Posted by Jtpsops on 3/3/2011 9:06:00 PM (view original):
I'm not putting specific seasons.  And truthfully, I was going to put more on, but left them off because I didn't end up using them.

But as for your other question up there, I think we'll see 11 different WS winners.  I'm predicting no titles for the White Sox, Twins/Senators, Reds, Tigers or Indians.

jtpsops - I'm surprised at your predictions as in your Greatest Franhcise Leagues the White Sox and Reds won the AL and NL leagues respectively.

That's true, but A) some key franchises weren't in it and B) as I said, I've based it largely on franchises I've had success/disaster with personally, since I think it's ultimately going to be a crapshoot.  Having different picks than everyone else, I'll either bomb, or blow everyone out of the water.

PS: You managed 5 or 6 teams to the playoffs in those three leagues, Pedro.  I think a lot of it can be attributed to you as an owner (especially the Reds)

The Pirates and Browns/O's also did very well in those leagues and I doubt people will have them ranked high.  I'm interested to see where everyone puts the Tigers.  They gave me the most issues in determining their slot. 

Not that it matters, but how'd the Cubs end up in the East at the expense of the Reds and Braves?

I used the old divisional alignment when there were 24 teams.

Ah, gotcha.

Are the leagues all going to start on the same day?

Yes

I knew the Tigers' pitching was bad, but only 10 players in their HISTORY with a WHIP# under 1?  That's ridiculous.

Without giving too much information away, of the 14 contest entries received, here are the teams that each person is higher on than most, and lower on than the most (where most = composite ranking).

Owner:  Higher on, Lower on

beirnej1: A's, Dodgers
happyhours: Twins, Dodgers
jtpsops: Phillies, Indians
mllama54: Twins, Red Sox
mpitt76: Twins, Tigers
Oli35: White Sox, Giants
pmars2001: Pirates, Phillies
rbow923: Indians, A's
schwarze: Twins, Braves
skunk206: Reds, Yankees
thejuice6: Tigers, Phillies
wedhead36: Reds, Giants
Whiteslave: Tigers, Braves
zephyr1949: Orioles, A's

One observation I had while I was building the teams was I thought the salary was perfect. Hypothetically, if the league had been 140M or even 130, a team like the Yankees and 1 or 2 others would have had major advantages with some of the studs available. But as is I think it works pretty well. We all had some hard decisions to make with many of the teams, I would imagine.

Honestly, I haven't had much of a challenge yet.  I've definitely had to re-arrange and re-work my strategy a bit, but there's been ample talent to fill each slot so far.  I think it's going to come down to which owners adopt the best strategy, play to their ballparks and put together the best combination of players, as opposed to a lack of talent in any of the spots we have to draft.

Posted by wedhead36 on 3/7/2011 11:01:00 PM (view original):
One observation I had while I was building the teams was I thought the salary was perfect. Hypothetically, if the league had been 140M or even 130, a team like the Yankees and 1 or 2 others would have had major advantages with some of the studs available. But as is I think it works pretty well. We all had some hard decisions to make with many of the teams, I would imagine.

Thanks.  I tend to agree.  I wanted each team to be able to field their best players but at the same time, I didn't want teams to have to use $5M bench guys just to hit the cap.  Of the 8 teams I built, I did have to make tough decisions on 6 or 7 of them.