs willing to move to other divisions to directly address the issue. No mess. No fuss. This seems like more trouble than it's worth.

EDIT: If I buy a Texas Rangers hat, and declare them my lifelong favorite team, we don't even need to have this argument at all, do we? I mean, a rule was passed right? Again, waaaay more trouble than necessary.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:01 pm

It happened in past years for less compelling reasons and people got sick of it, which is why we dealt with it last year. It's not an outlandish request that you are making, the fact is that it's just not as simple a fix as you think it is.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:28 pm

Athletics wrote:It happened in past years for less compelling reasons and people got sick of it, which is why we dealt with it last year. It's not an outlandish request that you are making, the fact is that it's just not as simple a fix as you think it is.

I agree with Jake on that: It is not an outlandish idea -- I still happen to believe that some realignment of teams will benefit the relative competitive balance issue that GMs are attempting to address. Perhaps it is best if this issue is laid to rest until after the World Series - but it is an issue that should continue to be looked at.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:13 pm

Mets wrote:Perhaps it is best if this issue is laid to rest until after the World Series

Yeah, that's probably wise. We'll have the full season to look at, and while we'd obviously prefer no turnover at all, there's always the chance that a team will open up that would make some kind of competitive realignment easier to carry out if that ends up being the solution.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:23 pm

I have no problems with Dan coming to the AL West. I think adding a instant divison winner will probably kick start some of us to build more towards 2008. I know I don't have a team that will compete next year but 70 wins isn't totally unatainable. I know I'll have Votto, Milledge, Brandon Jones and Baldelli to build around in my offense. The pitching needs some work but they're quite young still(David Price will help).

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:52 pm

Astros wrote: Nobody in the AL West has been vehemently building towards 08 from what I can see. Ropers was hit by the injury bug but I haven't seen a ton of effort (no offense to Ropers) to be building a team for 08. a move here and there but once he gets his injured players back he'll probably be fine.

Injuries killed my 07, but the additions of Adam Jones, Asdrubal Cabrera and Rick Ankiel to my offense in 08, will definately help me bouce back in a hurry. With Ethier and Swisher combined with those other three having great seasons, I'll have a very solid foundation for my offense.

Obviously, Willis' down season in the MLB will hurt his projection, but Burnett and Blanton's strong seasons will help offset that. Plus, my bullpen will be 10x better next season. Just getting Jones and his 8 losses out of my closer role will be a huge help. All I have to do is fill in the back of my rotation and my roster is good to go for next season and beyond.

I didn't need to completely rebuild my team in order to be make a run at the playoffs in 2008 and no offense, but I don't tend to want to turn over my whole roster every 3 months just for a fun of it.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:20 am

Mariners wrote:
Astros wrote: Nobody in the AL West has been vehemently building towards 08 from what I can see. Ropers was hit by the injury bug but I haven't seen a ton of effort (no offense to Ropers) to be building a team for 08. a move here and there but once he gets his injured players back he'll probably be fine.

Injuries killed my 07, but the additions of Adam Jones, Asdrubal Cabrera and Rick Ankiel to my offense in 08, will definately help me bouce back in a hurry. With Ethier and Swisher combined with those other three having great seasons, I'll have a very solid foundation for my offense.

Obviously, Willis' down season in the MLB will hurt his projection, but Burnett and Blanton's strong seasons will help offset that. Plus, my bullpen will be 10x better next season. Just getting Jones and his 8 losses out of my closer role will be a huge help. All I have to do is fill in the back of my rotation and my roster is good to go for next season and beyond.

I didn't need to completely rebuild my team in order to be make a run at the playoffs in 2008 and no offense, but I don't tend to want to turn over my whole roster every 3 months just for a fun of it.

my point was that you didn't kill yourself to build for 08. it's not as if your end game for awhile was 2008 as if you were jagger or brett building for 2008 and having this juggernaut thrown into your divison. your hopes and dreams for years of 2008 wouldn't be crushed by dan going to the al west. 2008 fell into your lap because of injury halfway through the year. Jones wasn't an addition he was homegrown. Again, I don't care where you get your guys from. my point was you didnt pull a jagger or BP over here.

who says dan is an instant division winner anyway? really. is he THAT much better than Jake or even you? not really. it would be a fairly even race i think, especially given the park he'd be taking.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:29 am

Yeah, although I'd like to believe that, I'm not sure my team would be a lock to win the division by any means. Who knows how my pitching will do at Ameriquest. I built my team for Camden, so it wasn't really necessary to focus on ground ball guys like it might be for Texas. To win any division (East or West), I need a healthy Sheets, and favorable projections for Verlander, Owings, Bonser, Miller, Gio, etc. I wasn't so lucky with the pitching this season. Also would probably have to re-tool my bullpen for the smaller confines. It would certainly spice up my offseason.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:55 am

Astros wrote: my point was that you didn't kill yourself to build for 08.

Agreed. Point well taken.

Jones wasn't an addition he was homegrown. Again, I don't care where you get your guys from.

As is Cabrera. Hence my statement above, that I don't feel like I need to go make a ton of trades in order to "turn it around". I have sufficient internal means to solve a number of my roster issues from last season.

who says dan is an instant division winner anyway? really. is he THAT much better than Jake or even you? not really. it would be a fairly even race i think, especially given the park he'd be taking.

I don't think anyone did, at least not Jake or myself. Other than finding the humor in Dan wanting to run from the AL Beast after all the discussion and decision to restrict team movement just for the sake of movement, last offseason (yes , I'm aware Dan missed most or all of that discussion) I wasn't against one last big hurrah for all the GM's that feel like they want to move to another team. I stated as much above.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:55 pm

Athletics wrote:It happened in past years for less compelling reasons and people got sick of it, which is why we dealt with it last year. It's not an outlandish request that you are making, the fact is that it's just not as simple a fix as you think it is.

There was a decision last year to cut down on moves. not some hush hush thing but a "Do you want to move, because now is the time to do it because we're not going to allow it anymore"
There's also been a shift in how some of us look at competitive balance, looking at strength of GM's not strength of teams (something Dan is still doing and which, frankly, does not seem to be the wise way of doing it). Adjust teams to give GM's better shots at getting in the playoffs every few years is flat out BAD POLICY.

However, as I told Dan privately, I will be taking some time to evaluate GM strengths in the offseason as part of a GM powerrankings feature. When i do that, I'll also present my conclusions and findings to the ExCo and as a result, my own personal opinion/vote about allowing a move this offseason may change. This will be based on an in-depth look at all the GM's, divisions and leagues, something that is neither appropriate nor feasible during the season. The time to discuss moving around is the offseason, not during the playoff stretch.

As of right now though, no moves have been approved and none of the proposals look like they will be approved by the ExCo.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 pm

Bren, I couldnt agree with you more, moving teams around to help out certain divisions is like you said a "bad policy" A good GM can take a terrible team and turn it into a good one, A bad GM can take a Great team and turn it into a bad one, balancing out divisions based on strength of GM as well as other factors, divisions etc... would make what Dan brought up more effective.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:51 pm

In response to Bren's post, but somewhat tangential, while we may not need to make a decision right now, I don't see any reason things such as this can't be discussed, as long as the league understands not to expect a decision next week. I'm a major proponent of activity, and these threads have pumped some serious life back into the league, right now there's 9 GMs on, I don't think I've seen more than 3 or 4 at a time for the past month or 2. I am concerned about the new GMs not chiming in at all on any of these conversations. This leads me to think that either these discussions are too league-experience related that they don't feel like they should chime in, or else we have some quiet shy GMs. In either case, I'm worried about that, I like a brash new GM who's going to come in and give me their opinion.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:56 pm

Shawn, isnt it better to discuss these things now so we can give time to make a decision in the offseason rather then waiting till the last minute and possibly missing out on experimenting on some of this?