1954 Milwaukee Braves seeking to trade for a pitcher, offering SS JohnnyLogan (four very solid seasons in 54, 55, 56, 57, 59. Sitemail offers.

27 A's are looking to deal 2B Max Bishop for a 1-or-2 year pitcher who is really good.

The Reds are looking for a starting SS that can play for at least 1-2 years until Concepcion can start playing every day. We have a ton of pitching for trade...

If anyone wants a good one year bat for 1B/OF I have Joe Harris to trade. Looking for a decent pitcher in return. One year wonders are fine with me.

anyone looking for a 3B I got 62 Jim Davenport who is ok maybe for loan. I'm also looking to move Gaylord Perry who was some great seasons coming. Send me something and I'll take a look at it

I thought of a few things we should probably discuss early on so that we know how we all feel about it and have decided before the issues come up. I'll make multiple posts by topic so that it all doesn't run into one massive post.



1) Divsion alignments if/when people start to change teams. Nikospade designed the divisions to meet area rivalries, but eventually someone is going to pick a new team and start over. How do we want to handle that as far as alignments go? I know we like our natural rivalries but I don't know if it would be wise to start making new divisions once people start changing teams. Do we want to see our divisions set permenantly by the current owners or tweak as we go? Which brings me to -



2) How are we all feeling about the subject of changing teams? It is going to be necessary to do this as years run out and the fact that it might not be possible to field the minimum ammount of players in a given year. However, I'm of mixed feelings on people able to switch teams just because you feel like it.

I do like it on one hand. People get bored. They want change at some point. Being able to change teams does help keep owners interested and coming back. That said, it does give the ability for an owner to destroy his team's future in order to go for it all for one season and not pay the consequence of that action in future seasons. There should be some way to limit that.

I propose that an owner must announce his intention to switch teams one full season before he's allowed to do it. As in, the owner cannot decide to switch to a new team until during the off season and must then play one more full season with his current team before they can pick a new team to start over with. That way there's at least some consequence for gutting a team or just plain old bad management choices.

Another issue is one that we've already been kicking around -trades. It's been an issue so far during the initial draft and I think we've come to a semi agreement on it, but I think it becomes a whole different issue during the season once people who are out of it start drafting for future draft picks. Do we want to continue on like we are or make different rules?

I don't know that trading for future draft picks is as appealing as it should be in a progressive league if you just get another pick for your teams year. Maybe we should allow getting the other team's year for in season deals. It definitely ups a draft slot's worth and could be good for the league as a whole.

If not, and we stick with our current set-up, I think every trade needs to be spelled out and the owners held to it so there's no issues. If you trade for an owner drafting you a player from his year with a certain rounds pick, that needs to be stated and there's no backing out of it. You don't need to announce the player you're gunning for, obviously, but trades should be announced as such -

Verbal Kint trades 28 Lloyd Waner to owner x for a player he drafts for me in 1998 with his 2nd pick.



No shady deals, no going back on it, we all know where we all stand.

Finally, and this is minor, what do we feel about team names?

I've become sort of old fashioned in my thoughts towards naming teams over the years, particularly in progressive leagues. I like some continuity and realism. Calling your team "Badass Tough Guys" of "Manny Ramirez Loves Roids!!!" and such just isn't that enjoyable, personally.

I vote on the traditional City name & nickname for teams. New York Gangsters. Boston Crabs. Salem Witches. Who cares. Call your team the Phoenix A##holes for all I care. I'd just like to see semi-traditional teams. What's everyone else say?





And yes, I'v had quite a few drinks while watching football today.

I am seeking a big-inning starting pitcher.

Have plenty of stud hitters to deal, including Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Manny Ramirez and Larry Walker. Or I can still draft a 1994 player to your liking.

as far as new owners they will have two choices. Take a new team or take the team that dropped out. What we can do is juat replace that owner with the one that dropped to keep rivalrys. If more than one drop we can go with whatever makes most sense for those teams to go. We will try to keep owners together at all cost with the alignment I already set.

Trading is a tough thing I'm not sure how to go about that because everyone has different feelings. I don't really care about team name. I just want to see a number of the year you are using primarily. So I could be the San Fran Marauders '62

so are we saying that existing owners can't change teams? i'd be perfectly OK with that but we should make it clear before we start.

i think it's reasonable to require that team names have your year and follow some kind of city/mascot naming convention, but i won't be too offended if someone really wants to do something else.

i definitely think that trades need to be very clearly spelled out. we should have a thread where they are all tracked. and there shouldn't be any players to be named later - like verbal said, it's ok to say "i'm trading player x for a player from year Y of my choosing" but you should also specify which round the player will be picked in (like verbal said).

and people have to understand that the player might not be available if they're a superstar. if someone expected me to get gehrig with my 1st round pick this year, it didn't happen because he was already gone. you also have to understand that the owner himself might want the player (so if i say i'll pick the player with my 2nd rounder, what if i take him with my first?)

i also think we need to make sure we stick to the rules in terms of how many players you can draft in one draft. otherwise people will cut 13 players and just draft the 13 best 1-year players in their season. the limit on how many picks you have forces people to draft some long-term players (which is good)

yeah I stated in the first page. That you have to keep 18 from the year before so the maximum is 7 from year to year

I think we should stick with existing owners being able to drop their current team and start over. I just think there should be something in place, a waiting period or something else, so that you can't knowingly run a team into the ground and then bail out with no consequence. If, for no other reason, to make sure no collusion goes on. For another, If I make all my management decisions based on one year, I should have to pay for that decision for at least one following year.