Winter Meeting Coverage

READING, MA

The 2010 Winter Meetings were held yesterday and included the 4th Annual Draft lottery to determine draft position for the 2011 draft. In attandance were owners of Tlips, Flats, Labatt, Pilgrims, and Metalheads franchises. Video footage of the actual lottery was posted to this site following the completion of the lottery and can be viewed in the previous post. Apologies for the disorientation of the video, but you should get the gist of it. The final draft order for the 2011 draft is now confirmed as follows:

1. Multiple Scorgasms
2. Melrose Warriors
3. Luoyang Yellow Stars
4. Fenway Flats
5. Metal Heads
6. Royal Rooters
7. Thunderlips
8. DC Dynasty
9. The Rockers
10. Chin Music
11. Boston Pilgrims
12. Irish Labatt

There was some spirited debate about a myriad of other topics that have risen to the surface as "hot button" issues in our league at the moment. These topics are detailed as follows:

• EXPANSION TO 14 TEAMS - The topic of expansion is clearly a lightning rod. Among the considerations of such a decision would be determining two viable owners, how to integrate them into the league, how many teams make the playoffs, how the keeper and player pools would be impacted. The rationale for expansion seems to be that there is a desire to make the league more challenging as well as to thin out the free agent pool. The consensus seemed to be that a 14 team league, in which each team is allowed to keep 5 players and 8 teams advance to the playoffs is a reasonable compromise. This would be the single most radical change in league history, and not something I would like to rush into hastily. The issues at hand remain new ownership, who owns these new teams (are there two worthy candidates) as well as how to integrate them into the league. I believe that a vote on this issue is a necessity and that there will have to be an all inclusive and completely vetted out plan in place before we put it to a vote so existing ownership is clear on what changes with each scenario. I also believe that such a decision has to happen well in advance of the change as it is unfair to implement anything without allowing proper time to digest and plan. I am setting a deadline for a vote at draft day. But I will not propose such a vote unless we have a complete plan to move forward on.
• ROSTER EXPANSION - I would propose an alternative to adding two teams in the form of roster expansion. The addition of 1 more bench spot would thin the FA pool out another dozen players. I believe that some of this expansion discussion is derived from the belief that there are too many viable options in the FA pool. I would add that I believe this FA surplus of talent exists more in the offensive side than on the pitching side and would propose that the 6th bench player be required to be a hitter.
• TRANSACTION LIMITS - Another issue up for discussion was enacting transaction limits in order to curtail the ever increasing issue of "flipping" or "streaming". Over the past 3 seasons we've seen approx 75% of teams in the 80-120 transaction range. I think there was some consensus on this target being a reasonable one which allows for an owner to tinker and fix problems in season, but that is not excessive enough that it allows someone to completely make up for a poor draft. However we arrive at this target is irrelevant as long as we agree that this should be the target. The options would be a weekly limitation that would allow anyone to approach this range, or to just cap the season total at X amount of transactions and let owners manage with that target in mind. We will come up with a plan and vote on draft day.
• KEEPER LIMITS - The was some discussion about the amount of keepers and how it impacts the importance of our draft, as well as how it impacts roster turnover. I believe that anytime you remove a player from the draft pool your are deflating the value of the draft and the key is to find a happy balance between making the draft exciting and allowing teams to feel like they are building a franchise. There was an opinion expressed that by reducing the amount of keepers, we would open up the trade market because owners would be less inclined to protect "keeper level" talent on trades.
• CHAMPIONSHIP COMMITTEE AWARDS - Beginning immediately we would like to create 2 awards, GM of the Year, and Comeback Team of the Year. These awards will be voted on annually by all former champions, and yes you get a ballot for each championship. I will put something together soon and send it out so that we can get the 2010 award winner officially voted on.
• PLAYER OF THE WEEK AWARDS - Since the Championship Committee did such a poor job of submitting weekly POTW honors, the Non-Championship Fraternity will be taking over the duties for the 2011 season. We can assign responsibilities once the season commences.
• LEAGUE PRIZE - The current amount as of 2010 was $65 for the season. There was discussion about raising the entry fee. We can vote on this by draft day as well. Perhaps an even $100 would be appropriate?
• LEAGUE WEBSITE - There was some discussion about league websites. This is an issue that I won't touch with a 10 ft pool, because after two abortions I think it would be foolish to get in bed again. I think the core issue here is the customizability of Y! vs. the comfortability with Y!. The critical element of customization is season length and how to deal with the playoffs. We can re-visit this issue when the Y! site comes on line and we actually see what features they've added or adjusted.

I hope that I did not forget any issues, as I wasn't taking notes during the discussion. I would invite all to post their commentary and opinions on the above topics throughout the rest of the offseason. If your are a proponent of expansion, please submit your plan to me via email. Even if its a suggestion on how to deal with a single aspect of the proposed plan. Once we have all of the components reasonably vetted out we can put this to a vote.