I know Emrys is probably really busy right now with the new kid (Big Congrats man!!!), but I thought i'd throw out some offseason thoughts to get things rolling for the next season (Re-Peat! Re-Peat!)  :)

Last season, I think one thing that cost us a lot of momentum was doing the FA period and the rookie draft back to back.  We usually do them at the same time, and run the amateur draft until we finish out the FA period, so then we can go right into Spring Training.  If the game will let us (and i don't know why it wouldn't) i'd suggest we go back to that method.  It really helps keep things moving - which is always a good thing for keeping people interested.

Second - I know everyone hates to talk about it, but how many teams are short owners right now?  We haven't gotten any additional interest that I know of - is it time to talk contraction?  I'd rather have a smaller, more active league, than one in which someone's second team almost wins it all.

Tempus

(this post brought to you by too much coffee on a friday morning).

---

South Beach Sunburn GM

Well I just got my OOTP 9 Pre Order Mail.  And looking at the features...I say we upgrade immediately.

Simplified Scouting system and revised financial modeling look very promising.  And they are bringing back the scouting report text on each player.  That was a huge downer to me in 2007.

---

Berd
Manager, Latrobe Lightning

I saw this too. Wow, 9 looks like a big improvement over 2007/8.

Here's the newsletter with some details:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/newsletters/nl0040/


I didn't want to push upgrading, since it seems we just upgraded to 2007, but I'd like to upgrade to 9 when it comes out as well. Fixing scouts and finances would make our lives much easier I think.

I know many folks might bristle at the thought of upgrading yet again so soon though. I'm interested to get folks' take on this.

makes me glad i didn't pony up the $10 for OOTP 8. 

but definitely, if they can deliver on those things as promised, it sounds very good.  Would we then think about using the scouting system?  Or go back to giving everyone default "good" scouts as Grypht used to do?

Tempus

---

South Beach Sunburn GM

    I agree it might be time to go this route.  I really enjoy this league and I think maybe getting it down to a smaller number of teams might really up the activity level.

Yeah, I'm leaning towards this as well. I don't see us picking up enough new owners to fill up the ownerless teams, and while I hate to get rid of some of the older teams, we have to be willing to change to survive. I didn't really like an ownerless team playing in the WS...that's not healthy for the league, IMO.

I'd like to get others' input on this idea, as well as how you've seen this done elsewhere. I assume it involves dumping players into the FA pool, and some sort of draft...any ideas?

Not sure on the logistics, but that seems fairly feasible. Not sure what you'd do about the whole financial issues that would crop up by adding those players to teams though. A re-organization of the league structure is probably worth looking in to too.

5 teams in 4 divisions? 5 teams in the WL divisions and 4 teams in the ML division?

I think it'd be fun to see how a restructure would look.

---

GM of Chattooga Eagles
The Eagle's Nest

I agree that we should definitely consider contraction.  I am almost certain that Impalla is going to drop, too, leaving New Glarus un-owned as well.  I tried to get him interested in everything again, but he's been too busy in real life to put much effort into the league for months.  So just a head's up there.  And I'd have to say, that's probably one of the teams that should be contracted - they have the least money committed to payroll, and won't be good for some time most likely.

I'd hate to see Texas contracted, as hard as I've worked to turn that team around.  At the same time though, I feel like truly running Texas like an owner, as I have tried to do, is beginning to interefere with my plans for New York.  Back when Texas was terrible, they were looking for different types of players than New York.  Now both teams need some of the same types of players.  Besides, I've enjoyed "babysitting" the team, but owners really should only have one team in the league ideally.

I guess we'd first have to decide how many teams to contract.  We might not want to get rid of ALL the ownerless teams, in case we do find someone who wants to join the league, but I think we should get rid of most of them probably.

Just my two cents worth.  I'll play no matter what we do!  :-)

---

Caelon
GM New York Empire

Oh, and I'm all for upgrading to OOTP 9

---

Caelon
GM New York Empire

responding to one of the comments in Emrys email.  I am NOT in favor of upgrading to OOTP9 this coming season.  I'd rather get the season moving, and hopefully give them a chance to work out all the obvious OOTP9 bugs before we upgrade.

Historically, we've done MUCH better when we give them a chance to get the first major patch out before we upgrade, and I definitely don't think we want to delay the season any longer than Emrys' child situation requires.

Tempus

---

South Beach Sunburn GM

I agree with Tempus  Waiting on at least the first patch for OOTP9 is a good plan and I am all about getting the season going as soon as possible.

I think the offseason is going to be long whether we wait or not.

I am curious to see if the online features in OOTP 9 would be able to speed things up--the player draft took EONs last time, because the draft tool was not able to be used.  If the OOTP9 allows us to use the tool again, then we should upgrade, immediately.  Irregardless of the bugs.

That said, I have no clue when OOTP9 is being released.  If it is a month from now, then by all means proceed with the next season.  If Em is still adjusting to having a kid by the time 9 comes out (meaning that we have not started the offseason, yet), then we should upgrade.

Edited for clarification

---

Berd
Manager, Latrobe Lightning

I'd likely take back Boston (if offered) assuming a move to OOTP9.

(I may take them back anyway for one year if we delay the upgrade till next season, although this season is prefered.)

So here are the current teams I'd consider for contraction, based upon inactivity:

Biloxi - WL Feller
Bowie - ML Musial
Honshu - ML Banks
New Glarus - WL DiMaggio
Spalding - WL Foxx
St. Boni - ML Gibson

However, that'd leave us with 18 teams, which isn't going to be easy to split up without having 3 team divisions, which I'm not a huge fan of, but could live with.

Another option is to leave two teams off the chopping block, and end up with two leagues with 2 divisions each , 5 teams per division.

I don't know that I heard from Chickenbone about leaving for good, and same with Albatros, so I'd vote to leave those two intact for the time being, both in case the guys return, and to give us 3 open teams for new owners.

Option 1 would look like (doesn't look bad now that I look at it):

Williams League	Mays League
DiMaggio Division	Musial Division
Falls Church	Orchard Park
South Beach	Vienna
Homer	Chessie
Foxx Division	Banks Division
Melbourne	New York
Texas	Halifax
Superior	Boston
Feller Division	Gibson Division
St. Louis	Mexico City
Columbia	Latrobe
Bradford	Chattooga

Option 2 would be (and this would be subject to change because we'd want it to be as fair as possible):

Williams League	Mays League
DiMaggio Division	Musial Division
Falls Church	Orchard Park
South Beach	Vienna
Homer	Bowie
Columbia	Chessie
Bradford	Latrobe
Foxx Division	Banks Division
Melbourne	New York
Texas	Halifax
Superior	Boston
St. Louis	Mexico City
Biloxi	Chattooga

Thoughts?

well, just to point out the obvious...

option 1 gives us 18 teams, with 8 playoff teams
option 2 gives us 20 teams, with 4 playoff teams (assuming no wildcard with 2 divisions)

Either way, from a local perspective, the dimaggio rivalries remain intact *grin*

sad to see the old St. Paul go, and Spalding especially.. one of the original teams, and with so much history.  but what can you do.

Tempus

---

South Beach Sunburn GM