Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican
I would allow teams to protect 12-15 players, with those with less than three (or four) years experience exempt. (MLB would never do this.) This will yield better expansion teams, with a decent chance at .500. It will also impact the deeper teams, who stand to lose the most good players. The AI sees this and makes some trades to compensate. And the AI makes the sensible choice of exposing older players and those with huge contracts. So it is not all rosy for the drafting expansion teams. I also make sure that the expansion teams have budgets similar to the established teams, so they can sign free agents. I let the expansion teams go first in the amateur draft.
If established teams can protect 25 players, plus all their younger players in terms of service, the draft pool will be truly awful, no better than AAA, and none of the best prospects. Those expansion teams will lose 100+ games, no matter what. That is no fun and no challenge to me. YMMV.
|
I don't mind struggling the first two to three years. First year, yeah, I lost 100 games or close to it. But I like the challenge. In your scenario, with only 12-15 players protected, I'd expect to be at least playing five hundred ball the first season, and in the playoffs the following season, and in the World Series in year three, four at the worst. Not much of a challenge really. But, to each his own. Arizona is definitely the exception here, winning 100 games in their second season.
Seattle: 1977 - 64-98, 1978 - 56-104, 1979 - 67-95
Toronto: 1977 - 54-107, 1978 - 59-102, 1979 - 53-109
Colorado - 1993 - 67-95
Miami - 1993 - 64-98
Tampa Bay - 1998 - 63-99
Arizona - 1998 - 65-97