1969 CKL Expansion

[leecemark]

--The Classic Keeper League will be expanding for our 1969 season, somewhat over a year from now in real time. We have a concensus on adding 4 teams at that time, expanding from 12 to 16 teams (while MLB was expanding from 20-24).
--Tenatively we are planning on going with a 2 league, 4 division format. This topic is still open for discussion though. If we go with this plan the second place team from each of our current divisions would move to the new division and an expansion team would be added to each.
--The number of playoffs teams will also be expanding. Our options here are doubling the number of playoff teams (to 8) with two wild cards from each league or increasing ti only to 6 teams and giving the team in each league with the best record a first round bye. If we go with the bye option we would also need to settle on a tie breaker for the bye (head to head record, run margin, 1 game playoff, etc).
--The other major issue is how many players will we be allowed to protect/make available for the expansion teams. Several ideas have been put forward; protect 20, protect 15 but be able to pull back a player for every one drafted, or expose 10 players under contract for 1969 from each team. This is probably the most important thing to settle as this number/format is going to affect the current owners rsoter building plans over the next several seasons.
--All owners are encouraged to comment on the above ideas and raise any additional issues you think need to be ironed out. I would like to have our expansion plans settled by the end of this offseason.

[catcher24]

Mark - I have posted several comments in the off season thread, but have copied them here to make it easier for current and potential owners to find them. My suggestions (not necessarily my personal preferences, but simply food for thought):
Format: One league, two eight team divisions. Two expansion teams added to each division, other teams chosen by random draw from the current 12 teams.
Playoffs: Six teams - two division winners and four teams with next best records. Two division winners get a bye in first round, wild cards play - best record vs worst, with 2nd/3rd playing each other; 3 out of 5 series. Round two: division winners vs remaining wild cards, highest division winner vs lowest winning percentage wild card remaining; 4 out of 7 series. Championship series, 4 out of 7. Ties for bye settled by best run differential.
Protecting players: I would suggest this draft method: each team can protect 15 players for the first three rounds, but no team can lose more than one player. That way, each team will lose one player (3 rounds times four teams = 12 players). Each team can pull back five more players, then three more rounds of drafting, with each team again losing only one player. Finally, each team pulls back five more players (25 protected at this point), and the draft finishes. No team can lose more than three more players for the remainder of the draft. This would leave each expansion team with nine players by the time current teams could protect 25 players, then with 18 players by the end of the draft. Basically each current team would lose 6 players. This would expose some better players from each team in the first six rounds, and I think would help mitigate the fact there are no teams to break up this time around. It would also probably help make the expansion teams competitive sooner. The expansion teams would then have to finish filling their rosters via the rookie draft and free agent auctions. Order of draft set by random draw, with the draft proceeding in snake fashion (1,2,3,4,4,3,2,1,etc).
Rookie draft - 1969: The expansion teams should get the first four picks in the 1969 rookie draft. Both this and the expansion draft order could be set by random draw, with the teams drafting rookies in reverse order of the expansion draft draw (that is, team which drafted first in the expansion draft goes fourth in the rookie draft).

I strongly encourage everyone to post your thoughts/preferences on these issues. This will likely be the last expansion for a long, long time and will affect everyone for many seasons to come. Help us come up with the best plan possible!

[leecemark]

Mark - I have posted several comments in the off season thread, but have copied them here to make it easier for current and potential owners to find them. My suggestions (not necessarily my personal preferences, but simply food for thought):
Format: One league, two eight team divisions. Two expansion teams added to each division, other teams chosen by random draw from the current 12 teams.

--I wouldn't like to see us reduce the number of divisions. The division title is something to play for, at least for me, more so than hoping to come in 3rd in the division and claim that last playoff spot. 4 mini-pennant races would definately be my preference.

Playoffs: Six teams - two division winners and four teams with next best records. Two division winners get a bye in first round, wild cards play - best record vs worst, with 2nd/3rd playing each other; 3 out of 5 series. Round two: division winners vs remaining wild cards, highest division winner vs lowest winning percentage wild card remaining; 4 out of 7 series. Championship series, 4 out of 7. Ties for bye settled by best run differential.

--Six teams and a bye is also my preference. The playoffs are already luck driven enough. The owner that puts the best team together should have some advantage and not have to risk the 4th best team in his league getting lucky and knocking him off in a short series.

Protecting players: I would suggest this draft method: each team can protect 15 players for the first three rounds, but no team can lose more than one player. That way, each team will lose one player (3 rounds times four teams = 12 players). Each team can pull back five more players, then three more rounds of drafting, with each team again losing only one player. Finally, each team pulls back five more players (25 protected at this point), and the draft finishes. No team can lose more than three more players for the remainder of the draft. This would leave each expansion team with nine players by the time current teams could protect 25 players, then with 18 players by the end of the draft. Basically each current team would lose 6 players. This would expose some better players from each team in the first six rounds, and I think would help mitigate the fact there are no teams to break up this time around. It would also probably help make the expansion teams competitive sooner. The expansion teams would then have to finish filling their rosters via the rookie draft and free agent auctions. Order of draft set by random draw, with the draft proceeding in snake fashion (1,2,3,4,4,3,2,1,etc).

--I would like to see the expansion teams end up with more than 18 players thru the draft. Expecting the new owner to come up with over half their roster via other means seems too much to me. Whatever means we use to get there I'd like to see a pool of at least 100 players for them to draft from, getting them to 25. I do like the idea of smaller protected rosters to start to give them at least a few fairly good core players though.


Rookie draft - 1969: The expansion teams should get the first four picks in the 1969 rookie draft. Both this and the expansion draft order could be set by random draw, with the teams drafting rookies in reverse order of the expansion draft draw (that is, team which drafted first in the expansion draft goes fourth in the rookie draft).

--This idea I expect will be the way we go for the rookie draft. They should have the first 4 picks and they should be in reverse order of the expansion draft.



I strongly encourage everyone to post your thoughts/preferences on these issues. This will likely be the last expansion for a long, long time and will affect everyone for many seasons to come. Help us come up with the best plan possible!

--Agree 100% with this. We want everybody to participate in these decisions. This league belongs to all of us and I'm sure everyone has a good idea or two to contribute.

[catcher24]

--I wouldn't like to see us reduce the number of divisions. The division title is something to play for, at least for me, more so than hoping to come in 3rd in the division and claim that last playoff spot. 4 mini-pennant races would definately be my preference.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, Mark. I was just suggesting another option. I'd prefer four divisions in one league, but since that won't work the only other viable options are yours (two leagues, two four team divisions each) and the one above.

--Six teams and a bye is also my preference. The playoffs are already luck driven enough. The owner that puts the best team together should have some advantage and not have to risk the 4th best team in his league getting lucky and knocking him off in a short series.

I still agree with this also. The best team in each league in a two league setup, or the best two teams in a one league setup should get the bye.

--I would like to see the expansion teams end up with more than 18 players thru the draft. Expecting the new owner to come up with over half their roster via other means seems too much to me. Whatever means we use to get there I'd like to see a pool of at least 100 players for them to draft from, getting them to 25. I do like the idea of smaller protected rosters to start to give them at least a few fairly good core players though.

When you put it this way, I agree. They should get 25 to 30 players each via the draft, then fill in through rookie draft and free agents. Something you mentioned at the beginning of the thread might work. Start with each team protecting 15 (or 16, 17, 20 - whatever) players. Every time a team loses a player, they can pull protect one more player. No team can lose more than 9 players. If each team loses nine players, the expansion teams have taken a total of 108 players, or 27 each. Then they can fill in from the rookie draft and free agents. They should get some decent players in the first few rounds for sure, and having top pick in the rookie draft will help a bit. And as with the last expansion, they'll have more $$$ to spend in the free agent draft, and with the way free agency will be working then, all of the rookies from 1963 will become free agents in 1969, so there should be some decent bodies available.

And we agree on the rookie draft in 1969. A great year for catchers, with Carlton Fisk (can you say franchise player?), Thurman Munson and Gene Tenace all coming aboard.

[leecemark]

--A bit of a sidetrack here, but I think I might take Munson ahead of Fisk as a franchise player. Obviously you get alot more years (and his best ones are better) out of Fisk, but you don't get any cheap ones. He would already be a 12M dollar man by the first year he played for you and you'd be paying that for several injury years mixed in. Munson takes over as an everyday catcher right away and is good to very good every year right up until the end. Tenace could be an interesting choice too. His real teams didn't trust him to catch everyday most seasons, but he was playing alot and would be able to catch regularly to his CKL owner. Most years he out hits at least one of the other two and sometimes both. I'll probably be in need of a catcher then, but between the expansion teams and hoping I'm not in the basement I doubt I'll have to worry about deciding between these guys (or even getting one of them).

[catcher24]

Good points. And with Munson, you don't have any later year decline, for an unfortunate reason.

Incidentally, Mark, one thing of importance that neither of us has addressed yet is salary of the expansion players. Since there are no players leaving broken up teams, I presume that anyone taken by an expansion team will come in at their current salary and contract, but perhaps you have another idea on that. If that is the case, the new teams won't have quite the extra money for free agents that our first three expansion teams did.

[leecemark]

--No, I think we pretty much have to let the expansion teams have the players at the salaries and status they were at for their original team. Unless some really bad contracts get dumped (and the new guys take them) they should have quite a bit of money to spend.

[catcher24]

As for structure of the draft, Mark and I have kicked around a couple more ideas. At this point, I'd suggest this: Each team protects 16 players. Every time a team loses a player, that team may pull back two more players, until they have 26 players protected (six players lost), at which point no more players may be protected. No team may lose more than nine players. Assuming each existing team loses the maximum of nine players, that's 108 players taken, or 27 to each expansion team. With pre-expansion draft trading (for draft picks), with the rookie draft, and with the class of 1963 players all becoming free agents after 1968, this should provide a pretty deep pool of talent and make the expansion teams somewhat competitive right away and give them something to build on. 28 players available from the class of 63 will continue until at least 1974, with many more playing until 1973, so this gives about 40 more players available, including Dick Allen, Tommy John, Ron Hunt, Rico Petrocelli, Rusty Staub, Jimmy Wynn.

Other thoughts are appreciated and welcomed.

[baseballPAP]

I think something along the lines of protecting 10 players would be better. With the obvious loss of all '63 draftees, plus free agents, teams will be looking at having about 20-24 players POSSIBLY worth keeping. Allowing them to keep nearly everyone ends up with expansion teams stocked with below average talent across the board...and probably having trouble meeting usage rules. In my own past experience, many owners are not willing to stick it out from a starting point that low.

My proposal(really not THAT much different) is that Teams protect 10 players, then pull back 3 after one is taken, 3 after the second, and 2 for the 3rd, 4th and 5th players are taken. That ends with nearly the same result, just gives the expansion teams coming in a shot at the middle of the pack players instead of the back of the pack guys.

[catcher24]

For the 1964 expansion each team protected 25 players. We DIDN'T have the large free agent class that will appear on the scene in 1969 (and every year thereafter) due to a whole class of contracts expiring; all we had were the premium free agents (total of nine players, not all that great) and the guys no one wanted the year before. And we also had a smaller rookie class (130 in 1964; 183 in 1969). The only advantage then was the breaking up of the "doormat teams", but in my mind that only produced a pool of maybe 15 to 20 true every day players, and perhaps a half dozen real stars (Callison, Bunning, Short, Howard - who am I missing?). So basically, aside from a few stars on the doormats and a couple of premium free agents, the pool was worse (with each team protecting 25) than it would be under my proposal. Yet one team (Pirates) actually made the playoffs, and another (Gold Sox) just missed.

There might be a problem filling out four rosters, rather than three, but I think there will be a lot more decent players available. But I readily admit that I'm quite biased towards protecting more players, because who will have more rookies reaching their first good years than me? :laugh :D And remember that they can always trade draft choices for good players prior to the expansion draft. I for one intend to make some offers (surprise!:rolleyes: ).

Anyway, I prefer my plan Scott but yours is also a good suggestion and certainly workable. Perhaps some compromise, like protecting fourteen, pull back three the first two rounds (20 now protected), then only one per round to 25. I encourage others to post their thoughts.

[leecemark]

--Not having the doormats to breakup definately requires us to provide more talent off our own rosters. It would not be good for the health of the league to bring in new owners only to give them truely horrible teams and no hope of being at least somewhat competitive. OTOH, it wouldn't be fair to owner that have built good teams at that point to totally tear them apart.
--I'd be okay with 14, pulling back 2 after the first 3 picked and 1 therafter. I'd also be okay with 15/16 and just pulling back one after each one picked. That would force teams to leave some good players available, either regulars nearing the end of their productive days or youngsters not quite ready to contribute (depending on where your team is on the competitive scale at that time). The free agency class will be pretty good that year, giving the expansion teams a shot at a star or two (their payrolls should be fairly low). The draft is deep to help with filling rosters, as teams scraped the minors clean in real life. It isn't a especially good draft, but it will provide some bodies anyway.

[catcher24]

As usual, I'll live with whatever is decided (as we all will, obviously). But I still think protecting 14, pulling back three after the first two picked, then only one until 25 and then no more would work fine. As I argued above, the doormats really didn't provide a lot of very good players - heck, as I recall some of the doormat starters were still free agents once the season began - never got picked by anyone. I think the much larger rookie class as well as the much larger free agent class will help. And remember that the FA classes will ALL be larger at this point due to the new rule taking effect, with all of a draft class's players becoming free agents.

Incidentally, how does everyone feel about a loss limit of players? I think no team should lose more than nine. If each team lost nine players, that's 108 players, or 27 per expansion team. Some current teams will obviously have a deeper roster, but that's no reason they should have to give up more players and basically be punished for drafting well.

[leecemark]

--I'm fine with a loss limit of 9. I'm not really committed to a original protection number or pace for pulling back players either. I do think we need to give the expansion teams a decent amount of talent though. We want to find and keep 4 good owners and that will be harder to do if they are facing several seasons of awfull teams before really having a chance to compete. I hope some of the owners will take the long view and be willing to be horrible now while building for the future, but I doubt 4 people will be up for that.
--The rookie draft is deep, but not especially good. The 1963 players hitting free agency will be a good PFA class, which will help too. One thing I think we'll want to do is allow the home town discount to be applied only if you keep a player on your protected list. That will create even more of an open market than otherwise.

[leecemark]

--Okay I think these points are more or less agreed upon;
1) we will add 4 teams in 1969
2) these teams will be stocked by an expansion draft off existing teams roster, the rookie draft and free agency
3) the new team will get the first 4 picks in the rookie draft
4) they will have the option of placing the franchise tag on their first rookie pick
5) we will switch to a 2 league/4 division format
6) there will be interleague play and awards will be for the overall organization and not divided by league
7) the second place team from each division in 1968 will be moved to the new division and 1 expansion team will be added to each division
8) the number of playoffs teams will expand from 4 to 6, with the division winners and a wild card team from each league making it
9) the team with the best record from each league will get a first round bye
--Objections to any of these points need to be brought up ASAP, as the rules for expansion are only open for discussion until the opening of the free agent auction on Friday. If there are any point missed here, please bring those up too.
--The major issue we still have disagreement on is the number of players that teams will be allowed to protect and the pace of withdrawing players from the pool once the draft gets underway. Suggestions on the number to be rotected range from 10-16. The pace of pulling them back once we start losing them range from 1-3 for each player picked. I haven't committed to a number yet in this thread, but I will now.
--I propose we be allowed to protect 14 players. After each of the first 3 players you lose you can add 2 more to your protected list. After that you could one back for each player picked until you have lost a maximum of 9, at whioch point your roster would be off limits to further expansion choices. This would result in each team losing the 15th, 18th, 21st, 23rd, 25th, 27th, 29th, 31st and possibly (not every team would lose 9) 33rd best player off your roster. That would leave each original team with 20 of their top 25 players and provide at least 60 decent major leaguers (15 per team) to each expansion club.
--The expansion draft would last 25 rounds, with the new teams getting additonal roster filler and/or long term projects in the later rounds. None of us would really be breaking up the core of our team and the expansion teams should have a chance to be reasonably competitive.
--One final point on this. If a team wants to use the home town discount on the class of 1963 players hitting the free agent market in 1969 they would have to place them on their protected list, even though they would not be assured of hanging on to them. I'd like the free agent pool to be as generous as possible. As the 1962-3 rookie classes were grandfathered into the HTD rule (at the lower 10% rate) and not drafted with the expectation of hanging on to them long term, I don't think this is unfair.

[mac195]

Sounds good.

[baseballPAP]

I agree...sounds good Mark.

One possible addition....
Players that play more than say...250 PA will still be hard to come by for the expansion clubs. Most owners will have a tendency to protect those guys, even at the expense of a slightly better part timer. So, I propose that any player not reaching 50% usage for '68 be automatically dumped into the player pool for the draft (i.e. unprotectable). Otherwise, a team with 5 full time OFers (several teams had this in '66) will likely protect them all, leaving the expansion teams to pick through the leftovers for guys with 200 ABs. Owners should still be able to manage their playing time to keep any potential stars this way by platooning where needed, but the likelihood of benching a slugger to get your 5th OFer more playing time is unlikely. Same could be said for all IF spots as well...and pitching especially.

[leecemark]

--I think their problem is more likely to be quality than quantity of playing time. With 14 protected players I doubt I'd want to keep more than 4 outfielders or 5 infielders - and maybe not even that. You are probably going to be hard pressed to hang on to 5 SP (or if you do then your bullpen will be empty).
--If you expect to contend in 69 you are probably going to keep your 8 starters, 4 SP and 2 relievers (or something very similar to that). There is no room for somebody who is riding the pine. If you have some hot young players (not ready for 1969) you may not even cover all your regulars, letting some go and replacing them from the FA/rookie pool later.
--We'll be at 16 teams vs 24 real life so there should be plenty of guys with regular playing time (although maybe not very good quality time) unprotected.
--Lastly, I do want to worry about keeping track of everybody forced off protection lists due to playing less than 50%. I really don't want to manage my team in 68 with that as a priority either.

[catcher24]

So, I propose that any player not reaching 50% usage for '68 be automatically dumped into the player pool for the draft (i.e. unprotectable).

Sorry, Scott, but I would oppose this suggestion most vehemently. Looking ahead to the 1968 draft, the following players, although drafted in 1968, couldn't play enough in 1968 to be protected in the expansion draft by the team that takes them in the 1968 rookie draft: Rollie Fingers, Richie Hebner, Al Oliver, Ted Simmons, Carlos May. I see no reason why an existing team should lose players of this calibre after drafting them for the future.

7) the second place team from each division in 1968 will be moved to the new division and 1 expansion team will be added to each division

I'm a little hesitant on this one point. If you remove all of the second place teams from each division, you've made one division very competitive, while the other three will be less competitive, since they'll have the division winner, the third place team from 68 and an expansion team in each. How about we use team records since inception, and put the third or fourth place team in with one expansion team? Or if you insist on the second place team, still determine it by using the records since league inception.

Everything else looks fine to me!

[leecemark]

Sorry, Scott, but I would oppose this suggestion most vehemently. Looking ahead to the 1968 draft, the following players, although drafted in 1968, couldn't play enough in 1968 to be protected in the expansion draft by the team that takes them in the 1968 rookie draft: Rollie Fingers, Richie Hebner, Al Oliver, Ted Simmons, Carlos May. I see no reason why an existing team should lose players of this calibre after drafting them for the future.



I'm a little hesitant on this one point. If you remove all of the second place teams from each division, you've made one division very competitive, while the other three will be less competitive, since they'll have the division winner, the third place team from 68 and an expansion team in each. How about we use team records since inception, and put the third or fourth place team in with one expansion team? Or if you insist on the second place team, still determine it by using the records since league inception.

Everything else looks fine to me!

--Well I'm not insisting on anything. If there is a better suggestion or the group wants to do something else then thats what we'll do. I suppose we could go with the third or even fourth place teams, but then we probably have one very weak division. We could even put all the expansion teams in one division and give the new guys something to play for. That would keep the existing rivalries together.
--Your idea of using cumlative records may be the best though. It will be fairly random as to divisional quality in 1969 since the 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) best team over the 8 years may be anywhere from a division winner to a cuellar dweller in 1968. I'd be against using the worst cumlative teams to form a new division though. If we bunch all teams with negative track records we could be forming a division that will be lackluster for a long time (although I hope all our owners manage to build good teams along the way and have their turn at/near the top).

[baseballPAP]

Sorry, Scott, but I would oppose this suggestion most vehemently. Looking ahead to the 1968 draft, the following players, although drafted in 1968, couldn't play enough in 1968 to be protected in the expansion draft by the team that takes them in the 1968 rookie draft: Rollie Fingers, Richie Hebner, Al Oliver, Ted Simmons, Carlos May. I see no reason why an existing team should lose players of this calibre after drafting them for the future.

That was a suggested rule ONLY for those players with playing time that meets the threshold Lew.... If a player didn't play that much, then there is no worry in their case.

Mark, its a pretty easy thing to keep track of, I play in a league similar to this one(but currently in 1913) where you must get everyone to 75% or risk losing them.

But...just a suggestion :)

[catcher24]

That was a suggested rule ONLY for those players with playing time that meets the threshold Lew.... If a player didn't play that much, then there is no worry in their case.

I wondered if that was your intent, and I could agree with that, but wouldn't really support it very strongly.

--Well I'm not insisting on anything.

No, I understand that Mark. I guess I phrased my suggestion poorly. It was only an idea I was offering. Actually, let's put all the number one teams in one division (that'd for sure be Knights, Hard Cider and probably Skipjacks) with one poor expansion team!:cry: :sigh: Really, I figured the third place overall record from each division would be best. I think it would create a very competitive division. But you'd have to decide somehow which expansion team went into which division.

Or, a more radical suggestion: how about the top division teams in one division; the second placers in another; third placers in the third and fourth place teams in the fourth, with an expansion team in each. The expansion team with the top draft pick goes into #1 division; second pick #2 division; third pick, #3; fourth pick, #4. Radical, but I'll bet you'd have four very competitive divisions. And who knows how it will look just prior to the 1969 season? Food for thought!

[leecemark]

--I'd be okay with any of the following divisional alignments;
1) Third best teams overall (cumlative record) from each division form a division
2) Third place teams from 1968 form a division
3) Expansion teams get a new division of their own
--Option 1 gives you more of a random distribution, with possibly the 3 best teams down to the 3 worst from 1968 moving. Option 2 gives you a fairly weak division, but hopefully not terrible. Option 3 probably does give you a terrible division, but it ensures the new owners have something to play for the the best of them makes the playoffs.

[catcher24]

Option 3 probably does give you a terrible division, but it ensures the new owners have something to play for the the best of them makes the playoffs.

And actually the wild card could come from this division as well - certainly not likely, but with the unbalanced schedule, the second place team could win enough games within their division to just make it, especially with all of the established teams still knocking each other off.

However, my choice would be option 1. As a point of interest, if we used my more radical idea, this is how the new divisions would shape up at this point in time (and it would very likely change some after three more seasons):
1. Hard Cider, Knights, Skipjacks, expansion #1
2. Cannons, Gold Sox, Pirates (Yes, two expansion teams have the second best records within their divisions!), expansion #2.
3. Diablos, Legends, Redbirds, expansion #3.
4. Stingers, Gamblers, Shoeless Joes, expansion #4.

Interesting breakdown!

[baseballPAP]

My vote would be for option 1 also.

[catcher24]

As stated above, this will almost certainly change over the next three seasons, but as it stands right now, under option 1 the new division would be the Diablos, Legends and Redbirds, with one expansion team.

[J W]

--Okay I think these points are more or less agreed upon;
1) we will add 4 teams in 1969
2) these teams will be stocked by an expansion draft off existing teams roster, the rookie draft and free agency
3) the new teams will get the first 4 picks in the rookie draft
4) they will have the option of placing the franchise tag on their first rookie pick
5) we will switch to a 2 league/4 division format
6) there will be interleague play and awards will be for the overall organization and not divided by league
7) the second place team from each division in 1968 will be moved to the new division and 1 expansion team will be added to each division
8) the number of playoffs teams will expand from 4 to 6, with the division winners and a wild card team from each league making it
9) the team with the best record from each league will get a first round bye

I'm ok with this; however if rule #7 is still in question I like the cumulative record idea. I would prefer 2nd place teams as I believe the 4th place overall Cannons will get their own division... but the Diablos are a well-run organization and the Legends are about to blossom so 3rd place teams would work too.

[buppers]

Hi, my name is Ed. I am an owner in Baseball PAP with Scott as commis.
I have been invited to check in on these posts and make comments where appropriate with hopes of being considered for the expansion.

As for the new alignment, option 3, with all expansion teams in same division creates at least 1 problem.
By doing well within the division you are being punished

To quote the rules under 3C Rookie Draft
"The draft will be in inverse order of the previous year’s final league standings and will be a straight draft"

This pretty much penalizes even the third best expansion team. Assuming a 4 division league, 3 established teams would get a pick before the 3rd place expansion team. Not to mention the poor expansion team that finishes 1st in its division.

Assuming all the above to be true, you must break up the teams and if they turn out to be not very competitive early on, at least they will get a better chance to improve during rookie draft

Sorry to be so long-winded on 1st post.

Ed Bupp

[leecemark]

--Welcome Ed. Be as long winded as you like. We're always looking for good ideas. All the expansion teams in one division is probably the least likely way we'll go, especially if it isn't even going to be popular with the guys its meant to benefit. I'm an owner in the PAP league myself (Kings).

[catcher24]

As for the new alignment, option 3, with all expansion teams in same division creates at least 1 problem.
By doing well within the division you are being punished

You make an excellent point, Ed, one that I hadn't thought of when I posted that. Looking ahead to the 70 and 71 drafts, where this problem would be most likely to really affect the expansion teams, I see that players such as Bert Blyleven , Cesar Cedeno, Ken Singleton, Ron Cey, Cecil Cooper would be in play. Your point is well made and thought out. It is good to have that type of input. Welcome to the forums. I hope your interest remains high and you will most certainly be given every consideration as an expansion owner.

For those interested, I would be the one who invited Ed to post his thoughts, especially in the expansion forum. I thought it would be a good idea to obtain some thoughts and ideas from some of our prospective owners.

Welcome, Ed!:waving :waving

[leecemark]

1) We will add 4 teams in 1969
2) These teams will be stocked by an expansion draft off existing teams roster, the rookie draft and free agency
3) The new team will get the first 4 picks in the rookie draft
4) They will have the option of placing the franchise tag on their first rookie pick
5) We will switch to a 2 league/4 division format
6) There will be interleague play and awards will be for the overall organization and not divided by league
7) The team with the third best cumlative reord from each division will be moved to the new division and 1 expansion team will be added to each division
8) The number of playoffs teams will expand from 4 to 6, with the division winners and a wild card team from each league making it
9) The team with the best record from each league will get a first round bye
10) we be allowed to protect 14 players. After each of the first 3 players you lose you can add 2 more to your protected list. After that you could pull one back for each player picked until you have lost a maximum of 9, at which point your roster would be off limits to further expansion choices. This would result in each team losing the 15th, 18th, 21st, 23rd, 25th, 27th, 29th, 31st and possibly (not every team would lose 9) 33rd best player off your roster. That would leave each original team with 20 of their top 25 players and provide at least 60 decent major leaguers (15 per team) to each expansion club.
11) The expansion draft will last 25 rounds, with the new teams getting additonal roster filler and/or long term projects in the later rounds. None of us would really be breaking up the core of our team and the expansion teams should have a chance to be reasonably competitive.
12) If a team wants to use the home town discount on the class of 1963 players hitting the free agent market in 1969 they would have to place them on their protected list, even though they would not be assured of hanging on to them.

--Changes since the last draft are bolded. I believe they reflect the consenus of those who have contributed to the discussion. Please raise any objections or additonal points you may have before the end of the weekend. This will be added to the rules NLT Tuesday of next week.

[catcher24]

This will be added to the rules NLT Tuesday of next week.

Mark, I don't think it all needs to be added to the rules. Our current rules simply state that the owners will set the guidelines for any future expansion, so that whole part dealing with expansion needn't be added (I don't think).

6. EXPANSION
A. The league will expand in 1969. The method and procedure for this expansion will be determined by discussion and mutual consensus of the current owners.
B. The league may also expand at any other time in the future upon agreement of a majority of the owners

The parts that DO affect the rules (division realignment and playoff structure), I can add to my set of rules in parentheses (copy to JW), indicating those sections will become effective beginning with 1969, then simply delete the old sections at that time. We'll also be deleting the section regarding forced free agents after this season, too.

10) we be allowed to protect 14 players. After each of the first 3 players you lose you can add 2 more to your protected list. After that you could pull one back for each player picked until you have lost a maximum of 9, at which point your roster would be off limits to further expansion choices. This would result in each team losing the 15th, 18th, 21st, 23rd, 25th, 27th, 29th, 31st and possibly (not every team would lose 9) 33rd best player off your roster. That would leave each original team with 20 of their top 25 players and provide at least 60 decent major leaguers (15 per team) to each expansion club.

That sounds good. I think it's a fair compromise, and should (along with the rookie draft and free agent auctions) make the expansion teams at least somewhat competitive right away. And don't forget, the established teams will have players to offer in trade for draft choices, should the expansion teams desire to do that.

[baseballPAP]

I agree Mark...well Done!

[buppers]

For 1969 I found 94 batters and 93 pitchers making ML debut.
Only 23 batters had at least 100 PA's
Only 25 pitchers pitched at least 50 innings.

More stats to follow.

Ed

[leecemark]

--Sockeye has been awarded our first expansion slot. Welcome Sockeye and please feel free to join in the discussion. As our first signup you will have your choice of options. You may select either your draft position or what division you will be assigned to.
--The draft slotting will be as follows;
1st expansion pick/4th rookie pick
2nd expansion pick/3rd rookie pick
3rd expansion pick/2nd rookie pick
4th expansion pick/1st rookie pick
--Divisional choices are;
Alexander Cartwright
Ban Johnson
William Hulbert
New (unnamed) division with the third best (cumlative) team from each existing division plus an expansion team
--No hurry on the selection. We weren't intending to line up expansion owners until the offseason.

[Sockeye]

--Sockeye has been awarded our first expansion slot. Welcome Sockeye and please feel free to join in the discussion. As our first signup you will have your choice of options. You may select either your draft position or what division you will be assigned to.
--The draft slotting will be as follows;
1st expansion pick/4th rookie pick
2nd expansion pick/3rd rookie pick
3rd expansion pick/2nd rookie pick
4th expansion pick/1st rookie pick
--Divisional choices are;
Alexander Cartwright
Ban Johnson
William Hulbert
New (unnamed) division with the third best (cumlative) team from each existing division plus an expansion team
--No hurry on the selection. We weren't intending to line up expansion owners until the offseason.

Thank you Mark and hello to all. I appreciate the opportunity to compete in this league. Would also like to take this time to congratulate and welcome Chickazoola as a replacement owner. I'll choose the 4th expansion pick/1st rookie pick option.

[catcher24]

Welcome aboard, Sockeye. :waving Hope you enjoy competing in this league as much as I have! Feel free to ask any questions and include your comments on anything going on.

[buppers]

Checking career W - L records to see who will move to new division I see:

Before 67 season the 3rd place teams are

Diablos, Gamblers and Shoeless Jes.

Adding 1967 STD standings I have the 3rd place teams as

Angels, Redbirds and Shoeless Joes,

Looks like Angels and Redbirds picked a great time to have a subpar year.:)

[catcher24]

Just another suggestion as to the current teams which will enter the new division. I would suggest that we still use the teams with the third best cumulative record, but use only the cumulative records since our first expansion, 1964 through 1968. If we use that guideline, going into the 1968 season the three teams would be:
Cartwright Division: Angels - Virtually a lock; the Diablos are 55 games ahead, the Stingers 43 behind
Hulbert Division: Shoeless Joes - By no means a lock. Only nine games better than the Badgers, so it would depend on what happens in 1968. No chance to move up, though, as they are 45 back of the Legends. (Let me see, could I drop back 45 games if I traded all my top players for future draft picks...:rofl:)
Johnson Division: Gold Sox - No lock here, either. They're only ten games back of the Gamblers, who could drop into third. Won't fall down,however, as they are 78 games ahead of the Redbirds.

I think this actually compares apples to apples. It eliminates the records from 1961 through 1963, which years include many games against the doormat teams and don't include anything for our 1964 expansion teams.

Ed's figures in the previous post show Angels, Redbirds and Shoeless Joes being the teams if all seasons are included, so the only difference at this point is the Gold Sox replacing the Redbirds, who had seasons of 94 wins each year from 1961 to 1963 and have been terrible since the doormats departed.

If you went back to the original plan of using the second best records, the division would be Diablos, Legends and Gamblers. That might be a good choice!:happy::p:nod:

Thoughts and comments are welcome. I do realize that this has supposedly been set already, but of course with a full season to go before actual expansion, we could still change the division alignment.

Also, we still need to decide how the new teams will get to pick expansion draft position (which will also determine rookie draft position), and how divisions for them will be assigned.

[leecemark]

--I think the new division would be a pretty strong one if we just leave things as they are. The Angels terrible 1967 season, put them into the third spot but the Cannons had generally been a good team and the foundation to get back into contention is there. Gary looks like he is going to be aggressively rebuilding on top of that and I'm just as glad he won't be in my division:happy:. They could ever be could enough next season to jump back over the Diablos - although Elhalo should have another solid team. Scott inherited a solid, but old team. When he broke it apart there were some pretty ugly seasons, but that rebuilding job is nearing completion and he should have a contender again soon. The Shoeless Joes have always been a solid team. Joe is likley to keep them that way and I expect they will have some seasons where it all comes together - next year could even be one of them.
--I don't know that we have any teams at this point that don't have a chance to step up and be regular contenders. None of our owners seem like the kind of guys who are going to lay down and be doormats, so however we break things up the divisions should be competitve. The only rivalry I really wouldn't want to see broken up is the Legends-Skipjacks. Neither the Hard Cider nor the Knights have been seriously challenged enough to have developed truely spirted rivalries (we have been primarily each others, with the Skipjacks also moving into inter-divisonal rivalry status - and the Legends only a post-sason breakthrough away from acheiving that).
--I'm really more interested in how we split the divisions into 2 leagues. I'd kind of like to pair the Johnson and Cartwright to keep my rivalry with Mac at least in the same league (but stay out of my division thanks, mac:eek:). That would split the 4 teams who have shown the most dominance to date 2 in each league.
--As for which expansion team picks where I was going to make that first come first served. The first team would get to choose 1st pick in the rookie draft (last in expansion), 1st pick in expansion (last in rookie), 2nd in both drafts or which division they want to play in (and 3rd in both drafts). Each follow on owner could pick from the remaining choices.

[catcher24]

The only rivalry I really wouldn't want to see broken up is the Legends-Skipjacks.

WHY? I'd like to have an easy division win some season like you and Mac! :laugh And I'll bet Jason would, too. ;)

-I'm really more interested in how we split the divisions into 2 leagues.

I actually thought of that this morning, and was going to mention it as well. No easy way to do it. Perhaps luck of the draw? But I really don't mind being in the same league as the new division - more games against them, less against you and Mac!! :applaud: Of course, maybe not good, because it means more games against those up and coming teams!:eek:

--As for which expansion team picks where I was going to make that first come first served.

But since we've had several people express an interest, that would mean the current owners would be making the decision by determining who they let join first, second, etc. That's not really fair to someone who might not have seen the thread right away, so expressed their interest a little later through sheer luck. I would prefer that we choose our four new owners, then you can pick the names out of a hat or something. That way it's totally objective.

[leecemark]

--We actually don't have anybody who has expressed strong interest as of now. I can draw out of a hat if you wish, but I'd still like to draw just for the order in which they get to choose their options. The most important part of the process is just going to be finding those 4 good owners! Suggestions for prospective owners are encouraged - starting now.
--I'd like to recruit people with either a good history at BBF (and particularly the other BBF leagues) or with strong track records in other DMB leagues who are willing to make a commitment to checking into BBF (the PAP league which shares 4 owners with ours now being a likely source for an owner or two). Just waiting for people to stumble across our invite in the CKL forum may not get us the 4 good people we need.

[-Kyle-]

Yea I am perfectly okay with getting out of my division. :D

[catcher24]

--We actually don't have anybody who has expressed strong interest as of now. I can draw out of a hat if you wish, but I'd still like to draw just for the order in which they get to choose their options. The most important part of the process is just going to be finding those 4 good owners! Suggestions for prospective owners are encouraged - starting now.

I was thinking mainly of the three or four members who have posted in our Interested In Joining our League thread. It might be wise to PM them first to determine if they are still interested. I totally agree with the second point - the random draw should be for the opportunity to choose your option, nothing more.

--I'd like to recruit people with either a good history at BBF (and particularly the other BBF leagues) or with strong track records in other DMB leagues who are willing to make a commitment to checking into BBF (the PAP league which shares 4 owners with ours now being a likely source for an owner or two). Just waiting for people to stumble across our invite in the CKL forum may not get us the 4 good people we need.

I would almost prefer the second option, but I think we have some obligation to contact those who expressed an interest on our thread and see where they stand now. I have sent a private email to an individual who I thought might be a good candidate; no response yet. If anyone else has a good lead, feel free to send them an invitation.

Yea I am perfectly okay with getting out of my division.

Kyle, you might change your mind when you see the teams that Garry (Sockeye) and Joe (Shoeless Joes) seem to be creating!:eek: You've done a decent job with your team as well. I really feel sorry for the expansion team that lands in with you guys!

[J W]

I just added Mark's "final draft" to the rules thread and highlighted the Expansion section.

[leecemark]

--PhilKid3and AutographCollector are penciled in as 2 of our 4 expansion owners. Both have confirmed their interest and are regular contributors to BBF. Still need two more and wouldn't mind having some additional candidates in reserve. We've had a few prospective members wash out in both the start up and first expansion - not to mention a few teams change hands at other points.

[catcher24]

Well, welcome aboard PhilKid3 and AutographCollector. Hope to get to know you both very well over the next few years of our CKL odyssey!

[J W]

Welcome aboard, I think you'll like this project! Especially when we expand to 6 playoff teams; I think it'll keep more of our owners involved in the season.

[leecemark]

--Welcome aboard to another expansion owner. Hack_Miller joins us from the PAP league, where he is a fellow owner with Scott (Redbirds & PAP commissioner), Lew (Legends), Joe (Shoeless Joes) and myself. We will probably be announcing another new owner from that league shortly, joining PhilKid3 to have 3 spots filled.

[catcher24]

Welcome to the CKL, Hack. I can only wish you good luck, and hope that you enjoy it as much as I have since the league's inception.

Mark, don't forget Ed Bupp (Badgers) is in PAP also!:thumbsup:

[leecemark]

--My apolgises Ed. My memory isn't what it used to be:blush:.

[buppers]

--My apolgises Ed. My memory isn't what it used to be:blush:.


You're just mad bexause I didn't finish last and let you get #1 pick for '68:rofl:

Ed

[catcher24]

You're just mad bexause I didn't finish last and let you get #1 pick for '68

Gee, I hadn't thought about that, Ed, when I made my post. Perhaps the truth is Mark's memory is TOO good!!:laugh:laugh

[Hack_Miller]

Hello to everyone.

I thought I'd take a moment to introduce myself. I'm Kenley Webb and I look forward to the challenge of being one of the expansion owners. I'm a Systems Admin for a retail company, father of 3 daughters and a Cubs fan. I've played baseball sims for nearly18 years, starting out with PTP before moving to DMB. In addition to PAP2, I also play in the MMBL, several Field of Dreams leagues and the NFPL. I'll do my best to soak up as much as I can during the 1968 season to keep from looking like a such a n00b in 1969.

Kenley

[catcher24]

Welcome, Ken!:waving When I suggested you check us out, I didn't realize you were in so many other leagues, or I might not have done it! Glad I did, and I hope your stay with the CKL is long and enjoyable.

[philkid3]

Figured I should check in here, too.

I'm philkid3 on the internet, Robbie in real life, and I'm currently an unemployed student on temporary medical leave (which equals lots of time to waste on the interent for now). I've been posting here for a while, so I probably don't need much of an introduction.

I'm scared to death of oversights and mistakes and fear just how well my expansion team is going to handle. :laugh

[J W]

Hey Ken, hey Robbie, welcome to both of you and thanks for your contribution! We're going to have 16 teams, that's awesome. :cap:

Here's to getting better btw Rob!

[catcher24]

Welcome, Philkid3 (Robbie). If you take a little time to observe during the upcoming season, I think you'll do well in your inaugural season. Good luck, and welcome to the league!:waving

PS: Seeing as how you're presently unemployed, I won't urge you too strongly to purchase the Diamond Mind game, since it's fairly expensive. However, when you get back on your feet healthwise (hope that's soon) and financially, you might want to consider it. Owning the game improves the league experience a great deal, IMHO. But Mac's Hard Cider has been in the CKL championship series six out of seven years, and he doesn't own the game, so it obviously isn't necessary.

[philkid3]

I'm actually looking in to Diamond Mind because I need a simulator anyway.

[leecemark]

Well PhilKid has disappeared from BBF. WE currently have 2 expansion owners lined up; Hack Miller and Blueblood. Hack has selected KC Municipal as his stadium. BB you can use any other park not already active. A list of parks in use can be found in the first post of the general discussion thread. Current owners please check that also and make sure it is accurate for you.

[leecemark]

--Windy City Fan has been offered a franchise. The other parties who have previously expressed interest have either let me (or Lew) know that they have changed their minds or they have failed to respond to PMs and/or e-mails. We still need another owner in the next few days or one team will open under league control.
--If you have any suggestions for the expansion process now is your last chance. Once the 1968-69 Offseason thread goes up next week expansion issues will no longer be open for discussion.

[leecemark]

--Okay new owners, the time has come for you to start working on your teams. Blueblood and Stejay need to pick team names and home parks (see post 1 of the General Discussion Thread to see what is already in use). All of you have some choices to make on your offseason priorities. Please select from the following options;
a) First pick in the rookie draft (4th pick in expansion draft)
b) First pick in expansion draft (4th pick in rookie draft)
c) Second pick in both drafts
d) Pick the division you want to join (3rd pick in both drafts)
--Selection order is;
1) Hack_Miller:
2) Windy City Fan:
3) Sanket:
4) Blueblood:
--The window is 12 hours before the next person in line gets to move up in the selection order. I've contacted Hack to let him know he is on the clock.

[Hack_Miller]

--Okay new owners, the time has come for you to start working on your teams. Blueblood and Stejay need to pick team names and home parks (see post 1 of the General Discussion Thread to see what is already in use). All of you have some choices to make on your offseason priorities. Please select from the following options;
a) First pick in the rookie draft (4th pick in expansion draft)
b) First pick in expansion draft (4th pick in rookie draft)
c) Second pick in both drafts
d) Pick the division you want to join (3rd pick in both drafts)
--Selection order is;
1) Hack_Miller:
2) Windy City Fan:
3) Stejay:
4) Blueblood:
--The window is 12 hours before the next person in line gets to move up in the selection order. I've contacted Hack to let him know he is on the clock.

Guys

Looks like we're ready to begin the expansion process. Good luck to all.
The Wranglers will go with option....

(C) -- the 2nd pick in both rookie and expansion drafts.


Thanks
KW

[Windy City Fan]

I'll take the first pick in the rookie draft.

[catcher24]

Good to see things finally starting in the expansion process! Seems like we've been waiting for this forever. Good luck to our expansion owners and remember - having fun is the most important part!:dance:clapping:gt

[leecemark]

--Sanket's 12 hour clock is restarted now. I had listed another applicant (stejay) who changed his mind in the selection post in error.

[sanket]

I'll take the first pick in the expansion draft.

Team Name: Philadelphia White Rage
Home Field: Citizens Bank Park

[leecemark]

--Sanket, you need to pick a park that was active in 1969.
--Blueblood, you get to pick your division.

[sanket]

LOL, my bad, guys...

Connie Mack Stadium (aka Shibe Park)...

I'll move into Veterans Stadium in the 1971 season.

When are the drafts taking place?

[catcher24]

Looks like your good with Shibe, I don't see where anyone else has it.

Mark will set the dates for the expansion draft, rookie draft, premium free agent auction and regular free agent auction. I think he was going to try and work out a date for the expansion draft that would work for all the new owners.

[catcher24]

I think I have the names of three of the expansion teams, but not sure (I wondered if anyone would take Mark's placeholder name of Punks, but I guess not:))

I have Ken's Wranglers; Philadelphia White Rage; Windy City Thunder. If that is incorrect, please let me know. I don't know Blueblood's team name. Thought it was posted up somewhere, but couldn't find it if it is.

[leecemark]

--I don't have a team name or park for Blueblood either. BB, need to select those and also selct what division you want and this thread will be a wrap.

[catcher24]

--I don't have a team name or park for Blueblood either. BB, need to select those and also selct what division you want and this thread will be a wrap.

Well, maybe we could still use your name then, Mark. The Blueblood Punks has kind of a ring to it, don't you think?:p:laugh

[leecemark]

--Blueblood is not off to a good start here. He has not responded to PMs prompting him to pick his division, team name and park. I'll give him till Monday to get caught up or we'll have to give someone else a shot.

[BlueBlood]

Don't know what happened yesterday and why I missed the PM. Weird. I honestly check this place every day.

Team Name: BlueBlood's Brawlers
Stadium: Jack Murphy Stadium
Division: Branch Rickey Division

Sorry again about the delay and I ended up with the option I never would have chosen so you can revel in my punishment. :cap:

[catcher24]

Don't know what happened yesterday and why I missed the PM. Weird. I honestly check this place every day.

Team Name: BlueBlood's Brawlers
Stadium: Jack Murphy Stadium
Division: Branch Rickey Division

Sorry again about the delay and I ended up with the option I never would have chosen so you can revel in my punishment. :cap:

No punishment, just an unlucky draw for you!:hp It would have certainly been anyone's last choice of the four, I think. Anyway, you didn't say - which division will you be entering?:confused: Off the record, if I were in your shoes I would probably take the new division that will be without an established powerhouse team. But that's just a suggestion.:)

[leecemark]

--I think he did choose the new division. He just missed the name change from Rickey to Chadwick. BB, we also have a poll up for the new league names (the CKL is splitting into 2 - 2 division leagues instead of 1 - 3 division league) if you'd like to visit that thread and cast your vote.
--This thread has served it purpose now. Any further business should be in the Offseason Thread.