Franchises moving

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:53 pm

Hey Bren, just in case you weren't sure, you're not making Kelly switch to the ALE or anyone else, for that matter. If Dan wants out of the ALE that will obviously happen, but you're not going to be able to use this to manipulate yourself into an easier division. At least I don't think you're going to be able to. If JP wants in the ALE, you're not going to be able to block it, I don't think. I'd be very surprised if Shawn, Jim or Jake helped you block it.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:34 am

What is this in response to? I'm trying to catch up but see nothing related.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:14 am

Here's what I know. Dan is interested in leaving Baltimore because he's tired of the competition. We've got three new teams, but we're minidrafting them like this week, so they will be in place. JP is the only person that I'm aware of who has interest in taking Baltimore and entering that division (though maybe someone else would have interest, I don't know). From what I understand, Bren doesn't want JP in the ALE and and wants a newbie there because it will presumably make the division easier. I was half joking in that post, but in all seriousness the number one goal of the league in this issue shouldn't be to make the ALE easier for Bren and JB.

The worst thing that we could do to a new GM is put him in that division with JB. How discouraging would that be?

Anyway, I don't think that Dan wants to go to the NL, so I assume that he's wanting to move to the ALC or ALW. If any of those teams are interested in moving to, say, Houston, I think that's good, but if not, I don't think that anyone needs to be pressured. If Dan wants to move to escape hard competition, I don't know that beggars can be choosers.

Anyway, that's what I know, and a lot of that is assuming that JP is in fact interested in moving. I don't know for sure that he is or will continue to be.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:50 pm

You're kidding right? You think I'm trying to 'manipulate myself into an easier division"? Dan is hopelessly outmatched in the ALE. He'd have a fighting chance in many divisions, but he's not even close to JB, Pat or I.
As things stand, teams are only supposed to move to address competitive balance issues or to give GM's the chance to get their favorite team. Dan's is Boston and I don't think that team is going to open up any time soon and moving JP to the ALE would NOT be a good move for competitive balance.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:11 pm

RedSox wrote:You're kidding right? You think I'm trying to 'manipulate myself into an easier division"? Dan is hopelessly outmatched in the ALE. He'd have a fighting chance in many divisions, but he's not even close to JB, Pat or I.
As things stand, teams are only supposed to move to address competitive balance issues or to give GM's the chance to get their favorite team. Dan's is Boston and I don't think that team is going to open up any time soon and moving JP to the ALE would NOT be a good move for competitive balance.

competitive balance = easier division

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:06 pm

I wonder if your objection is in having a decent team in the ALC...
If you think moving Dan out of the ALE will make the ALE any easier, you're quite mistaken.
Dan does want out though and he doesn't want to be in the NL.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:08 am

I guess it comes down to how we identify competitive balance. No way a newbie GM can go into the ALE, in fact there are only about 5 GMs I'd consider able to take that slot (and I don't consider myself one of them). If JP wants Baltimore then that's Dan's option, unless Kelly or Claudio wants Houston in which case he can have Cleveland. Unless another AL GM is about to quit I don't see another scenario where Dan can get out of Baltimore and stay in the AL.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:11 am

It depends on your perspective on competitive balance. personally, i don't see sticking all the good GM's in one (or two) divisions so the mediocre and crappy ones have a shot at the playoffs as being a good thing.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:33 am

RedSox wrote:It depends on your perspective on competitive balance. personally, i don't see sticking all the good GM's in one (or two) divisions so the mediocre and crappy ones have a shot at the playoffs as being a good thing.

I agree with Bren here, in fact it's the whole reason we brought up team moving, no? I'm of the opinion that Dan should be moved out of the ALE and JP out of the NLC, with them either landing in ALC/NLE or ALW/NLE. I don't think switching them does much besides appeasing Dan and giving JP an excuse to lose

If moving teams is going to see any resistance then I think we don't move any teams.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:51 pm

The problems with reactionary team-moving to artificially achieve momentary balance are that:

a) You'll never keep up with teams changing all the time, and you'll ruin one of the really cool aspects of these league, rivalries.

b) I'm not sure that everyone who is involved in the decision on where teams are essentially forced to go (because that's what I gather that you guys are suggesting, forcing guys to move around to fit your picture of balance) has a very good grasp of what the next few seasons will hold in terms of team development.

Again, I'm not against team moving or Dan moving wherever he cares to, if he can get the transaction worked out, or any of that. But dymanics change quickly.

And I don't like it when I get the impression that something is done to help so-and-so make the playoffs more easily. That's not a good reason for altering the alignment of the league.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:00 pm

I agree that we should move teams in a reactionary fashion, but rather should assess GM strength in a dvision rather than team strength. Team dynamics and strengths change quickly. GM skills do not (excepting a learning curve for novice GMs).
That said, the ALE is still loaded more than any other Division by that measure. The softest Division is probably the East in the NL (and the softest overall) and the West in the AL.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:08 pm

RedSox wrote:I agree that we should move teams in a reactionary fashion, but rather should assess GM strength in a dvision rather than team strength. Team dynamics and strengths change quickly. GM skills do not (excepting a learning curve for novice GMs).

I totally agree (I think you meant to say "shouldn't" rather than "should" and would agree with that). I also think that the moving should be fairly conservative as a rule though.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:06 pm

yes, wine+me=shouldn't

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:13 pm

RedSox wrote:I agree that we should move teams in a reactionary fashion, but rather should assess GM strength in a dvision rather than team strength. Team dynamics and strengths change quickly. GM skills do not (excepting a learning curve for novice GMs).
That said, the ALE is still loaded more than any other Division by that measure. The softest Division is probably the East in the NL (and the softest overall) and the West in the AL.

Here's the elephant in the room that I've discussed with Bren and JP, and that is the Yankees roster. Pat's team is a monster now, but how much does it depend on Bonds and Smoltz, both of whom will be gone soon. Bren's rotation is ludicrous, but huge down years from Hafner and Drew make that team less of a monster long term with a lineup that doesn't compare. JB has A-Rod, Pujols, Vlad Guerrero, Carlos Zambrano, Felix Hernandez, Joe Mauer, Grady Sizemore. He also has twice the farm system of anyone else in that division. That team is a regular season juggernaut, it has the kind of roster that would make people quit roto leagues. And oh yeah, he also has one of the 5 strongest farm systems in the league. While I agree that in general GM strength is more important than team strength, we need to acknowledge that the strength of the Yankees roster is such that even a tag team of Bobby Tierney and Matt LeRoy would win 100 games with it for each of the next 3 years pretty much no matter what. There's no way to handle that issue unless we force him to redistribute his roster, and any discussion of competitive balance is frankly meaningless if we don't bring the issue up.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:48 pm

No way should JB ever be forced to lose players, ever. That's something that shouldn't even be considered bringing up.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:03 pm

Agreed, while I would love to impose any rules to hinder JB, I don't see how we can ever.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:16 pm

Agreed, stripping down a single team's roster is completely unacceptable.
As much of a pain in the ass as competing with JB is, it keeps me on my toes.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:34 am

I'm not saying its something we should do, I'm just saying that any discussion of competitive balance is stupid if we don't keep JB's roster in mind. If Dan wants out and can find someone up to the challenge, great, but shifting around the 4th place roster in the ALE isn't exactly going to change the competitive balance structure. This isn't a competitive balance issue, it's a Dan being sick of having to compete with the ALE.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:23 am

It changes it because Dan is probably a playoff team elsewhere.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:57 am

Well this is an issue again

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:10 pm

I'm proposing this (all has been offered in the general forum):
JP to NYM
Jim to BAL
Dan to TEX
Seth to HOU

These moves would sheerly be made based on evening out the competitive imbalance, thus I don't see it necessary to open up moving to everyone (which I think would be more of a headache than it's worth). However I think I'm all for opening it up and then making a rule that no teams are eligible to move until x date.

Please state whether you would approve my suggested moves and if you would approve opening it up for all and then no moving until x, so we can try to get the ball rolling on this a little (though obviously any decisions would go into affect in the offseason).

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:11 pm

Agreed on both counts.

And i'll say a 2-3 year restriction on moving is fine. What about newbies though?

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:49 pm

As I said, I am willing to move anywhere so I can agree with the posted suggestions with one cavet ... if the White Sox ever become available I reserve my right to make a case why I should get that slot ....

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:57 pm

I oppose it for the reasons stated in my post. There's no reason to disregard a rule we just made this quickly, it's not like this situation wasn't forseeable to Dan and it's not like there weren't other open teams. Read my post in the other thread bc I don't feel like retyping it, but I think we really need to nail down what the definition of competitive balance is and whether it should be division centered or league centered. This is not a problem with a quick fix of just swapping a couple of GMs and we shouldn't begin to think its that simple.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:34 pm

Well said.