• Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.

Been meaning to do this, vote on expansion (bdub and schauwn)

Yay or Nay?

  • Yay

    Votes: 9 81.8%
  • Nay

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • Total voters
    11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
With the WBL being full and stronger than ever, the league is entertaining the idea of expansion. We have always been open to accepting Utopians into the league who have just "5 minutes a day." We have received renewed interested from veteran owners who had to take a hiatus from OOTP for various life reasons. We have always welcomed former owners back to the league, even if they didn't leave on the best of terms.

To accommodate the interested veteran owners, the league office submits the following proposal for league expansion.
Logistics

  • One team will be added to each league, expanding the WBL to 18 teams
  • Associated minor league teams will be added for each team
  • The playoffs will expand to 8 teams, 4 teams from each league, eliminating first round byes
  • Expansion will begin the offseason preceding the 2047 season

Special Conditions for Expansion Teams
In lieu of an expansion draft in which expansion teams would select players from current WBL rosters AND affiliate rosters, the following conditions are proposed:
  1. Expansion teams will be slotted into picks #3 and #4 in the first and second rounds of the 2047 amateur draft
    • Order between the two expansion teams will be chosen at random
    • From rounds 3 through 15 expansion teams will select in the #9 and 10 slots in each round
  2. Expansion teams will be given additional compensatory draft picks at the end of rounds one and two
    • The order of these picks will be flipped from the order chosen in Condition 1
  3. Expansion teams will be given a one week (one sim) exclusive window to negotiate with free agents and international free agents in order to aid in filling rosters of the four teams within their organization
These conditions are for the 2047 draft and offseason ONLY.​
 

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
We could do an offline expansion draft. I'd actually be willing to head it too.

If we don't do an expansion draft, it could be really hard for them to have any chance for a couple years. Plus it could help some current teams get rid of players with high salaries (DLS).
 

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
Theyve both agreed and ive got input from quite a few people. I dont think a draft is an option, that is what the head start in FA replaces
 

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Got it. It'd have to be off line. We'd just need protection lists from everyone then implement what rules we wanted. I think it's doable but if they think they can compete like that, more power to them.

I think in general they could get some good players with bad contracts too.
 

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
No without expansion draft, they will be absolutely abysmal in this system

It would take them about 7-9 seasons to get decent. They'd win 10 games for the first 2-3 years, but if they wanted to they could buy up FA like the AI does. I think they were winning 60-70 games within two or three years.

That's without the head start obviously and without comp picks.
 

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
Either way just vote on what is proposed, if it is struck down we can explore another avenue.
 

osick87

Well-Known Member
Community Liaison
I brought up the expansion draft idea to OU and we felt that some owners would be dead set against it enough that it'd likely mean no expansion. I would have gladly worked on a format, spreadsheet and everything to make it run smoothly and as simple as could be.

I agree that it's going to be tough as hell for them to field any sort of team this way but if they're fine with it.
 

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
IF they're fine with these rules, then I'm for expansion. I just think an expansion draft would help them and also help some owners (like JD) who want to move giant salaries or maybe even some solid players that make too much. I think it wouldn't be that hard to implement too. The hardest part would be the rules IMO.
 

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
This isnt the only way we can do it, if you'll want to vote this down that's fine. I'm just not going to do an expansion draft if even one owner is opposed
 

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
With an expansion draft we lose more owners than we gain.
Why? Because someone has to leave a middle reliever who sucks exposed? IF you just have to let 4 players on your 40-man unprotected you can leave either fringy guys or guys with big salaries you would clear anyways.
 

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
Why? Because someone has to leave a middle reliever who sucks exposed? IF you just have to let 4 players on your 40-man unprotected you can leave either fringy guys or guys with big salaries you would clear anyways.
Yes.
 

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
Why? Because someone has to leave a middle reliever who sucks exposed? IF you just have to let 4 players on your 40-man unprotected you can leave either fringy guys or guys with big salaries you would clear anyways.
Sounds worse than the proposal
 

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
I'd much rather lose a guy to an expansion draft than have a chance that the two expansion teams scoop up a lot of FAs that I would've wanted.
I guess if you want to make it even more difficult for them.
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
I say give them both a draft and a week at FAs, eliminate the draft picks. Or some combination of two of the three that isn't this one
 

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
I say give them both a draft and a week at FAs, eliminate the draft picks. Or some combination of two of the three that isn't this one

There will be no draft at all, especially anything like what doh is talking about. You said it was too tough, but then you say anything but the best option when picking 2/3..... which is it?
 

Lloyd Carr

Well-Known Member
Take all the FA you want.

I have crafted Buffalo to be the team they are. I dont want to lose any of them.

Taking away one of my starting players could kill all my hopes of competing.
 

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
Again, no draft will happen unless you get a new commissioner. Not going to do a draft if one of the owners doesn't want it (and it isn't only one, there are enough to strike it down anyway).

So figure out a way to do it without that and I'm all ears.
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
Whatevs, I'm a soft no but I don't care enough to die on a sword over it. If they accept the terms then it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things
 

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Whatevs, I'm a soft no but I don't care enough to die on a sword over it. If they accept the terms then it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things
I'm Yankee. I think it's shortsighted to cry over losing 1-2 guys but I don't care enough to get into a huge mess.
 

Lloyd Carr

Well-Known Member
Take one top guy from Amsterdam and one top guy from Buffalo. Buffalo falls to #7 in the South and Amsterdam maybe to #2 in the North.

It isnt proportional.
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
You won't lose any top guys. If you have that many good guys you are better than amsterdam. You can protect like 40 players.
 

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Take one top guy from Amsterdam and one top guy from Buffalo. Buffalo falls to #7 in the South and Amsterdam maybe to #2 in the North.

It isnt proportional.
Except they wouldn't get a top guy. The way expansion drafts work is you can either protect X amount of guys or expose X amount of guys. So for instance, you could protect 30 guys on your 40 man or expose just 3 or whatever number of guys on your 40-man.

Basically IMO it could help some teams. For instance, you could leave DLS unprotected and hope someone swallows his deal. You can leave like Boerboom, Roman and Haney unprotected.

I don't think either expansion team would get any great players unless they take on some terrible contract. But it'd just help them fill out their rosters. Filling out an entire system/roster with FAs means they'll get nothing. IMO it isn't fair to them but if they want to be added into the league via this avenue then it's their funeral.

Also IMO a lot of teams have middling players making $5-6m they wouldn't mind losing. I think an expansion draft helps a lot of teams in this league particularly those trying to move salary.
 

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
You won't lose any top guys. If you have that many good guys you are better than amsterdam. You can protect like 40 players.
Which is worse than the current proposal which you said was so tough, im trying to follow your logic but it doesnt make sense. Can you explain why that is preferable to draft picks and a head start on FA?
 

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Which is worse than the current proposal which you said was so tough, im trying to follow your logic but it doesnt make sense. Can you explain why that is preferable to draft picks and a head start on FA?
I still think you do draft picks and the extra picks. I think this way you have salary protection on the guys you get too. With FA, it might be a little hard to track signing 100 guys especially if other teams put in bids after the exclusive window. If you strike out on 5-6 WBL players then you're in trouble just fielding a team that isn't a complete joke.

I'm saying for instance from my 40-man I'd leave bin Hamal, Hands and Hodge unprotect. Are you winning a WBL title with any of those guys? No. But at least you can put together an OK roster instead of an absolute crap roster with zero value at all.

EDIT: Also in expansion drafts in real life (sorry @Orlando) but a lot of times teams like a guy who is unprotected. So they do a pre-draft deal to take said player who isn't protected then trade him to another team. Happened in the Rule V draft too with Josh Hamilton. Chance to get some value there too.
 

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
Well with talking to a few GMs the expansion draft would be struck down so I'm not really sure what point there is to discuss it. If you get to protect 40 guys then there is no point anyway
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
Give them more than a week for FA, and maybe let them offer lower salary deals or something. I just dont think they get enough as proposed, I think adding a draft OR adding more fa slots or real draft picks will help that
 

Mr. Radpants

Trog Five Standing By
Voted yes. I'm all for expansion draft but not everyone is.

I don't think it will be hard since they'll draft high multiple years in a row after the inaugural draft. Sucking is rewarded handsomely in OOTP.
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
Which is worse than the current proposal which you said was so tough, im trying to follow your logic but it doesnt make sense. Can you explain why that is preferable to draft picks and a head start on FA?
They need both if anything, neithet is enough on its own. If we cant do a draft then add more FA or picks or something to the current proposal.
 

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
I'm just saying I'm much, much more willing to lose bin Hamal, Hands, Hodge than basically not get a chance on a lot of FAs. Especially the lower tier bench guys that are getting harder to find.

I also think adding more draft picks helps. Especially if they trade them for real players. I think we need to give them some stuff of tangible value.
 

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
Give them more than a week for FA, and maybe let them offer lower salary deals or something. I just dont think they get enough as proposed, I think adding a draft OR adding more fa slots or real draft picks will help that
A week means they sign whoever they offer. Could do a week and a half to make sure but they just have to beat the other expansion team. Already lower salaries due to simming forward so that is taken care of
 

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
Im definitely okay giving them more, but find a way without some shitty expansion draft where they get to pick awful players with no value
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
Because no one on their team will be on minimum salary, they will blow through their budget quick. Look at our current FA, guys worth 490k are going for 3m. That adds up. They have no prospects on the min to balance it out.
 

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Im definitely okay giving them more, but find a way without some shitty expansion draft where they get to pick awful players with no value
I think they could get solid or even good players who are just paid too much. I also think average players people would be willing to part with are worlds better than the FAs they'll end up filling their team with.

But I am in favor of giving them more picks.
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
Keep in mind FA are, for the most part, our teams' rejects after the maybe top 10 guys. Thats 5 each, they have at least 20 up to 35 more, most of whom are either so bad they arent ubl quality and have no service, or are past service time and want so much money. They need assets to trade to other teams and also a means to compete in 2 to 3 years. I dont see that fully being satisfied as it stands
 

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Keep in mind FA are, for the most part, our teams' rejects after the maybe top 10 guys. Thats 5 each, they have at least 20 up to 35 more, most of whom are either so bad they arent ubl quality and have no service, or are past service time and want so much money. They need assets to trade to other teams and also a means to compete in 2 to 3 years. I dont see that fully being satisfied as it stands
And even simming forward gives them some shitty deals they'll have to sign for dudes. I agree the main issue is we aren't giving them any assets. Picks (very often) become absolutely worthless in 2-3 years when they bust. FAs, in a way, don't have any value because as Yankee said they (in the way this game is set up compared to reel life) are other teams rejects. So it'll force them to sign guys who suck and give them money just because they have to fill out a roster.

Example too about expansion draft: average replacement player they get from me makes the minimum. In FA, they won't be getting the minimum. So they're wasting extra money on guys who aren't good.
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
I think they could get solid or even good players who are just paid too much. I also think average players people would be willing to part with are worlds better than the FAs they'll end up filling their team with.

But I am in favor of giving them more picks.

Ding ding, them getting assets to trade is so key. Our players are on our teams for a reason while FAs arent for a reason.

I will drop any exp draft talk bc we dont want it so lets find another way to beef up this proposal and Im a yes.
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
Dohs point about making the minimum is my main hangup, these teams wont have guys making 490k or some bs arb contract for 3m per to a GOAT until their prospects come through.
 

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
One final point: look at the deals that Yankee, JD, I and others have done to just get rid of players with bad salaries. The expansion team could take on those decent players with high salary if left exposed. So the team losing the player wins because they get rid of salary and the expansion team can get a DLS, Rapely, Beanpole or someone else. Later that year when not much is owed, they can flip them for something. That's giving them some plays/assets at least
 

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
You guys are the worst.

Sorry @doh
How hard is it for a team to just submit 3 unprotected players on their 40-man? Once a guy gets picked from their team, then they get to protect another player. No one is losing anyone of major value and in some cases they get rid of salary. The expansion team gets something.

Seems a lot more fair than having these expansion teams sign 100 dudes.
 
Top