|
Post by scrapper on Dec 18, 2007 16:18:21 GMT -8
Hey Everybody: I think the biggest issue that has been floating around is parity. Let's take a look at the year before. I think it is a good perspective. Last year, if you look at the standings. 4 out of the 8 teams had 6 wins or less. and 5 out of 8 were less than . 500. Only three teams finished above .500 two teams went 16-6 and the other went 19-3. Now, lets take a look at the teams that finished above .500 two of the teams lost 5 out of their 6 best players and one team lost 5 out of the 7. By adding the expansion teams, with the existing teams, your telling me that there is no parity? I beg to differ.
|
|
|
Post by crash23 on Dec 18, 2007 21:52:47 GMT -8
I don't know that it's all about parity, fairness perhaps - meaning I don't believe it would be very fair to the two or three new teams to draft from a pool of incoming minor leaguers and/or pool players that the existing managers create by contributing 2, 3, or 4 players from the existing teams. I doubt the new teams would have much/and pitching. catching, etc if it were done this way.
The fairest way is to throw all the kids back in the draft except the manager's kid. The coaches from last year's teams could toss their names into a hat and the lucky 2 or 3 that are drawn could manage the other teams (if they were willing to step up). This would also spread out the coaching talent and all teams would be assured of veteran coaching. If done in this fashion I'd imagine all teams would end up with some pretty good starting pitching. I'd rather have a season of competitive games versus one where half the teams blow the other half out. There seemed to be quite a bit of that, esp. on the N/NS side last year. Ideally all the teams would be in the play-off hunt going into the last weekend. It keeps everyone excited about the season, kids coming to practice, and having fun.
If A/AE were expanding this is what I'd want to happen b/c I believe of all the possible scenarios is what's most fair and best for the league (i.e. players). And I don't want to lose my assistant coach (we've been together thru two kids) but it's not about personal preferences...
Learning to make individual sacrifices for the good of the whole is the underlying message that could be taught for those kids that think it's unfair. That's a lesson not taught too often these days...
|
|
|
Post by scrapper on Dec 19, 2007 9:56:34 GMT -8
I could support a re-draft if all the kids are in except the Manager's kids. I think Crash is right (Did I just say that) However, If all the kids except for Manager's kids are not in, we should not re-draft.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 19, 2007 10:23:58 GMT -8
I think its a hell of a shame to break the kids up. I don't think the teams will show that much difference whether or not the kids are redrafted. I'm absolutely certain it won't be fair if a couple of teams are allowed to maintain their coach's kids. Especially since they are board members. Avoid the perception of wrong doing and redraft all the kids.
|
|
|
Post by Randy Edwards on Dec 19, 2007 11:31:00 GMT -8
JMO.... and I'm sure this will mix the pot up!!!!! If you have a re-draft I would think that a lottery would work on what team picks 1st ? Just to make it right...
|
|
|
Post by scrapper on Dec 19, 2007 11:52:30 GMT -8
We figured out the draft part. Each team will pick a number ball for there draft number and then it will be a serpentine draft. So for national it would be 1-8 then 8-1. NS would 1-4 then 4-1.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Dec 19, 2007 12:17:07 GMT -8
i still have a hard time believing that there will be that many team in majors
|
|
|
Post by Randy Edwards on Dec 19, 2007 13:23:43 GMT -8
So you guys are for sure setting 12 teams (total) for both leagues ? If so I will start the interleague schedule ?
|
|
|
Post by DiamondbacksMom on Dec 19, 2007 14:10:53 GMT -8
I don't know the numbers but, if you add 3 teams to the National side and you have all the 12's selected first, will there be enough major caliber 10's & 11's to fill the rosters for all 8 teams? Perhaps but then if you pull more 10's & 11's up to fill 3 more teams, will you have enough at the minor level for their teams as there will be no more 12's in the minors? I'm sure this was given thought before the decision was made, just curious.
|
|
|
Post by scrapper on Dec 19, 2007 14:48:17 GMT -8
Giantsmom -- I don't know if they will be major ready, but there are a good crop of 10's coming in this year and could be a lot of them. Also, all of the 9's are being moved up to AAA to accomodate the 7-8 years old in AA.
Randy: We will not know until the signups are done. but we are pretty sure about National, Based on last years numbers, there are enough kids for two teams for sure, and possibly a third team. Based on information we had last year, National could have expanded last year, but it didn't.
|
|
rocko
LL Board Member
Posts: 209
|
Post by rocko on Dec 19, 2007 22:12:16 GMT -8
Randy,
While we do not know for sure until sign ups. What we do know is that there is a potential over 85 twelve year old players in the National and N. South side that were 11 years old last year who played in the AAA or majors. If we keep the teams to 5-6 players per team and do the math that is 14 teams. Anticipating not all will return....12 is a fairly good prediction.
The 5-6 number is to protect against devasting teams across the board the following year. The board agreed to this concept before determining strategies on redrafting and etc.
I just want to clarify that there are numbers behind the number of expansion teams being thrown out there.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 19, 2007 22:32:03 GMT -8
Pedro ~
We created that rule the year I was president I believe. Reduced the number from 8 to 5 12 year olds because Tony Buchanan's Dodgers lost 8 12s in one year. We thought that the Dodgers would be ruined the following year. I think you remember they won District 10 the next year.
The year Gregg Clapper took over Angels he had to draft 8 players. He won NS and lost to the Giants team that won the City Championship. I'd say good coaching ( great coaching in the case of Buchanan and Clapper) will take care of the teams. Forget about the 5 player rule its not necessary and is an example of TNLL (on my watch) over legislating. You guys should return to 8.
|
|
|
Post by Randy Edwards on Dec 20, 2007 5:47:29 GMT -8
The A/AE is using Little League rules and keeping with 8 per team, and thats the only reason we do not have to increase teams. This will give us 64-12's for both leagues.
|
|
rocko
LL Board Member
Posts: 209
|
Post by rocko on Dec 20, 2007 18:36:24 GMT -8
Buchanan's team had five 12 year olds that year, and two very dominant players that carried the brunt of the batting offense and pitching.
In terms of 12 maximum as a board we were pretty unanimous on are views here. I believe most voted to stay within the 5-6 player range.
|
|
rocko
LL Board Member
Posts: 209
|
Post by rocko on Dec 20, 2007 18:40:03 GMT -8
I seem to recall the year the Giants won out, we had a light contingency of twelve year olds aswell. Wasn't that Walker's year....?
|
|