Any AL GMs itchin to head east?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:58 pm

There's nothing to experiment in the terms of teams moving. I still support it for reasons stated publically and privately. Either way, no move is imminent as 1/3rd of ExCo disagrees with the other 66%.

As far as rule V draft, that likely won't happen. The league seems split and the ExCo personalities seem to not be so keen on it so theres no pressure on those (myself) to change my stance.

REgardless, its better to have league discussion before coming to a decision which I think hes saying.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:05 am

It's always fun to get into arguments about shit like this. What has yet to be explained to me is what all of the proposed moves will fix beyond giving Dan Vacek personally a better shot at the playoffs?

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:57 am

Athletics wrote:It's always fun to get into arguments about shit like this. What has yet to be explained to me is what all of the proposed moves will fix beyond giving Dan Vacek personally a better shot at the playoffs?

I give up. It's clear you have only been reading your own posts, and don't have a clue what me or JP, or any number of other GMs who have chimed in at least acknowledging that we have a lopsided league have said. If there wasn't something else to fix it wouldn't be appropriate for me to ask to move. And why would Jake Hamlin be so vehemently opposed to something like this other than it would impede his cakewalk to the playoffs? Gimme a break dude. Fuck it. I'm tired of talking about this. I will have the second best team in the AL East next year anyway, so I'll just win that. If someone would like to try to address the competitive balance problems we have in the offseason, that would be great. I'm out of ways to try to explain the difference between the two divisions and how that hurts the league.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:55 pm

As a side note (and this is not personal towards the current Ex-Co, just common sense) perhaps we should have a process in place for when an issue must be voted on that directly affects one or more members of the executive committee. Maybe whoever was the 4th and 5th leading vote-getters could alternates or something. Is there something already in place for a situation like this?

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:32 pm

I've read all the posts in this thread. I first of all don't accept your premise that there are huge competitive balance issues in this league because of the caliber of GM that we have now (see Jagger's post for more details). My point is, how is shuffling you and others around "fixing" the competitive balance issue? You being in the AL West isn't going to change JB's roster, there are still going to be teams that won't compete for this year, which concentrates the best MLB players on fewer teams (who trade their prospects to the teams that don't want to compete yet for their players who are currently ready to go), and that is what's creating such a huge disparity in the rosters.

We have a number of great GMs, but think about this: in the MLB, where parity has markedly increased everywhere except the AL East (interestingly enough), this has happened because all 30 teams have gotten more focused on winning now, GMs and managers have no job security and as such focus on getting the best players on the field and winning as many games as possible. For a team like the Royals, even if they win 75 games instead of 60, they have been bad for so long that an improvement like that could energize the fanbase and create another year of job security for the manager/GM. In the IBC, you are actually penalized for winning 75 games instead of 60, for all intents and purposes you are still probably just as far away from the playoffs, but those extra 15 wins drastically change your draft positioning. As a result there are a number of GMs who are not focused on winning this year, or even in the next 2 years, so they don't care about where the best MLB talent is going for this year or next year because it's not their issue, so they'll trade it to the contending teams who can then increase the gap between themselves and the middle of the road GMs who haven't committed to one strategy or the other yet. There is no amount of GM shuffling that's going to change that reality.

For the record, I didn't think I had a cakewalk in the division next year anyway, unless Jeff Keppinger and Cody Ross get Bocachica like projections I won't have a cleanup hitter, and my best hitter right now (in terms of MLB regulars by real life OPS) is probably going to end up with a 50 game steroid suspension. My rotation and bullpen should be improved, but Ropers is adding a ton of pop to his lineup, and in Safeco he can always find pitchers. This isn't about me wanting an easy run, because I'm probably not even going to be in the picture. Put Dan in the West and we'll have a 3-way race next year, it's a nice temporary solution, but in a couple of years everyone's roster will have turned over anyway and we'll have to mess around with it all again and there won't be any change to the underlying issue. That's my point, I don't see this affecting competitive balance in any lasting or valuable way.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:21 pm

MLB is not a good example because this is not MLB. We have no salaries. This is a simulation for the purpose of competition and fun. The imbalance between divisions means fewer races, less competition and less fun. if you look at the rosters, objectively it's not unreasonable to expect the same imbalance for at least the next two seasons. So what's the big deal about making a quick fix to make it more competitive across the board in the short term? What is the enormous harm that this will cause that should make us hesitate to move teams every once in a while? Teams have moved before, and the league has not folded. Everyone adjusts (or doesn't) and we move on to the next season. No, we don't want to see across the board shuffling every season because it makes it harder to plan and build your team as a GM, but I just don't understand why someone would be so vehemently opposed to balancing things out, even if it's to make the league more fun and competitive in the short term. I don't see the long term harm here.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:12 pm

First of all - I think the idea that a few owners being able to manipulate themselves into the situations they want is wrong.

That being said, I'm all for realignment because it will help provide some fun for next year. I think it should be done in a structured way allowing every team that wants to move to move, but providing some excitement for the league is always a good idea.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:25 pm

Royals wrote:First of all - I think the idea that a few owners being able to manipulate themselves into the situations they want is wrong.

I also don't like that idea, and if that's what you guys are so worried about, then move someone else and fix the issue some other way. I'm not going to pretend that I wouldn't like to see our division thinned out because my team will have a better chance. But I wouldn't have asked to move if my interest didn't jive with something I thought was in the interest of the league. I almost would rather not move now b/c such a big deal has been made of it. I'm just asking that after the season somebody look into re-distributing the talent slightly and creating a little more competition for the next couple of seasons.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:12 pm

Nicely worded...I think some realignment of GM's needs to be discussed very soon, as there certainly seems a good enough number to make it worthwhile - including some very prominent GM's.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:45 pm

All this talk of adjustments..

Thinning things out and everyone else adjusts..

I've lived in the NL Central since day 1 of this league, just like Aaron. I've had "powerhouse" teams on paper, a perennial choice to make the playoffs in the NL.

I've had my hopes dashed by injuries, by Ropers in Seattle, Josh Morgan(R.I.P), JP, Ken, Aaron, etc. I've had to adjust to GM's being thrust into my division a few weeks from opening day(thanks for rebuilding JP!), hell I won 104 games one year and MISSED the playoffs(Thanks AGAIN JP). Many GM's have come and gone in the NLC.. Its been a tough existance, and last year was the FIRST year I made the playoffs - as a wildcard. Looks to be the same this year as well, with an outside shot at catching Aaron. I've been a favorite plenty of times to win this division but have yet to accomplish this feat, for a number of reasons.

I don't fear moving to another division, at all. What I don't want is to give up my lifelong favorite franchise.. ever. I live and breathe the wishbone C as a baseball fan, so there is definite attachment to this franchise...

In any case, my entire point though is - through thick and thin, ups and downs, tons of unpredictable factors I have always had to adjust to whatever factors are thrown my way. Volatility is a bitch. But the quality of GM's in this league, and the amount of the quality GM's is IMO at an all time high. Why can't we let the "less winning teams" (Politically correct enuff for ya Jagger? heh) - which for the record I do not believe to be indicitive of a particular GM's abilities - step up to the challenge and adjust and topple the perennials?

Baseball is a timeless sport, and things happen over time, in large samples... I'd like to see better races, competition, whathaveyou... But that should also be earned, and not just handed to someone by allowing a move to a "weak" division. There is something to be said for trying to build a dynasty. They don't happen very often in sports anymore, and as far as I can tell by the banners on the front page, it hasn't happened in this league either. Sure there are the year in and year out powerhouses - but why can't I sit back and watch as the walls come tumbling down around the divison giants? Its finally happened in the NL West, AL West, last year in the ALC.. Just be patient. Let the path of things happen on their own. If things don't change naturally due to adjustments of teams, variables of players, etc... then perhaps consider a realignment..

but as I said, I think there are other smaller, less drastic measures, that could help with the balance of power. not that i really see this as a problem personally anyway. Lots of the "lesser" teams are on the up and up.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:38 am

NL West represent!

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:14 am

Been looking in on this thread for a bit, I don't see what all the hubbub is about. If a few teams want to move, what's the big deal? All the reasons coming back against it sound like excuses as opposed to reasons. That said, with the talk of re-allignment, we cannot force any GM to leave a team if they don't want to, that's just ridiculous. No matter what happens it has to be voluntary. My two cents.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:27 am

Damn, I just lost the $5 bet of "Does Nils know his IBC password?" to myself.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:10 pm

Giants wrote:Been looking in on this thread for a bit, I don't see what all the hubbub is about. If a few teams want to move, what's the big deal? All the reasons coming back against it sound like excuses as opposed to reasons. That said, with the talk of re-allignment, we cannot force any GM to leave a team if they don't want to, that's just ridiculous. No matter what happens it has to be voluntary. My two cents.

Agreed with the mute man from SF

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:59 pm

Giants wrote:Been looking in on this thread for a bit, I don't see what all the hubbub is about. If a few teams want to move, what's the big deal? All the reasons coming back against it sound like excuses as opposed to reasons. That said, with the talk of re-allignment, we cannot force any GM to leave a team if they don't want to, that's just ridiculous. No matter what happens it has to be voluntary. My two cents.

Yep, we're creating crises where none exist.

My impression is that most of these suggestions of contrived solutions to an imaginary 'problem' are coming from the contrived notion that some have that the league is too out of balance. I'd suggest that at least some of the most vocal among us pushing this idea are looking for ways to move toward a differently structured league altogether (Bren with his salary thing for example) and are using balance as an excuse to forward their desires one step at a time for changing the fabric of the league (and breaking up JB's roster).

Dan wanting to move (not sure whether that's present or past tense at this point) has nothing to do with any of this and just needs enough willing participants to happen, as far as I can see.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:43 am

Except that Dan needs a contrived "competitive imbalance" crisis to justify moving since that's the only reason he's allowed to move. We should be past guys swapping teams just because they want to, hell we voted on that last year. Let me repeat something, thinning out divisions WILL NOT CREATE RACES!!! What creates races is having teams that are of the same talent level competing against each other, if there are fewer teams of the same caliber in a division then there are fewer teams to compete with one another.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:42 am

Is this thread still going? yeesh...

The all powerful yogurt shall determine whether competitive imbalance exists! Or not!

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:34 pm

Athletics wrote:Except that Dan needs a contrived "competitive imbalance" crisis to justify moving since that's the only reason he's allowed to move.

Right. I made it up. Totally contrived in order to move. There's no objective evidence of imbalance in the league whatsoever. You've gotta be kidding.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:35 pm

In a perfect world, what GM's would switch to which division?

What layout would improve the balance?

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:37 pm

Rockies wrote:In a perfect world, what GM's would switch to which division?

What layout would improve the balance?

Somebody, I think it was Shawn, had a perfectly fine scenario in this thread. And my impression was that all involved would be willing to make those moves.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:43 pm

Shawn's suggeston was:

Jim to Baltimore
Dan to Texas
JP to Mets
Seth to Astros

It makes sense because:
The AL East needs to be thinned out. Jim is willing to bite the bullet because he isn't planning on competeing for a few years. The ALW adds another solid team to the mix, granted in a ballpark of hell. I add a little more to the NL East to make it more interesting since Brandon has destroyed it this year and Seth gets to rebuild in Houston thinning out the NLC.

All GM's were willing and it makes perfect sense to everybody except for a few GM's.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:52 pm

JP just wants outta the NLC cause he's scared of me. That's right I said it, he's a chicken. Bok bok bok, bok bok bok (I'm doing the wing flapping too)

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:59 pm

not really. as I've stated before I don't care if i don't move. you just want to keep me in the NLC because you just want the extra 19 H2H games because youre scared of the sim

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:12 pm

Astros wrote:The AL East needs to be thinned out. Jim is willing to bite the bullet because he isn't planning on competeing for a few years.

Yes but what happens in a few years when Jim is good and ready to compete? Are we going to go into this again?

Honestly, I think that the fluidity of the league is a drawback and would love to see us try, if only for a 2 or 3 year period NOT MOVING.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:53 pm

Thank you Andrew, that's exactly what I was going to say.