I'm totally aggravated with this. I hate adding one year. its too contrived. Maybe I'm just grumpy. I guess tsballgame did all the work so I should just be happy and live with it.

I am totally happy with it. The best part of progressive leagues for me is researching the various players and learning how they did in different seasons and eras. I did some research for the 1910s, 1920s, etc. and now I get to do some for 1911, 1921 etc. I don't feel burdened.

Just to clarify for everyone, the one year in the future serves a specific purpose.

This way, every player in our season one will be from a year ending in "1", every player in our season two will be from a year ending in "2", and so on.

I just think it makes things easier, and really if you start with years ending in "0", "1", "2", or "9", it's a randomly selected season anyway, so why not?

As for the decade/position alignments, I selected them as best I could taking into consideration both what players would be available as well as having an eye on minimizing any potential clone conflicts.

Let's keep rollin'!

So harrelson, you're on? And still at Bennett Park?

I'm in with Petco.

Parity Suggestion:

In a league like this, it is very difficult for those drafting in the bottom half of round one to compete with those who draft all time greats at the top of the round.

To have a more equal distribution of talent in the first year, I suggest having the SAME DRAFT ORDER IN ROUNDS TWO AND THREE (the opposite order of round one) and alternating 1-24, 24-1, 1-24, etc. starting with round four.

I have been in a couple leagues where this has produced more contending teams starting in year one. In leagues that alternate every round, it seems like the league champion always comes from one of the first few to draft because nobody can overcome the Walter Johnsons and Babe Ruths that get drafted first.

Welcome back Mike!

What do people think of the parity suggestion? I'm always open to constructive suggestions.

Based on comments in the other thread, the taint, dannino, shysters3, MMTDad, and masterdebate should all be sure things. That's 13 that I think we'll get confirmed for sure. harrelson would make it 14. I'm sure there are others we haven't heard from yet who will definitely be on board with this, so getting a minimum of 16 is looking very good. I'm all for more, but that'll be good enough for me to go ahead with the draft once we've heard from all parties.

Confirmed with Shibe Park.

got it shysters!

Im in. I'll stick with PNC Park.

I see now that the years have been rearranged, Jamie Quirk is now available. I have a probable first round pick.

YES!

Well, verbal, if you end up near the bottom of round one, you can always trade up in hopes of grabbing Quirk...

Welcome back cardsfan - you are now confirmed as one of TWO teams in Pittsburgh, not bad for a so-called "small market".

I like the parity idea...

If there's enough interest in the parity idea, we could have a vote before the draft. Otherwise, we would proceed with a standard serpentine system.

just got sitemail from the taint, confirming for Fenway

I too like the parity plan... unless I get first pick, of course...

Hmm, perhaps this vote needs to happen before we randomize the draft order,...