OK, we've had some general discussion about what to do with Covington which produced some good ideas. Now, I'd like to take some of these ideas and make them more concrete. In other words, let's go from vague generalities to specifics.
So far, most of the suggestions that we have boil down into four suggestions. We can do only one, or some combination of them. The four major categories of suggestion are:
1. Give Covington some (five? six? eight?) newly-created major leaguers of middling skill (2 star? 2.5?)
1a. Give other teams that finished under .500 some of the same players, the number of which will be dependent on how far under .500 they finished.
2. Give Covington some (three? four? ten?) minor league prospects of the four and/or five star variety.
2a. Make a provision that allows each of the other existing teams to create one five star prospect when the team finishes in last place. This option can only be used once per team and not by Covington at all (since they're getting multiple prospects now).
3. An expansion-style draft where each team will end up losing one player from it's major league roster (how many players can each team protect?) Would this happen during the season? Is that fair to owners who have already planned their teams? After the season (and if so, how can we keep a Covington owner interested *this* season?)
4. Renegotiate some of Covington's contracts. Knock down the contracts of Rosetti, Powell, Santos & Crank by a certain percentage (25%? 33%? 50%)? (Side note: knock those contract down enough and they become very attractive as trade bait.)
So, what's your opinion on these proposals. I'd like to know how each of you feels these proposals should be implemented -- specifically. Consider it like a ballot -- cast your vote on each of the four ideas. From this, I'll put forth a proposal that we can vote on for final approval.
If you're not sure of what I mean, see the comments for this post, where I'll cast my vote.
Zev
1. Six players, 2 star
ReplyDelete1a. No
2. Four
2a. Yes
3. No
4. No
So, I would favor a combination of 1, 2 and 2a.
Zev
1 and 1a. No.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, between 4-9, which could be traded for major leaguers if the owner so chooseres.
3. Yes, after this year, and I would extend it to anyone who finishes, say, 40 games behind the division leader. But from what Zev says about last time, the logistics of an expansion draft seems to prevent this from being reasonable.
4. No.
In summary: create a bevy of minor leaguers and let the new owner decide what he/she wants to do with them.
Um, "chooses."
ReplyDelete1. No
ReplyDelete1a. No
2. Yes (at least four)
2a. No
3. Yes, if it's feasible. I don't think we're going to find an interested owner for this season (which is why I suggested the Expos-style co-owner plan to guide this team back towards respectability).
4. Yes, 33%.
1. Yes. Six 2* sounds reasonable to me.
ReplyDelete1a. Yes, as outlined in my comment to the previous post.
2. Yes, four 4*.
2a. No.
3. No.
4. Yes. Cut them in half.
Oh yeah - no on 2a. Isn't that what the first overall draft pick is for?
ReplyDelete1. Yes -- four or five 2.5 or 3 stars
ReplyDelete1A. No
2. Yes -- although I think 4 4 and 5 star prospects is, well, a lot, and more than that is a LOT.
2A. No
3.No
4. Yes -- by half. Or make them one year deals.
--
OK, I'm a little late to the party, though I've read all the comments thus far, and one thing that hasn't been suggested but I think has some interesting advantages (and some very interesting disadvantages) is this: what if one of the current owners sold his team and took over Covington? The way I see it, the main problem with Covington is immediately resolved, without too much headache involved -- Covington has an owner who reliably gives a crap. Of course, Covington still needs help, but suddenly there's somebody interested in the team for the team's sake, to say "I'd prefer the prospects and an expansion draft," or whatever. And the new owner gets a better franchise to start with, so we'll have a better chance that every team is managed by somebody who gives a crap. And even if that doesn't work out immediately, at least we have a leg up on keeping THAT franchise from sliding into the pit while Covington's working its way back up.
So, I propose we vote somebody off of his own team, and conscript that owner for the good of the league. I'll cast my vote for the Piggy.
Kidding. Of course, somebody'd have to be willing to do it, and I'm sure we're all attached to varying degrees to our own teams, and there are aspects of the future of our teams that we all have personal investments in, but you know, I think I'd do it if nobody else would. I'd hate to give up my chance to make "Dong & the Dragon" jokes for the next 10 seasons, no question about that, but what the heck, it's a league for fun, and the league would be more fun if everybody was active.
I figured I'd toss it out there to see what everybody else thinks, and that I might as well head off the "But who would do that?" response.
You'd be surprised. Another owner privately emailed me and offered to do just that... provided he could take some of his players with him to Covington.
ReplyDeleteI'm not crazy about that idea. Firstly, it upsets the league continuity -- part of the problem here is that there is no continuity of ownership of this team. I'd hate to take a franchise that has been around for the last few years and have it given to a new owner while he goes and tries to rebuild a broken franchise.
Secondly, I wasn't crazy about the idea of the new owner taking players from the old franchise to the new. It reminded me heavily of the syndicate ownership that took place in the NL in the 1890s and we all know the disastrous results of that (look up 1899 Cleveland Spiders if you don't).
Zev
Right; I wasn't thinking about any player carryover at all.
ReplyDelete1. I see little value here at all. Creating a bunch of replacement level players won't help at all, in my opinion.
ReplyDelete1a. See above. It's applying a band aid to a major wound. It's a half-hearted effort that won't work.
2. I like this better. At a minimum creating prospects will allow them to work on building a team for three-plus years down the road. Or they could deal them to move quickly.
2a. Creating a ***** prospect is not always easy given that the game users stars as a relative measure and not an absolute one.
3. I put this one forward and I still like it. Maybe combined with a few prospects. I think that, at the end of this season, we could all afford to lose our 21st best major leaguer. My team is stocked, in my opinion, and I could do so without sobbing.
4. A creative solution and one not entirely without merit. But the team had better be ready to deal them quickly for young players to move them forward.
As I see it, the problem isn't poor playing but lack of participation. By not playing the game the player creates an imbalance in the system and we all lose.
I vote for 3 with a dash of 4 and 1, for seasoning.
Nate,
ReplyDeleteSometimes a band-aid has value as well.
I wasn't suggesting simply doing #1 and ignoring the rest. In truth, #1 and #2 together are what I was aiming for. Considering that just about all their players are 1 star, a bunch of 2 star is an improvement.
In short, I want to give them a chance of playing .400 - .500 ball this season *and* hope for the future.
Zev
I was the one who broached the idea of trading franchises to Zev. And, if I were to do so, I was greedy and asked if I could take a few players (you could probably guess whom) and coaches with me.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't completely up for the idea, which is why I haven't mentioned it publicly until now, but it was something I was kicking around.
While we're figuring this out, Zev, you'd better keep the Covington computer from waiving and releasing potentially valuable players. I noticed that they have a couple of middling relief prospects on waivers after the first sim.
ReplyDeleteChange them to closers. The system doesn't value MR much at all but by God change that role to 'closer' and it'll freak out about it.
ReplyDeleteInteresting you should offer that, Michael, I had thought about it, too, as it would be one hell of a challenge. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing it happen and letting you take a few players over. I know that seems sort of self-serving for me so I should abstain from the voting, but it would be an interesting experiment to watch.
Admittedly, I'm not sure I'd want to DO it. But that's because I appear to be about to do so in the OEL whether I volunteer for it or not.
In all honesty, if Michael took the players I would expect him to, I'm not sure that the South Bay franchise would be any better than Covington is now, except for having a lot more money.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect Michael, the Los Angeles farm system leaves something to be desired and your major league squad is driven by four or so superstar players, with the rest being fairly mediocre overall. If you took some of those players, plus got the prospect bonus we're contemplating giving Covington, you might be even better positioned long-term than you are now in LA.
I'd much rather have Zev prop up the team, have a couple of us share management for the rest of the 2011 season (dump aging vets for prospects and get younger and cheaper), and find a new owner in the offseason than have someone switch franchises.
I am willing to be one of the co-managers of the Covington franchise, if people think that would help.
1 - yes, four or five.
ReplyDelete1a - no
2 - yes, not five star though... 3 4 star or 4 3 star.
2a - no
3 - no no no.
4 - I really think this is key. 33% is my vote. I'm not even sure Covington could sign a FA right now for the league minimum... the computer did manage to sign Stollings and Rice (and a boatload of others!) to Minor League contracts, which is good.
I'd be more than glad to help co-own Covington, although as a fellow Zotti league owner maybe I'm not the best candidate.
1. No
ReplyDelete1a. No
2. Five or Six 4* guys at A ball.
2a. No
3. Emphatic No
4. Yes, take off 33%.
I also like the idea of a 2 owner team taking them over for this season, just to get the team back to near-adequacy. I don't think we should give the team to an existing owner...I like the idea of continuity, and if an owner wants a challenge, then let them blow up their existing squad, 1998 Marlins style, and see what happens for them in 2003. That's a challenge, and a perfectly valid way to build a team, IMO. I don't like the idea of swapping entire teams around.