I am coming around to a thought that maybe owners shouldn't have two teams, but I'm not going to try to force anyone else to drop a team. I think my reluctance to drop one of my teams has always been primarily motivated by having to lose those favorite players from each team. Of course, I'm not suggesting that I should be allowed to make a few trades with myself and then punt a team. That, of course, wouldn't be fair. But I have come up with what I think to be a reasonable plan to allow me at least the opportunity to select those players I might subjectively value over their real worth. I have talked about this with Lord Commissioner God on High Tomlinson, and he doesn't have a problem with it, but we agreed that we should inform the league to see if there is any serious objection.
I propose to take all my players and put them in a draft pool. Mr. New Manager and I have a two team re-entry draft in a A-B-B-A-A-B-B-A-A-B etc. format. All players retain their existing contracts and will have to get the annual increase if retained and protected. The existing team balances are combined and split evenly. The teams will assume Petty and Buda's existing positions for the IOD, alternating selections (First round AB, second round BA, third round AB, etc.). Which team goes first in the IOD will be an item that the new manager and I will be allowed to select during our re-entry draft (draft goes Mauer-player-player-player-. . .player-player-first pick-player-player . . . player-player-retired player-Jeff Allison). Team that goes second in IOD will automatically go first in waiver draft, but teams will alternate position each round.
This way, I get a chance at saving most favored players, at least if I favor them that much, but I won't be able to stack one team to the detriment of the other.
Tom has someone ready to take a team. He is friends with Tom, Eric, and Jon, so he should have ready access to any assistance he might need in evaluating the talent.
Let Tom know if you have a serious problem with this.
Besides being nice for Don I think this will benefit the new owner. Certainly when I took over a team I didn't feel any real sense of ownership of the squad until I'd been through two drafts and some trades. (Admittedly the team I inherited was a horror show, but still.)
Besides allowing Don to keep more of the players he feels sentimental about it will let the new owner feel a sense of having built the team right away.
There are definitely pros and cons. A couple of questions.
1. Does this set a precedent for giving up a second team?
2. Would a 2 team manager have the choice of keeping his favored team intact or choosing this scenario to divest himself of a team with these being the only options.
I am not in favor of seeing each manager that owns two teams come up with some option he is willing to hold over the league in order to divest a team. I AM in favor of 2 team managers giving up a team. So if there is some type of consensus that says a manager has an option to keep 1 team intact or go with this scenario or a modified version of it, then I have no problem with it. Maybe we vote on it in the off season. This seems to be fair to both managers. It creates some measure of parity between the 2 teams. In this case the current Buda team should lower in talent while the Petty team should improve. Not good for me in the FL, but I would be willing to take that hit for what I think is the good of the league.
As a former Commissioner, I am not sure that there is anything in the rules that prevent this from occurring. If someone believes there is then please quote the rule, and if that is so then this discussion is not even an option. Otherwise, I would suggest that Tom act accordingly based on what is in the best interest of the league while also taking into consideration the discussion this topic is bound to create between managers.
We currently have 7 two team managers. That means that 1/2 of the teams are controlled by 1/3 of the managers. Since we have no rule that requires managers to give up a second team, I am in favor of some type of option that would be an incentive for two team managers to give up a team. This seems reasonable to me.
As one might expect, Don and I have had some conversation about this already. In my opinion, it is a very fair way for a manager of 2 teams to let one of them go. And as Kevin points out, it's a nice way to give a new manager a way to feel "ownership" of his team right away, since he is partially responsible for its composition.
I do not believe that there is anything in the Rules that prohibits or limits this, but as Don mentioned and as this thread demonstrates, we both thought that there would be definite interest on the part of other managers in how and why this is being done, and we wanted to have a chance for conversation before implementing this, so any concerns could be addressed.
I am certainly more than willing to discuss having a more formalized procedure for doing this sort of thing if other 2-team owners want to give up a team in the future. I agree with Gary that that would be a subject for next offseason.
I know this is kind of fast, but I unless someone raises an objection I would like to get the teams split next week (or at least started next week) so that the new owner would have time to get a handle on his team and maybe make a trade or two in the first period.
I certainly have no objection and am even excited about how the process will go. Hopefully some wackiness will ensue. It will be interesting to see how they balance present vs. future value in their picks. If Don and the new manager are comfortable with this approach, I don't see why anyone else should object as I can't imagine anyone else being harmed by it. Plus, it's really to everyone's benefit to get more new blood into the mix...not to imply that diluting Don's blood is an objective here.
This is actually rather similar to what we did for expansion many years ago when the 2 new teams picked from the pool of unprotected players. If this option makes it easier for someone else to give up a team in the future, so much the better. However, I wouldn't really want to impose this on people thinking about giving up a team. I just gave up SOS the old-fashioned way and am not quite sure whether I would prefer this approach for myself. I did end up making a deal with my former team to acquire some of my idiosyncratic favorites, but Travis greedily snapped up more of them than I did.
Don has a lot of quality talent on both teams and I'm confident that this will still be true after the dust settles and they are reborn, or whatever.
I don't have any problem with this, but it does set a precedent and I have a question.
Does every player have to be claimed by one of the teams? What if there is a very undesirable contract? Will one of the teams have to select that player/contract?
I intended this to be an everybody has to be drafted thing, hence the reference to "retired player-Jeff Allison" as a possible closing sequence. This process should not permit the punting of a bad contract.
Of course, I suspect that there will be a fair number of guys that will be drafted and cut.
Agreed - all players must be drafted. I don't know if there is a A6 2x4 contract or something out there, but the reallocation of players should have absolutely no effect on contract status.
The way that we are handling this with Don and the new owner is that the first-round pick is a draft item in the two-owner draft when the teams are divided. Thus, either you or the other owner could pick that instead of a player at any point.
Note that I am not aware of another potential owner who is ready and willing to take a team beyond the one that will be taking half of Don's players.
I have no objections as long as contracts remain intact.
Furthermore, I like having two teams and would find it very difficult to choose between them. I like Don's idea and if I was in a situation in which I needed to give one up, I would want to do it this way. At this point though, short of the league demanding I relinquish a team, I plan to keep them.
