Our keeper league is currently 10 managers, I know ATLEAST people who would be very active and know what they are doing that would play. I am wondering if there would be a benefit to having 12 managers instead of 10, heres what i see:

PRO:
More teams to trade with; Less good players on Free Agents
Now 6 teams miss the playoffs (half), instead of just 4 out of 10 missing the playoffs which makes it more competitive
More Personalities/Posts, etc.

CON:
Have to adjust things to make room for them
Might not be a unanimous approval of current managers for expansion

Here's my thought:

We all keep 8 right now, so everyone picks their 8. Then the two new teams take turns picking a player off other teams rosters (cannot pick more than 2 guys off any given team), until they have their 8.

You would think they wouldnt have as good players to choose from, but being an expansion team you should have some disadvanatge (this is just a free league for fun), and when you see some of the lesser rosters, they dont even have 8 great keepers. I have to be fair to the last place teams.

The reason I say no more than 2 guys off any one team, is some top teams have 10-12 good keepers, while bottom ones really only have 6. So it Would be easy for an expansion team to assemble a set of 8 keepers better than existing teams, and I dont want this to happen dramatically.

Example:

Team A Extra Guys (not kept): Jeff Francouer, Josh Johnson, AJ Burnett, Rich Harden

Team B Extra Guys (not kept): Rickie Weeks, Aramis Ramirez, Dontrelle Willis, Chris Young, Curt Schilling

Meanwhile, one of the bad teams best 5 keepers are:

Richie Sexson, Juan Pierre, Hideki Matsui, Gary Sheffield, Brett Myers (we keep 8)

So thats why I think no more than 2 off any given team.

If you want the 2 "expansion" teams to be competitive from the beginning, then you might want to lower the number of players that the existing teams can keep. If there is 80 players already taken before the new teams get to pick a player, then the new teams will struggle for the first few years.

I am currently in a very similar situation as you. A keeper league, 10 teams, we keep 10, and a few of us have discussed trying to draft a proposal that would expand the league to 12.

Just some quick thoughts on your situation: It's really not fair to the expansion teams for them to have to pick out of the remaining players on each team. Sure, there might be some decent names out there, but they will likely not have a 1-6 round pick between them.

If you can find two teams that are willing to be the doormat for the forseeable future, then good luck, but I don't see how this incresases parity in the league I think it just makes two more bad teams.

Although we are far from a proposal in my league, we've come to the conclusion that each team is going to lose very important keepers. Obviously, the top teams will lose the most, but that's supposed to be the point, anyway.

I'm not sure it will succeed in my league, or yours. But it's worth a shot. If you have any other questions or suggestions for me, do not hesitate to ask or contact me.

raiders_umpire wrote:If you want the 2 "expansion" teams to be competitive from the beginning, then you might want to lower the number of players that the existing teams can keep. If there is 80 players already taken before the new teams get to pick a player, then the new teams will struggle for the first few years.

so what.......in real life expansion teams always struggle. Its called a challenge. I would gladly meet the challenge head on and would bask in the glory when my team dominates after 2 yrs. I think you have a good process going, its interesting. Just make sure the owners who join know that it might be hard the first few years so that they dont lose interest...

Agreed. I have been in an expansion league. Teams 11-12 are doormats and it will be hard to keep them interested. It really is such a fundamental change that -- and I know this sounds crazy -- you may need to redraft. Or just keep the number of keepers to 3 per team for 2 years a year letting the newboys keep 6. I like your thought process, but if you really want to get them off an running you'll need something more agressive. Been there!

See my thing is let me just put some names out there that wont be kept:

Rickie Weeks, Aramis Ramirez, Curt Schilling, Dontrelle Willis, John Smoltz, Billy Wagner, Chris Young, Curt Schilling, Randy Johnson, Jimmy Rollins, Jeff Francouer, Josh Johnson, AJ Burnett, Rich Harden, JJ Putz, Hank Blalock, Jason Giambi, Rafael Furcal, Dan Uggla, Morgan Ensberg, Brad Penny, Roger Clemens, Aaron Harang, Chipper Jones, Jorge Cantu, Magglio Ordonez, Jim Thome, Pat Burrell, Bobby Jenks, ben Sheets, Jason Isringhausen, Chris Capuano

Considerng only 16 players will be taken by expansion teams:

they can form a pretty solid 8 out of those choices (32) guys

not to mention guys like Stephen Drew, Delmon Young, BJ Upton, Matt Kemp, Lastings Milledge, Jeremy Hermida....that no one plans on keeping who could be huge studs.

I honestly think my approach may work and am considering trying it, if I do. I will let you all know what happens. Still wouldnt mind more advice though..

Despite the fact that considerable talent is still available, it's still scraps compared to the studs you all will have on your teams.

Maybe you can protect 5 keepers, then each expansion team gets to select one player from 8 of the teams. The top teams get slightly weaker, and the already weak teams likely won't be affected. It will make for a more balanced team in the long run, if that's what you want.

raiders_umpire wrote:If you want the 2 "expansion" teams to be competitive from the beginning, then you might want to lower the number of players that the existing teams can keep. If there is 80 players already taken before the new teams get to pick a player, then the new teams will struggle for the first few years.

so what.......in real life expansion teams always struggle. Its called a challenge. I would gladly meet the challenge head on and would bask in the glory when my team dominates after 2 yrs. I think you have a good process going, its interesting. Just make sure the owners who join know that it might be hard the first few years so that they dont lose interest...

No one will want to join a league if they know they pretty much can't win!! I have a hard enough time finding people to do a baseball league period, let alone the fact that they won't be able to compete right away.

oh, i'm sure it's possible. you just have to think of a way to do it fairly. but i don't think your current idea is fair (no offense). the way you would have to do it is to allow the expansion teams to, "draft" off of the current teams.

so the way i would approach it is think of it as a snake draft.

1) every current team announces one protected player (this is essentially round one of their draft). 2) each of the expansion teams are allowed two picks, taking turns, but only one off of any given team. 3) then every existing team is allowed to protect two remaining players (this would essentially be the second and third rounds of drafting). 4) the expansion teams are allowed to each select two more players, but aren't allowed to pick anyone selected from any of the teams they select from in this step or in step 2. (at this point, each new team has four players and have picked one player from 8 of the 10 existing teams). 5) every existing team announces the protection of two more players. 6) the expansion teams must first select one player from each of the two squads that have not been picked off of yet and then can select a player off of any team, provided they're not the same team. (at this point, each new team has six players and have picked one player from eight teams and two players from two teams). 7) each existing team announces the protection of two more players. 8) the expansion teams are allowed to select two players from any of the 8 teams who have only lost one so far.

this results in the expansion teams now have 8 players, six existing teams have 8 players, and four existing teams have nine players. i would then hold a supplementary draft, round 0 essentially, giving first pick to the expansion team who picked second, second pick to the expansion team who picked first, and then picks to each of the six teams who lost 2 players, in order of worst finish this season.

then conduct the draft as you would normally, just giving the expansion teams first pick.

the merits of this system is that it mimics a redraft while still letting people keep players. it just puts the expansion teams at the end of the snake. and strong teams still have an advantage because once they've been picked off, they're safe again until they've protected 5 of their top 6 players. so it's not really like a redraft because if the top team has 6 players in the top 30, they still have five of them instead of, in a normal draft, only 2 or 3.

and if you make it too favored to existing teams, you'll probably have a problem finding new owners and even if you do, they'll be deeply unsatisfied with starting significantly behind everyone else and will just never have a chance to really catch up with 10 keepers.

take it or leave it. but i think this would be reasonably fair to all parties involved and even if you don't use this system, to answer your first question, yes, it would be possible to add teams. the devil is only, as they say, in the details.

I would still stand by this or a similar system. The question is not if it is possible for a new owner to eventually rise to being competitive. The question is if anyone would want to go through 2 or 3 years to get to an equivalent spot of people already there.

Put in different terms, do you want to play 1-on-1 basketball against me, game to 10, where I start with 5 points? Sure, if you're much better than me, you could win, but you're much happier about it and feel much better about it if we both start at zero. And, quite frankly, are likely to go find a game against someone who would give you a fair starting point if it's available to you.