New Franchise League: "Break Up The Yankees" LEAGUE FULL

Sorry, I guess I was supposed to use the list:

1) treyomo - Red Sox
2) royal_boston (Royals)
3) trowell1817 (Team Name)
4) Brent65 (Team Name)
5) freebase (Team Name)
6) gator39 (Team Name)
7) BDWard (Team Name)
8) mrharryc (Team Name)
9) 23pirate (Team Name)
10) Riggs10 (Team Name)
11) jlt53 (Team Name)
12) misterg (Team Name)

And my pick is in as well...

1) treyomo - Red Sox
2) royal_boston - Royals
3) trowell1817 - Giants
4) Brent65 (Team Name)
5) freebase (Team Name)
6) gator39 (Team Name)
7) BDWard (Team Name)
8) mrharryc (Team Name)
9) 23pirate (Team Name)
10) Riggs10 (Team Name)
11) jlt53 (Team Name)
12) misterg (Team Name)

Brent65 is on the clock...

1) treyomo - Red Sox
2) royal_boston - Royals
3) trowell1817 - Giants
4) Brent65 - Dodgers
5) freebase (Team Name)
6) gator39 (Team Name)
7) BDWard (Team Name)
8) mrharryc (Team Name)
9) 23pirate (Team Name)
10) Riggs10 (Team Name)
11) jlt53 (Team Name)
12) misterg (Team Name)

freebase is on the clock...

Thanks Brent - great choice. Man, I debated the Dodgers A LOT yesterday but ultimately landed up the coast. Just a quick reminder and question to all because this thought came up in my head as I weighed the Dodgers. Based on the rules outlined, Mike Piazza is a Met by definition, so based on the rules already outlined if no one picks the Mets as a franchise, then this soon-to-be HOF'er is a free agent. That being said, what if Brent took him as a supplementary draft pick (not a bad play in my estimation). This is not spelled out in the rules, but I would vote for allowing his Dodger cards to be available to Brent. Thoughts?

On a similar note, for players that are FA's - do we allow any of their cards to be used? Again, I didn't spell this out in the rules so I think we need to confirm this now. Again, my vote is "yes" on this count but happy to entertain any opposing views!

I would suggest that as they are free agents - and hence unaffiliated - that we should be able to use any card they have.

Harry

Agreed with mrharry - free means free, all cards available.

All - one more thing, and this may seem obvious, in the event a player played for one team more but wasn't carded in this set for that team, obviously he belongs to the team for which he has cards. The example, Carlton Fisk - more AB's with the White Sox, but his only cards in the set are with the Red Sox, therefore (and obviously) he's property of the Red Sox for this league.

Thanks Brent - great choice. Man, I debated the Dodgers A LOT yesterday but ultimately landed up the coast. Just a quick reminder and question to all because this thought came up in my head as I weighed the Dodgers. Based on the rules outlined, Mike Piazza is a Met by definition, so based on the rules already outlined if no one picks the Mets as a franchise, then this soon-to-be HOF'er is a free agent.

I don't see the distinction between Piazza and Fisk. Like Fisk, Piazza has cards with only one team but played more games with another team. Why is Fisk thus deemed to be a member of the Red Sox while Piazza is a free agent?

They should either both be free agents or both be members of the team to which they are carded.

Mr. Commish, since you made your ruling on Fisk before the Red Sox were selected, and both treyomo and Brent could be expected to have relied on your ruling in selecting their teams, I think it is only fair that Fisk is a Red Sox and Piazza is a Dodger.

Yeah, I don't think there's much debate here. Along with my vote and a vote that I just got (in person) from gator39, no one opposed yet. "Free means Free" is the prevailing approach unless a hidden opposition arises!

BDWard - Great point and one that I overlooked, otherwise I would have written my post differently. Let me be clear of my intention (if not my execution) and to correct what I wrote earlier:

Piazza is a Dodger by virtue of the fact that he has no Mets cards!

My mistake, and thanks for helping me out on this point. Sorry for any confusion, folks.

In looking at the potential rosters of the teams thus far selected, and in thinking about the rosters of the teams likely to be available when I select, I'm not sure if I should be glad or unhappy that the cap is just $100 mil.

A lower cap such as $100 mil can be a great equalizer for managers picking a franchise later in the process, as the teams that have picked thus far will have a very difficult time fitting all that talent under the cap. Some very tough decisions will have to be made, with the result being that star players, long associated with a franchise, will potentially be cut or represented by a lesser card. This, of course, will dilute the original franchise theme.

On the other hand, in looking at the top 15 or 16 post WWII franchises, none of them would really have a problem meeting a higher cap, say of $120 to $125 mil, under the rules of this league. Coupled with a DH and 5 potential free agents from a wide talent pool, it looks like a cap of $100 mil would be insufficient to accommodate the available talent for each franchise and our league would not be a battle of the best franchises, but of the best bargain players.

With all of that being said, I think the league would be much more interesting, fun and competitive if the cap were raised to $120 to $125 mil.