As everyone in the league knows, we've had problems keeping an owner for the Covington franchise. Our new owner seems to have gone AWOL on us as well. He has not returned emails from anyone in the league (myself included) since the league began. I did manage to track him down via AIM once when he expressed an interest in staying with the league, but he hasn't had any league activity since. I think it's safe to say that the team needs a new owner.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the franchise is in such a sorry state. The team has no real chance of being competitive at the major league level for at least three to four seasons -- heck, I think it'll take that long just to get it to the level of the 1962 Mets. At the major league level, they have Russell Powell, Lincoln Rosetti, Ed Scull, Samuel Santos and a bunch of 1 star players. Aside from John Grondin and Christopher Pearsall, there are no prospects to speak of in the system.
So, what do we do? We can't just go looking for another owner because without making significant changes to the team, I fear that we will have the same problem again and again. As a result, I don't want to start recruiting for the team until we have some definite plan for improving the team.
I would like to find a solution that will provide Covington with a way to immediately (and for the future) improve itself while at the same time being fair to the other owners in the league.
I'm going to throw some suggestions out here that I worked out with Nate, as well as one or two that I thought of on my own. However, I am open to any and all suggestions and would love to have everyone's input on this matter. Feel free to offer any suggestion. We can try any suggestion (or combination of suggestions) that we agree on.
Some ideas that came up were as follows:
1. Hold an expansion draft and allow Covington to stock on players from the existing teams. Perhaps allow each team to protect 15-20 players and allow Covington to start drafting with each team pulling back after each selection.
2. Create some average players at the major league level (to allow them to compete at about the .450 - .500 level for this season) and a few decent prospects for the future.
3. Create some good prospects for Covington. To be fair to the other owners, we would give each one a virtual "chip" to be "cashed in" after any season in which they come in last. The "chip" can be redeemed for a newly-created good prospect (call it a "lucky scouting find.")
Those are just some ideas that we had so far. Feel free to propose another idea or to express your pros or cons about the ideas presented.
It's important to the league that this matter be resolved. The league will be much more exciting without a lame duck team like Covington.
Zev
Well, as the newest member of the league, and as someone who is still really learning the ropes when it comes to managing his own team, i'm afraid i don't have much in the way of useful suggestions.
ReplyDeleteBut i agree that this is a problem that could use fixing, and i'll be happy to go along with whatever the consensus is.
I like all of the ideas, and, I'd even suggest refilling Covington's A or AA level team with all 4 * prospects.
ReplyDeleteDoing so will provide the new owner with lots of chips to deal (I know I'd trade an above average major leaguer for a good prospect), or it will give the franchise a kick-ass young team within a season or two.
But, when do we do this? At the start of this new season, or afterwards?
I agree that fixing Covington should be a priority. I also think that help should be extended to owners of any other franchises who have struggled and whose struggles, in part, can be attributed to prior owners.
ReplyDeleteMy only concern is the potential unintended consequences. Creating players and prospects may run the risk of somehow unbalancing the league, the salary structure, etc. I just don't know what the unintended consequences would be, and that makes me nervous.
As to the specific suggestions put forward so far, I would accept some kind of expansion draft. However, I have put a lot of time and effort into building up what I think is the deepest pool of talent, counting major league rosters and minor league systems. (I recognize that Nate in particular may dispute that statement.) I would hope that any expansion draft wouldn't be too punitive, but I'm willing to accept some losses for the good of the league.
Personally, I think idea #2 put forward by Zev may be the best, my concerns about unintended consequences not withstanding. Maybe we could take last year's standings and, for every five games under .500 a team finished, they get a 2.5 star ML player. That would mean that Hickory would get two, Houston four, Denver six, Danville four, and Covington six. That would, I think, do a lot to help competitive balance at the ML level. I would also give Covington about four 4* prospects. That should give them at least a middling minor league system. An ok team, with a decent minor league system, should be capable of being revived.
I don't have a problem with the "lucky scouting find" rule, but I like my expansion on Zev's #2 idea better.
I do think Michael's idea of an entire minor league team of 4* prospects may go a bit far.
Finally, I don't have a problem creating players now, but any expansion draft should not be held until after the current season, to allow team's to plan accordingly. It would, in my opinion, be a bit unfair to spring that on us now, with no forewarning.
Well, my main complaint with Covington isn't that it's poorly run but that it hasn't been run at all. I can live with a player who's playing but hasn't figured things out yet. What I can't abide is a franchise that just sits there and is allowed to decay on 'Human Manager' without a Human running things. I'd much rather have a team set on 'Computer Manager' than one perpetually on idle and unable to move.
ReplyDeleteBut better to have an involved human learning the game and making moves than otherwise. I agree that's in the best interest of the league.
I suggested the expansion draft to Zev last night so I'll stick with that. I figure we can each afford to lose our 21st best major league player (I hadn't considered prospects) and survive. But any of the solutions, if put in place to make the franchise more attractive to a new owner, would work for me.
I do think that franchise can be turned around. I think the major league players Zev defined in his OP would each flip for two prospects and that would set it on its way. But it's going to be a slow process.
I think I like the "load them up with prospects" idea the best...maybe create 10 4* prospects at A-ball and find a new owner? I mean, I know I haven't been the ideal owner, and I'm working my best to get better, but at least my team hasn't been unfairly bad, and things look decent for this coming season.
ReplyDeleteI think that Covington can be saved, and would really be a pretty decent team, if it got a dedicated owner, or even a partially dedicated owner, who could make moves and help it out for the next 3-4 years. I know I've turned teams around in my solo leagues that quickly.
The problem is that 3-4 years of solo league time is totally different than the 2 or so real-time years that it would take for 3-4 SDMB League years to elapse, and that's not a fun wait for a new owner. A bunch of decent prospects, however, would make those years a lot more interesting, and, like Michael suggested, it adds a lot of trade potential, as well.
I think the "expansion" idea is too much of a punishment for existing owners. One of the beauties of simulated sports is that there isn't a limited pool of players, and there's no reason to force an expansion team to take players from existing teams...we can just create brand new ones from scratch. Even in the case of a REAL expansion team, there's no real need for an expansion draft: Just increase the player pool by randomly generating a slightly below-average team. Sure, it's not realistic, but it lets things happen with the least unfair effect on the existing teams.
Well, I guess I'll weigh in with my personal preference now.
ReplyDeleteI happen to like the a combination of the last two ideas I proposed, because it gives an immediate benefit to Covington. They get some basic players now (just so that they can field a team and maybe not end up in last) and some prospects for the future.
In addition, it also has the benefit of having some semblance of fairness, in that all the other owners know that if their teams ends up in last, they will be able to get help (albeit not to the same degree) that Covington got when they were down in the dumps.
That's *my* personal preference, but I'm still willing to entertain any and all ideas.
Zev
I'm not so sure I like the "get out of jail free" card idea. After all, we want to prevent teams from tanking on purpose.
ReplyDeleteI suggested filling the minor league team with great prospects to restore the balance of power. After all, would anyone really complain if I traded (for example!) Ricky Peppers to the new Covington in exchange for two 4 * pitching prospects and a 4 * SS prospect who won't see my majors team for at least two seasons? I'd get what I need (prospects) and Covington gets a bona fide stud major leaguer.
In any attempt to balance the power, some teams are going to lose their power. Since Covington is a Zotti League team, that means River Cities, New York, Walla Walla, Danville, and, of course, Los Angeles.
I'm willing to do my share to help for the good of the league.
I'm not so sure I like the "get out of jail free" card idea. After all, we want to prevent teams from tanking on purpose.
ReplyDeleteWell, I think that one of the major qualifications for going this route is that the owner that has done the tanking will lose his team.
I don't think anyone's going to tank his team on purpose and cripple it for years to come just to get one prospect... no matter how highly rated that prospect is.
ReplyDeleteZev
I would suggest reimbursing Covington at least enough 4-star prospects to cover the number (four, I think?) they lost in the past Rule V draft. That much seems obvious.
ReplyDeleteI then think an expansion draft would be fair. That would allow the new Covington manager to decide whether he or she wants to continue building for the future or acquire some ZL-ready players.
In fact, I would have no problem extending that expansion draft to also include Houston, Danville, and Denver, which all lost more than 100 games last year.
I have two other suggestions:
ReplyDelete1 - roll back and redo the Rule V draft. At the least, put it on computer control if we can't get a new owner, or just make some common sense protections for the team. I mean, cmon, Covington should have been ADDING talent in the rule V draft, not losing a (slightly below average) starting catcher and three 3 star plus prospects.
2 - Redo some of those extensions that the owner signed at the end of last year. Even in our ridiculous market, $7.5 million for a 2.5 star OF (Santos), $6.2 for a 1.0 star SP (Crank, who admittedly isn't a bad player as 1.0 star pitchers go) and $4 million for a replacement level OF (Broman) is nuts. He wouldn't be able to move those contracts in trades, in my opinion.
Powell's contract also is a bit much.
How about cutting the dollar figure of all of those contracts by 33%? It would give the team some salary freedom (to sign a few players as FA) and make some of the above players at least somewhat valuable resources in trades.
I'm definitely not in favor of an expansion draft. Filling the AAA roster may be a start, you can get decent players by doing that. A few additional prospects wouldn't hurt, but undoing the rule V draft would help there too.
Have I mentioned lately how much I dislike the fact that teams can trade draft picks?
Have I mentioned lately how much I dislike the fact that teams can trade draft picks?
ReplyDeleteActually, I don't recall you mentioning it at all...
I would like to shy away from an expansion draft for two reasons:
1. It penalizes current owners who worked hard to put together a roster for the 2011 season. No one wants to see a vital team member disappear in an unplanned expansion draft.
2. For those of you who remember from last time, the expansion draft took *everyone* off the major league rosters and put them in the minors. I'd like to avoid that sort of nightmare again.
Zev
Just to sum things up a bit, we've had some of the following suggestions (with my opinions on them).
ReplyDeleteGiving Covington some newly-created major leaguers of the middling variety. Variations on this idea also propose giving all sub .500 teams varying numbers of players.
I'm not opposed to this idea. By not giving the new owner a .200 level team, they (hopefully) won't lose interest by the time the All-Star game rolls around.
Giving Covington some good prospects. These range from a few to a whole team of four-star prospects.
I think a whole team of prospects is overkill. A few good prospects however (3? 4?) would give them something to look forward to in the future and provide some trade fodder.
Expansion draft of existing major leaguers.
I'm not in favor of this, as I explained in the last post.
Giving Covington some good minor league prospects along with the condition that other teams will receive similar help (albeit to a smaller degree) when they are in the dumps.
I thought this would fly since it preserved some semblance of fairness, but it doesn't seem to be a popular suggestion.
Re-run the Rule V Draft
This may be impossible to do. To do that, I'd also have to roll back the last free-agent period sim.
I try to leave rolling back as an absolute last resort, when nothing else will solve the problem.
Renegotiate some of Covington's contracts
I'm not opposed to this option, as we were ready to void Frank Nunn's contract for a new owner.
That's what we have so far. Keep the suggestions/debate coming.
OK Zev, I understand your point about the difficulty in rolling back... but at least, can we consider reversing the picks that were taken from Covington?
ReplyDeleteI guess someone who did take a player may then have a legitimate complaint that they would have taken someone else...
Just seems a shame to have to create players out of thin air for a franchise that just had four players taken from them for nothing.
I'm on board with the ideas of giving Covington some major league players (although I'd help other teams too because it seems more fair), some good prospects, and lowering the value of some of the recent bad contracts.
ReplyDeleteI also don't have any problem with Zev's "get out of jail free" lucky scouting find card idea.
How about another idea...
ReplyDeleteOne of us takes over the team for a season or two, to get it back towards respectability. We'd have to come up with some controls to prevent collusion, and I'd recommend that an Adams League owner take it over (Mack? You up for this?) to prevent any real conflicts of interest for us Zotti League teams.
Or, we could form a joint ownership group, kind of like how the Expos wallowed those last few years in Montreal, with one Zotti and one Adams owner. It's not ideal, but we all seem very interested in helping the franchise, and we might attract a good owner that way.
As it stands, I don't feel too strongly against any of the suggestions made so far, but I think we need to do something really radical, and it might take more than stocking their minor leagues or having another expansion draft.
The league will be much more exciting without a lame duck team like Covington.
ReplyDeleteI just noticed this particular cheap shot. Ouch, Zev. Ouch.
Seems to me that the least "intrusive" way to go about this is the takeover/joint ownership idea. Not that it's necessarily the best idea, but it does seem like the more "natural" or "real" solution. I'm really not sure.
ReplyDeleteI'd be willing to co-own the team if people thought that was a good idea, but experience in solo leagues has taught me that running two teams in the same league is very difficult. For example, if I have a good idea about a player on another team who might be available in a trade, which team tries to trade for him? I think the divided loyalties makes things difficult.
ReplyDeleteThat would be a good reason for joint ownership, Mack. Possibly one from each side with consensus being required for player movement other than day-to-day roster maintenance.
ReplyDeleteI've wondered how two people can run a league together, but I think you two (Mack and Nate) have shown that it's possible with the OEL.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I suggested a two-owner group. I'd be more than happy to be the co-owner with Mack, or anyone else from the Adams League.