While baseball is still on our minds, if you think of anything that needs to be addressed, post here.

A few comments on this past campaign's changes:

I thought the playoff pick-ups worked well. While I didn't have any left for my playoff games, I think the way we addressed it (non-keepers, comes out of existing FA budget) was perfect.

Thanks to Todd for loading rosters into a google doc. It was very easy to update trades and waiver acquisitions, and good thing will the unprecedented number of trades (~ 40). I think having current and readily available roster information may have even contributed to the trade activity.

Nothing about our league should change next year. In fact, we should just reuse 2011 rosters and stats next year. Why mess with a good thing?

After reviewing the 2011 discussions there is only one thing I find that will come up again: League expansion. I plan on having yet another vote to go to 16 teams and will continue to do so, year after year, until I get what I want! (it's not necessarily relevant but there is a deepening waitlist)

New proposal: A one term limit on champions. If a previous owner has won, they are not allowed to win again. This rule will stay in place until I have won a championship. I suspect Todd, Matt, and George will vote against this but they do not constitute a big enough faction to block the vote.

If you want to win a championship, best not have expansion...

Tempting as it is to say yes to expansion to give my team a jolt of cash for my keepers (in a relative sense), I'm still going to vote no. Not only do I think our league works fantastically as-is, and is better off without the disruption to our keeper salaries, but I also don't want to have to expose players to an expansion draft. Not that my team would be particularly worse off then anyone else in such a scenario (I imagine Ryan would go into apoplexy, though), but I just don't think it's fair to any of us to have that kind of disruption to our long-term plans (well, for those of us who have them anyway ).

I will also note that I haven't really heard any compelling arguments in favor of expansion, certainly nothing that would offset the general disruption and unfairness. The only argument I can think of is just a desire for the league to be deeper, but it seems plenty deep as is.

I also think a deeper league would introduce greater risk of dynasties (arguably we already have some of that currently), because the more knowledgeable owners with more time available to them would be able to take more advantage of their better knowledge. While that would arguably be more fair, I think it would be less fun (kind of like the roto/H2H debate). Speaking as someone who does invest a lot of time into the league, I think ours is deep enough that someone who does want to put in a lot of effort can do so, and finds it enjoyable. I don't think we need to expand in order to capture that end of things.

I am not advocating an expansion draft. New teams start from scratch.

Two arguments for expansion:
1) I would actually welcome more depth. Our tenth season is coming up (gasp!) and every year I find my self getting pulled ever deeper into the game. This would potentially be beneficial to those who put more time in, but not necessarily. You still have to play for the now. Look at Ryan (sorry for throwing you under the bus here, pal), who tends to value future prospects over current talent.

2) Ownership is incredibly stable, denying the opportunity for other baseball fans to play. Let's bring in some new blood (Ozy) and an ex-owner who will vehemently oppose 90% of the trades (Steve)!

As for dynasties, we already have them. There are about six teams that consistently make the playoffs. Would more owners re-enforce that? Perhaps it might subdue it?

Allowing others to play isn't compelling to me at all. That never results in an appropriate league size, just an ever-growing one. There will always be people on the outside looking in. We should focus on finding the right size for our league. And there's nothing stopping a group of interested potential owners from starting a new league with the same rules.

I think there's no question that a deeper league further favors the knowledgeable. The more thinly talent is spread, the more you need to know in order to compliment the few starts on your roster. I'm not talking about prospect mining, just about the depth of knowledge of MLB rosters in general, and the ability to do research on what you don't already know. I think the fact that you think there are already dynasties goes a long way toward demonstrating this. In an 8 or 10 team league, it would be far easier to put together a solid roster and give yourself a shot at the playoffs (even assuming the number of spots was adjusted downward proportionally). General fantasy wisdom is that while you can lose a league at the top of the draft, you can't win it, because everyone knows enough to pick good players in the early rounds. We don't have a draft, but the lesson is that the shallower the league, the more evenly distributed talent will tend to be.

I guess the key question with this is, what proportion of the league thinks the league isn't deep enough to provide sufficient fun or challenge? I certainly don't think that's the case for me, but maybe there are a lot of owners who do feel that way. If that's the case, it might override considerations of dynasties or whatever.

Regarding dynasties, rather then just making assertions, let's go to the stats Franchises listed in the order they joined the league:

T-1. Turtle Soup: playoffs in 7/9 years (vast majority of playoffs between #4-5)
T-1. Eastside Bombers: 7/9 (finished #7 the other two, all playoffs between #1-3)
T-1. Junko Thunder/Lincoln Lumberjacks: 8/9 years (plus a #7)
T-4. Otto's vall Bangers: 5/7 (most #1 finishes in league history w/ 2)
T-4. Red Capes/Yankee Quippers/Broken Ladder Belly Itchers: 0/7 (2 #14s, 2 #7s)
T-6. Xenophon's Ten Thousand: 5/6 (all playoffs between #3-5)
T-6. Maynard SilverSmiths/Auburn SilverSmiths/Auburn E-Claires: 4/6 (also had a #14)
T-8. Texas Presidents/Texas Teabaggers: 0/5 (all between #8-10)
T-8. Sweet Success/Norwood Success/Ugly Ducklings: 0/5 (3 #13s, 1 #7 [lost h2h tiebreaker for #6])
T-10. The King's Men: 2/4 (all between #5-9)
T-10. Pedro's midgets/Reigning Champs/Apple Sauce: 1/4 (3 11s & 12s)
T-12. Westcoast Knucklebusters: 1/3
T-12. Columbia Longgui: 0/3 (all between #10-14)
14. Walla Walla Wallaby: 2/2

Obviously there's a pretty strong disparity between the early and recent teams with regard to sample size, so it's hard to rank, e.g., the Wallaby's success against my own. My inclination is to give more weight to volume, so I'd rank the teams thusly:

1. Bombers
2. Lumberjacks
3. Soup
4. 10K
5. vall Bangers
6. E-Claires
7. Wallaby
8. King's Men
9. Knucklebusters
10. Sauce
11. Longgui
12. Teabaggers
13. Ducklings
14. Belly Itchers

There's a clear drop-off after the E-Claires, and then again after the King's Men. Given that the Wallaby have only been around for two years, I'd say you pretty much nailed it in saying 6 teams, Mike, though if they continue to perform as they have so far, they'll move up and it'll be 7 teams.

The Bombers and Lumberjacks performance is absolutely incredible. Neither has finished below 7th. I give the edge to the Bombers, in spite of 1 less playoff appearance, because in the years they've made the playoffs, they've never been lower then 3rd, which means they haven't just been making the playoffs, they've been dominating, whereas the Lumberjacks have had several years as lower seeds, but both teams have unquestionably been dynasties.

It's also interesting to note that there's a strong correlation between years in the league and success, with the Wallaby and the Belly Itchers being the only significant exceptions.

Poor Brad (#1) has actually played eight years. He was the Lost Shaker's of Salt in 2004.

I agree that having a waitlist should not be a compelling reason to add more teams. On the other hand, it's a little bit of hyperbole to suggest that adding more teams would lead to a slippery slope of constant expansion.

New blood in the league can be a good thing. Look at what Ryan did for the league; if it weren't for him I don't think we'd be half as dynamic in terms of trade activity. While his own trades are significant, he also puts increased pressure on other teams to do the same, or at least spurs interest in making trades (see, I tear you down then build you back up). Bauska comes in and makes his presence felt immediately by fielding really good teams. Look at yourself - probably the most influential an time-invested owner in the league. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of the present owners though I am occasionally dismayed by the lack of attention by losing teams at the end of the season. In year's past, there has always been some turnover as players burn out or lose interest, paving the way for new owners. Since nobody seems to want to leave (and can you blame them?), perhaps it's time to add some new owners in a more direct fashion. Interestingly, since it would be more difficult to succeed in a larger league, turnover may go back up (halting any supposed pressure for further expansion). Or not... Brad #1 seems pretty satisfied with his lot in fantasy life.

I also like change

As to the dynasty issue, you'd have to ask why we have dynasties. I have a hard time believing it's based on depth of knowledge. My guess is that it's more related to game strategy and surviving the summer doldrums, making the necessary tweaks when necessary. Truth is, I don't think my depth of knowledge is all that great but I can say that I'm always trying to make my team better. One reason I get in the playoffs with low seeds is because it pains me to give up and conduct a fire sale.

I wasn't trying to say we would actually be on a slippery slope to constant expansion, just explain why I think the argument isn't compelling, which you've admitted

It's not just knowledge, it's also time investment, that contributes toward dynasties. Perhaps in your case it's primarily time investment, I couldn't say. I'd consider strategy a subset of knowledge. But I do think that, say, even though those of us who typically finish near the top will be less likely to do so with 2 more teams in the league, we won't feel those effects as sharply as the teams at the bottom, and the overall rich/poor discrepancy will increase. In a way that would actually be more fair, and if enough people are okay with that, we should do it, but I suspect it will make the league less fun for a good number of owners.

There's something to the idea that new blood can help a league that has some less invested owners, but that doesn't really seem to be an issue for us. And while it's obviously possible that any new owner would have something valuable to bring to the league's dynamics, the opposite is just as true as well. I think that goes back to the argument regarding the wait list- there's always the potential to add more quality owners, but the key is to find the right size and work within that framework, not to add people just to add people. If we think our league ought to have 16 teams, then we should aim to find 16 owners, and only settle for fewer if we think we just can't find 16 quality owners. But if our league functions best with 14, then we ought to stick with that even if we leave Bill Murray and Gandhi on the outside looking in.

Granted, it's very hard to lay out a lot of specific, meaningful differences in league dynamics between having 14 and 16 teams; mostly it's a question of status quo vs. not and a bit smaller vs. a bit bigger. And I am privileging the status quo somewhat in saying that the burden of proof lies on those in favor of expansion to lay out a case for why a 16 team league is a superior setup. But given that our league works so well right now, I think privileging the status quo is reasonable.

I hope some of our other league mates weigh in on this, I do think we'd benefit from some additional perspectives. Heck, maybe some of those wait-listed should try to convince me I'm wrong. Good luck...

You know the real reason I wish to expand? To provide you with greater statistical challenges!

When others decide to chime in - oh, say in January or February, we'll have a better sense of where the league is on this. Given last year's vote (8-5 w/ one abstention), I think it's reasonable to assume it's at least worth voting on.

Next proposal: 10th Year Extravaganza In-Person Auction to be held in...



(wait for it...)



(wait for it...)



(wait for it...)



Wichita Kansas!

By the way, the status quo is inherently priveleged by virtue of the 3/5 voting requirement.

Witchita Kansas?

And I meant I was privileging rhetorically, not procedurally.

Sharur wrote:Witchita Kansas?

I must've been out of my head when I wrote that.

While I think a bunch of us in person would be tremendously fun, I realize it's probably not feasible. Tony and I talked about a weekend in Atlantic City for the RFL auction (he's been coming to my house since the 1st season) - we just have to convince our wives that it's a good idea .

Have you ever considered Washington Wine country?

Do I have to wear an ascot and loafers? Must I watch my language? Can you drink wine out of a funnel or play wine pong?

Not at all! We accept all kinds of wine "heathens"

No really, It is nice here, and we are 4 hour drive to Safeco field! A beautiful stadium for sure.