Expansion - Round 2

Topic: Expansion - Round 2 (Read 4267 times) previous topic - next topic

Expansion - Round 2

January 07, 2019, 10:05:48 PM

Nothing has been decided, so don't take this as an "official" announcement at this time.

However, given the overall health of the league (all members returned for the 2019 season) and the fact that we already have 3 qualified owners on a waiting list, we are considering the possibility of expansion next year. This would give us 24 teams, with 6 teams in each division. I would additionally propose adding an additional wild card spot (maybe we follow MLB and have a 1-game "play-in game"?) but that's getting too far ahead of ourselves.

The biggest thing we wanted to convey is that we are trying to be open and honest about this possibility. There are a lot of details to be worked out before then, if it even happens which is a real possibility, but if it happens ideally it would be decided on prior to the summer minor league draft. If so, it may be possible to allow the expansion teams to start drafting minor league players then so as to not have such an impact on our existing minor league rosters. Again, nothing has been decided, but that option is on the table.

The other concern would be playing-time limits. However, even with 24 teams in the league that's still 6 teams shorter than our MLB equivalents. So I propose that there are plenty of AB and innings to go around. What you will see is there will be less "good" AB and innings available however. There's always players to get, it;s just that some of them aren't any good (or worse). The effect will be that teams will look less like an all-star team with more roster space being devoted to less than ideal players than before. Or teams will have to make trade-offs - for example an EX rated SS and CF, who both swing the bat with the wrong end and will stink up the bottom of the order, will get significant playing time vs only being used for a defensive replacement.

Anyway, feel free to respond either on the forum or privately and let us know your thoughts/concerns/excitement

Rod

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #1 – January 08, 2019, 07:04:31 AM

Seeing this, I would say that I'm not surprised, although I think it should be handled the same way as the previous expansion. Trades and draft positions for the Minor League draft shall not be impacted for 2019.

An increase of 4 teams should mean a smaller percentage in the overall impact to existing teams. If the player protection method (and I think it worked well last time) remains the same, there are similar expectations.

I think the usage is a different issue. While we want to compare to MLB, we are still different. We have a hard salary cap, we have limited plate appearances and batters faced, and a limited supply of the players on our 40-man roster to pull from. There isn't a group of minor league players we can bring up to fill our bench, 5th rotation spot or a spot at the very bottom of the bullpen to eat innings.

I do agree that planting the see now, in advance is a good idea.

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #2 – January 08, 2019, 11:53:52 AM

I love it, and trust the CO to come up with what's best. I know Matthew to be a great resource for this as well. I appreciate the heads-up, and will appreciate it even greater if you guys know how expansion will impact the draft and trades BEFORE we start free agency. They are minor issues in terms of strategy and decisions on the length of contract for some players out there, but it would be nice to know some of the details (like if there will indeed be playing time limit changes) ahead of FA.

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #3 – January 08, 2019, 09:16:12 PM

I'm all for it and appreciate the heads up. I do think it would be worthwhile to make that decision ASAP for all the reasons others have mentioned.

Keep up the great work CO team. You hard work is much appreciated and the league is thriving as a result.

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #4 – January 08, 2019, 09:46:44 PM

I'll be honest, I don't know how much I would favor expansion. I'm also a bit of a stick in the mud at times, so I will admit to that too. First, it is a good thing for the league overall that there are people that want to join the league, so we have the opportunity to actually think about expansion.

At the same time though, getting up to 24 teams I think is going to push a lot of things in the league to some breaking point. First, if you think prices of backup catchers is bad now, look forward to 24 teams bidding on backup catchers. As an economist, I believe in p*q = v*m, where p is price and q is quantity. v stands for velocity and m is for the money supply. If we add teams the only thing that initially changes in that equation is m (mo' money, mo' problems). There is no change in q (the supply of players), so the only thing that can change is v (velocity of money, but that isn't likely to change) or p. And it will be p, since there will be more dollars chasing the same players, so prices are going up. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but I certainly think it will disrupt the equilibrium of the league.

As for playing time, again think of the backup catchers.

Looking at last year's stats, I think it might be a challenge for most teams to have functioning rosters of players, at least with the playing time rules that are currently in place. Let's say that a team wants just 20 batters on their 40 man roster, that is a total of 480 batters. Last year, there were 629 players that would be considered batters in MLB. However, 181 had less than 100 plate appearances, so that leaves only 448 with 100 or more plate appearances. Now some of the 181 players could be functional, since they could have 80 plate appearances and could fill in just a bit. While I haven't run the numbers on pitchers, I have a feeling the same pattern would exist there. Again, this might not be a total problem, but it is a constraint that we face as a league.

However, I think these two things (higher prices and the size of the talent pool), will form a huge challenge for the league. Since our pool of players is locked at the end of free agency, there is a real possibility of teams facing a crunch of playing time. And unlike a real major league team that could call up scrubs from the minors (or we could just call that team the Baltimore Orioles), we don't have that luxury. Throw on top of that that every team will go into free agency after expansion down a few extra players from expansion.

I'm sorry, but I'm just skeptical about this. I think keeping things with 20 teams and letting the league find its equilibrium there (since we've only had one season since the last round of expansion and the beginning of arbitration and reduced playing time limits). To some degree, I don't know exactly how this makes the league more enjoyable, since it will lead to more frustration (think minor league draft delays, last minute bids on players, higher salaries for poor players) and more work for everyone (constant playing time adjustments) and more uncertainty. That's just my two cents on the issue.

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #5 – January 09, 2019, 10:59:11 AM

I'm not necessarily against expansion, but I have many of the same concerns Jason raised. As a personal example, in my first season in this 20-GM league, almost 100% of the thought and effort I put into constructing a roster and manager profile for the Robots was expended in an effort to make sure guys did not exceed their usage limits. Players were evaluated and acquired based on how many IPs or ABs they had, not if they were likely to help my team win more games. Deals were made to acquire ABs and IPs, not Ws or RBIs. Even now, I see that the tops of all my wish lists for the upcoming auction are dominated by the high-usage limit guys, not necessarily the best players available. I've already started scheming to figure out what it would take to resign Caleb Joseph and his 265 ABs. What should my bidding strategy be? I mean, Tucker Barnhart is probably out of my reach, so go all-in on Joseph or Chris Ianetta early? What do you guys think?

bob h - Robots

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #6 – January 09, 2019, 12:05:03 PM

Thinking about it more, I also share Bob's concern here. I think one of the big things that a lot of us enjoy about fantasy baseball is building your team with the types of players you want. Some of that building is trying to find gems in the minor leagues and also finding a player that you think will have a solid upcoming season. The last wave of expansion was a bit of a hit to that long range planning, especially given the immediacy of expansion. While this time we would have more warning on the expansion, it still is a disrupter of the long-range plans of teams. Why build a deep minor league system when you might a layer of that deep system wiped away, either through the minor league expansion draft or by the fact that you can't protect all of your promoted players. Expansion might even have a bigger effect on the previous expansion teams, since a lot of them went heavily into building strong minor league systems, so they could compete in a year or two.

I'm actually unsure what the case for expansion is. We aren't profiting off of expansion like real sports do with expansion fees. I guess the sense of pride of beating 23 other teams, instead of 19 teams might be part of it, but we have some really great teams. I really don't think any benefits from expansion outweigh the costs of expansion for the league both in the short and long run.

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #7 – January 09, 2019, 01:47:27 PM

I have to admit, I'm really being swayed quite a bit by Jason's arguments. It would never happen in the realm of politics, but in baseball simulation, it happens!

I think the best question (in addition to all the spot-on concerns about player eligibility) is WHY? Why expand? What benefits do we see, other than the claim that we're an awesome league (which we can and should already claim loud and strong)?

I'm also concerned about the quickness of doing another expansion so close to the last one. I lost Jeter Downs in the last expansion draft (he was #16 on my rankings list), and I'm a little ticked off now that he's been traded to the Dodgers and getting lots of hyped-up media play. But I digress...

While my initial statements remains unedited, I'd like to add the request to move very slowly with the idea. Even if we add a mid-season Free Agent Auction AND slide up the playing time limits back to 120/150, this might be a difficult sell.

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #8 – January 09, 2019, 08:44:42 PM

Quote from: Kyle – on January 09, 2019, 01:47:27 PM

I lost Jeter Downs in the last expansion draft (he was #16 on my rankings list), and I'm a little ticked off now that he's been traded to the Dodgers and getting lots of hyped-up media play. But I digress...

This angst is enough for me to want another expansion

/s

But seriously, these are the types of conversations I hoped to see.

One of the arguments for expansion was to get away from the look and feel of all-star teams. It has been possible for an owner to set a MP with an all-star team, check in 6 months later and be in the play-offs. So the question is can we improve the strategy, the gamesmanship, and overall activity of the league by increasing the competition for players. More importantly, teams that were unable to get a couple star players felt like they had to give up and toss in the towel.

The answer to that question could very likely be: A) No. B) The last expansion achieved that or C) we need another handful of teams to get there.

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #9 – January 09, 2019, 09:34:42 PM

Quote from: dgonser – on January 09, 2019, 08:44:42 PM

One of the arguments for expansion was to get away from the look and feel of all-star teams. It has been possible for an owner to set a MP with an all-star team, check in 6 months later and be in the play-offs. So the question is can we improve the strategy, the gamesmanship, and overall activity of the league by increasing the competition for players. More importantly, teams that were unable to get a couple star players felt like they had to give up and toss in the towel.

To be honest, I thought that this might be the logic behind why some people might be in favor of expansion, but I basically disagree with the argument. I think with 20 teams, it will be hard for a team to just set a profile and then let it autopilot for the entire season. But another question there is why is that a problem. If a team through good planning, skilled drafting, digging hidden gems in free agency, careful trading, puts themselves into a position that they can have a regular lineup, rotation and bullpen that is ready to go, then great for them. We should be applauding teams that have that skill, and that's one of the rewards for them. I'd actually though say that some of the better teams do it through getting platoon matchups or knowing that a player might not give them 100% of a season, so they'll need to find a reserve to make it through the season with.

However, how many teams can have that perfect swirl of events happen to place them in that position? And how long can they maintain that? It doesn't happen often and it is harder to maintain than we think. For example, I'm in great shape with my everyday lineup, but I only have about $10 million right now to stabilize the back of my rotation and to build a bullpen. Next season, I'll have a lot players still coming back, but a bigger bill is due on Mookie Betts and I'll see the first year of arbitration with Lindor. So, I think even though it might seem like setting an MP for the season and letting it go is somehow devoid of strategy is just not true. Strategy comes in many different forms, but the biggest in a league like this is the players you have, and how you acquire them, and which ones you acquire.

I think last year with expansion, the dialing back on the playing time, a new system of arbitration and from the previous season with the changes to the minor league draft eligibility, a lot has been done to try to limit the autopiloting of a team. I also think those moves have increased the strategy of the league and most likely the activity level of the league. I just think it is wiser to let the league find a new equilibrium before throwing another wrench into things.

As for overall activity, in any league, you'll have various degrees there. I like the team building aspect, so I'm in for the minor league draft and really studying free agency. Other teams love the wheeling and dealing of trading. But I think trying to make changes in the rule structure just to get more activity will tend to backfire. I keep coming back to the thought that I think we are trying to make this more complex, just so that it is more complex, and that's not a good reason. If we wanted to do that, we could just get a game of The Cones of Dunshire going and be done with it.

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #10 – January 09, 2019, 09:36:35 PM

Quote from: Kyle – on January 09, 2019, 01:47:27 PM

I have to admit, I'm really being swayed quite a bit by Jason's arguments. It would never happen in the realm of politics, but in baseball simulation, it happens!

I'm still holding out hope in that other realm.

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #11 – January 10, 2019, 06:35:22 AM

Quote from: profjason – on January 09, 2019, 09:34:42 PM

I think last year with expansion, the dialing back on the playing time, a new system of arbitration and from the previous season with the changes to the minor league draft eligibility, a lot has been done to try to limit the autopiloting of a team. I also think those moves have increased the strategy of the league and most likely the activity level of the league. I just think it is wiser to let the league find a new equilibrium before throwing another wrench into things.

This is a great snippet of the response from Jason. 16 teams was probably too few, we've only been at 20 for one full season. If there is such a need to have additional ownership and this would require 16 more owners, create another league. Let's not mess this one up.

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #12 – January 10, 2019, 08:40:19 PM

Quote from: profjason – on January 09, 2019, 09:36:35 PM

I'm still holding out hope in that other realm.

Weird - me too!!!

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #13 – January 11, 2019, 06:58:30 AM

Quote from: profjason – on January 09, 2019, 09:34:42 PM

To be honest, I thought that this might be the logic behind why some people might be in favor of expansion, but I basically disagree with the argument. I think with 20 teams, it will be hard for a team to just set a profile and then let it autopilot for the entire season. But another question there is why is that a problem. If a team through good planning, skilled drafting, digging hidden gems in free agency, careful trading, puts themselves into a position that they can have a regular lineup, rotation and bullpen that is ready to go, then great for them. We should be applauding teams that have that skill, and that's one of the rewards for them. I'd actually though say that some of the better teams do it through getting platoon matchups or knowing that a player might not give them 100% of a season, so they'll need to find a reserve to make it through the season with.

I think this is the key to the expansion question. We have a great group of owners. But the more demanding the league becomes, the more commitment it will require of our owners. Many leagues struggle with owner involvement and I'd like to believe our group is the exception to the rule. But is part of our success based on the ability to set an MP and forget about it? It's a difficult act to find the right balance between reality and ease of management. This league is my #1 league and I'd sacrifice other leagues to make this one work. But it will take 20 (or 24) dedicated owners to demand more from each of us.

Re: Expansion - Round 2

Reply #14 – January 11, 2019, 10:15:11 AM

Quote from: scubadan – on January 11, 2019, 06:58:30 AM

I think this is the key to the expansion question. We have a great group of owners. But the more demanding the league becomes, the more commitment it will require of our owners. Many leagues struggle with owner involvement and I'd like to believe our group is the exception to the rule. But is part of our success based on the ability to set an MP and forget about it? It's a difficult act to find the right balance between reality and ease of management. This league is my #1 league and I'd sacrifice other leagues to make this one work. But it will take 20 (or 24) dedicated owners to demand more from each of us.

This is a good point by Dan. I think throwing more complexity might make some owners struggle more with their commitment to the league. While it is great we have some people interested in joining the league, I think it is better to keep them waiting to replace any GMs that might leave the league for whatever reason. It's extremely rare for a league to keep the same roster of GMs for a long period of time, so there will be openings in the league for these new GMs at some point.