ink, you make good points about trusting until there is reason to not.  I'm not sure whether I fully agree yet, but as usual, you provide interesting things to think about.

Posted by silverpaw on 2/9/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):
You should not move from prog to prog.  If you join a prog, you join it through 2011 (and beyond)

Not everyone feels that way.   

I've quit a few progressives one season in. The league sounds like it'll be fun, I go through the draft, get excited for my team, and then realize about midway through the season that I'm not really enjoying the league, or it isn't quite what I expected... I've done the same when taking a team over as a rebuilding project... I always have intentions of playing for at least 5 seasons or preferably, until the league runs its course, but sometimes they just aren't what you thought they'd be. Now, I've gotten to the point where I've been in pretty much every kind of league and I know what I like and don't like better, so I think it unlikely I'll have a 1-year run again anytime soon, but I now know that I don't like leagues after 1969 that have less than 24 teams, or leagues that use more than a single season, or leagues that have players go back to the draft pool if you goof on your keeper list, or leagues don't have a high win floor (min 48 games or a formula or something else in place to discourage tanking)...

So yeah, all that to say, I don't have a problem with owners trying out progressives... yeah it's not fun from the commish's position to try to fill their vacated teams, but I don't like to ask others to do what I'm not willing to do. And, further, imo, if an owner trades away his 1st and then isn't coming back, unless there's a good reason, they should pony up a team or GC to help replace the owner.

And, further, imo, if an owner trades away his 1st and then isn't coming back, unless there's a good reason, they should pony up a team or GC to help replace the owner.

Amen. 

By the way, he also traded away his #2 (to me!).  And since he finished 2nd overall, the new owner won't draft until 71 picks in.

In one of the leagues I run, I give new owners an extra pick at the end of the 1st round as an incentive to join.   You might want to run that by your league to see if they would approve of the that.   It might help.

FWIW, I have very little difficulty filling openings.   

Yes, we've given extra picks in this league before to owners coming in to take over sad sack teams.  It's unfortunate that something like that even has to be done, though.

By the way, reading over some of these posts, I think we should remember to differentiate between good managers and good owners -- they're not necessarily the same.  Because I realize the guy I'm talking about is a good manager.  I'm criticizing him as an owner.

Put yourself in the other person's shoes and give them the benefit of the doubt. If you were in the shoes of the person in question, would you expect to be on this list?

Well, considering I've already posted that I'd feel like a douchebag if I did what he did, I guess the answer would be yes. Yes, I would expect to be on this list. 

By the way, I haven't even named the owner yet.  He wound up winning the WS (his 2nd in 5 seasons), and he promised earlier that he'd return if he won it all.   Let's see if he keeps that promise.

I'm baffled by the low expectations people have of prog owners.  Apparently you can take over a powerhouse team, put together a .625 run over 5 seasons, make the playoffs every year, win the WS twice -- then drop the team like a hot potato as soon as it's time to rebuild (and leave the next owner in the lurch by trading away your top 2 picks the following season).  

And this guy commishes other leagues, so he knows exactly what it means to abandon a team in this kind of shape.

As a commish, if I held everyone to the same standard I try to keep myself, I'd have to report 1/3 of the league. There is a limited supply of progressive owners, so I feel we have to be somewhat lenient. I'd love to raise the standard, but it would make the already challenging task of filling a league even more difficult.

If I understand this correctly, the owner inherited a  "powerhouse" club after the 1987 season. 

THEN: Going into the '88 draft, the team payroll was 68M for 20 players.
NOW:   Going into the '93 draft, this team's payroll is 61M for 19 players.

Inherited best multi season players on the team
Roger Clemens, Ryne Sandberg, Paul Molitor, Kent Hrbek

Current best multi season players on the team
Roger Clemens, Juan Guzman, Kirby Puckett, Paul Molitor, Mickey Tettleton

The owner of this inherited "powerhouse" team has
traded away it's 1st rd pick every season dating back 
to the '89 draft.

The owner has traded away
it's 2nd rd pick in all drafts dating back
to the '89 draft, sans '91 when he selected
3B Leo Gomez, who's best season is yet 
to come in '94.

I would argue that this team is in better shape now,
then when it was inherited.

This owner also stated, he would return if he won the WS.
The owner did  win the WS and will indeed honor his statement.

It was easy when you asked and I responded on our message board post.
I stated that, before you chose to come here to wall of shame me. LOL 

No, I posted here when you posted in our message forum that you weren't returning.  And when you changed your mind, I posted that too (you didn't exactly say you were returning then, either -- you said you would if you won the WS).

By the way, the team you took over won 108 games the previous season, and 107 the year before that; it wasn't exactly a fixer upper.  Props to you for keeping it going for 5 more seasons, but as you yourself pointed out you traded away a lot of 1st and 2nd rounders to get there, including in next season's draft.  You've got 61M going into the draft, with no picks until #71.  It's only right that you're the owner who's going to be at the reins for the rebuilding phase.