Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

Larry suggests making the divisions by actual won-lost records. The divisions would look like this:

East:

NY Mets 100-62
Baltimore 109-53
Minnesota 97-65
Atlanta 93-69

Central:

SF Giants 90-72
Chi. Cubs 92-70
Detroit 90-72
Cincinatti 89-73

West:

Boston 87-75
Oakland 88-74
St. Louis 87-75
Pittsburg 88-74

The above is a good idea but I would like to offer a slightly different option. I added up the total team salaries for these 12 teams. Below is how the divisions would look if separated by SOM team salary.

East:

BAL $94,160,000
MIN $81,520,000
PIT $76,140,000
NYM $75,630,000

Central:

SF $70,150,000
DET $67,520,000
ATL $67,070,000
CIN $66,140,000

West:

STL $65,960,000
BOS $60,840,000
OAK $60,720,000
CHC $57,670,000

This could be a little more fair due to some teams having a few part time players with very good cards. Does anybody prefer one over the other? I am good either way. I was just throwing something else out there to consider. Any other ideas?

If we use the NO DH rule in this league then there could be some teams that have higher priced cards on players they can't use outside of injury which could factor in to how good that team will be or what division would be the fairest competetion. For instance Pittsburgh has a potential OF of Stargell, Alou & Clemente with Al Oliver at 1B. Where does that leave Carl Taylor at 6.19M? Taylor, Oliver & Stargell only play OF or 1B so one of these expensive SOM cards will be a high priced PH and part time player.

I am sure there are several more similar circumstances on other teams. What I am saying is that you would include all of the above high priced SOM cards into the total team salary but you would not be able to use all of the cards at one time outside of injuries in a non-DH league.

I am not advocating one divisional alignment over the other or a DH or non-DH league. I just want to give food for thought for the league. I am good no matter what we decide.

Randy

Either way is fine with me---I am in regarless. Your example of the Pittsburg Carl Taylor situation is the perfect example of why I prefer the DH. I say lets go with the DH again and give teams like Pitt. a way to get Taylor in the lineup. If we go with this div alignment divided by salary Pitt will definately need a DH to compete with the other 3 IMO. Of those 4 teams I think they would benefit the most with a dh rule and they would need it against those powerhouses. Without a DH I would give Pitt virtually no chance to win that division. Those are just my thoughts---I won't take Pitt regardless of what div they are in but they would be more attractive in a DH league. So I guess it is 100 mil--correct??

Maybe using a DH if we go by SOM salary divisions or NO DH if we use the division alignment by won-lost record? I think that is fair.

I don't think $100 millon would work. Look at the Cubs and their total salary. Is their low salary just high enough to qualify for a $100 mil cap?

I'm in and I suggest an $80 mill cap to make it more competitive. I also like the DH and aligning the Divisions by salary instead of by record. Cubs have only 1 catcher and 4 starters. We need to address that as well.

Baltimore only has 13 hitters and needs 2 more.
Atlanta only has 9 pitchers and needs 1 more.
Cubs only has 9 pitchers and 14 hitters so need 1 of each and the hitter must be a catcher as they have no backup catcher.
Boston only has 14 hitters and needs 1 more.
Pittsburg only has 9 pitchers and needs 1 more.

I still vote for no DH. It didn't exist back then so why use it? In the Pirates example don't forget Stargell, Oliver, and Clemente can go down for 15 games at a time and Clemente has a 2 point injury.

After doing a little research on baseballreference.com (a pretty neat site) I have come up with the below solutions to players needed to complete some teams rosters:

Chicago Cubs - 1 SP and 1 C short - Add catcher John Boccabella (.50). He was traded from the Cubs to Montreal after the 1968 season. Add SP Bill Stoneman (1.67). He was also traded from the Cubs to Montreal after the 1968 season.

Only other SP option I could find would be Joe Niekro (4.22) who made 3 starts for the Cubs in 1969 before being traded to San Diego. I think he is too good of a pitcher and didn't play enough to add to their roster for our purposes.

St. Louis Cardinals - 1 RP short - Add Ron Willis (.50). He pitched 32 IP for the Cardinals before being traded to Houston where he pitched only 2 innings.

Atlanta Braves - 1 RP short - Add Claude Raymond (.50). He pitched 48 IP for the Braves before being traded to Montreal where he pitched 22 innings.

Boston Red Sox - 1 hitter short - Add Ken Harrelson (3.27). He only played in 10 games for Boston before being traded to Cleveland where he appeared in 149 games but I can't find anyone else.

Pittsburgh Pirates - 1 pitcher short - Add Jim Bunning (3.33). He pitched 156 IP for the Pirates before being traded to LA where he pitched only 56 innings. This would shift one of the other S/R that Pittsburgh has to a relief role.

Baltimore Orioles - 2 hitters short - Add Ron Stone (.50). He was traded from Baltimore to Philadelphia before the 1969 season. Add Tom Shopay (.50). He was claimed from the Yankees after the 1969 season.

I think these choices, except for maybe Harrelson to Boston, are the best and most logical choices that can be made to fill in these roster spots and still be fair to everybody.

i think teams with NOT enuf players should be assigned players BEFORE we do the draft, so we know which players go with each team. I also think we should go with the W/L records, but i'm in either way. Just think it levels the playing field if we go by how they performed and not how they were paid. JMO..............Tom.

Just read & like LMBombers ideas on who to add. Think as long as we know BEFORE drafting we can consider it when making our choice!!

If we have a league salary cap for anything less than 100M then some teams would not be able to use their entire rosters and we will have to find still more (less expensive) players for those teams. I think we should have a high enough salary cap to allow all rostered players for every team. Part of the fun of our current league is watching some of the lower salaried teams like KC and SD beat up on higher salaried teams. The whole purpose of our current league is to have real teams and they don't all have the same salary cap now so why would we want to change the process now?

We need to answer some questions now like 1. DH or no DH 2. 80M or 100M salary cap 3. divisons by won-lost record or by SOM salary

Also by stating your preferences below you are letting us all know that you want to participate in the next league. The majority rules for these questions. You are welcome to drop out if you don't like what the results turn out to be.

FAaron
CATom
genegrid
Pelzer
Skandia HL Midgets
Merm
doctor_tax1
LMBombers - DH or no DH (don't care), 100M, SOM salary if DH or won-lost if no-DH
ehlekev
BoDean
Assmeriten
errormagnate

[quote:119a313739="CATom"]i think teams with NOT enuf players should be assigned players BEFORE we do the draft.[/quote:119a313739]

Tom this will be the case just like it was in our current league.