Hi everyone,

I just sent out the sitemail notice that we can begin round 1 of the inaugural player draft for the Core 4 league off the clock.

There are a few issues that some of you have raised with me by sitemail in the past few days that seemed better decided by vote of the league.

The first question is about team names. Since the idea of the league is that we are managing the historic teams, with some variations, hence the Core 4 theme so the teams feel like who they were, my first choice was that we call the teams what they were called historically.

But it is not the end of the world if we change team names either, though since Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and St. Louis all had two teams each it can be a bit confusing. But the owners are owners of the AL or NL franchises.

The most important thing then is that the CITY be part of the team name in the league with no variations. Otherwise I will find it too confusing as commissioner.

So first question to vote on:

1. Should we allow teams to use alternative names, so long as they keep the CITY name in the team name?

Please vote Yes or No on question 1.

2. Should teams be allowed to TRADE CORE 4 PLAYERS IN THE SAME SEASON THAT THEY ARE CORE 4?

Obviously a team that trades a Core 4 player to another team will then have only 3 Core 4 for the rest of the season. But should we consider requiring teams to keep Core 4 players for that entire season? I don't know.

So, please vote:

Should teams be alllowed to trade Core 4 players in their Core 4 years?

Yes or No.

3. Should teams be required to keep a minimum of the Core 4 players AS CORE 4 for a limited period. My suggestion is that at least ONE PLAYER that was Core 4 in the previous season as Core 4 in the following year. Continuity and team identity is a theme of the league. I would lean toward TWO actually, but understand that many owners might find that excessive.

So please vote on how many Core 4 players should a team be required to keep AS CORE 4 for the following season?

Vote on:

Zero
One
Two

PLEASE VOTE BELOW ON QUESTIONS 1, 2, AND 3.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Zero

Posted by maddove117 on 6/12/2021 7:26:00 AM (view original):
1. Yes
2. There are more questions on this one. Does that player revert back to their original team the next year or can they stay on the traded-to team? This is a can of worms.
3. Zero

They would revert back IF the original Real Life team listed them as Core 4 the following year AND they had played for that team all season in Real Life.

So such trades would likely only occur under two conditions:

1. team A want a great player for a pennant race and offer a player that might be a good keeper and not Core 4, or at least a comparable Core 4 to team B, both teams knowing that the players will revert back to them next season.

2. team A has a Core 4 player they are wllling to trade because they also don't particularly want to list him as Core 4 the following season and have other priorities, trading him for a non-Core 4 player they might want to keep.

But good points on why we need to make this precise.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Zero

1-no
2-yes
3- , do u mean we dont have to keep any core 4 players from 1934 , but still have 4 core players on next years team 1935

ok then zero

In year two and beyond, there's no reason why a team couldn't move their initial core 4 to keepers (if eligible) and select a new core 4?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Zero

1 yes
2 yes
3 Zero

1. yes
2. no
3. zero

Posted by maddove117 on 6/12/2021 9:05:00 AM (view original):
In year two and beyond, there's no reason why a team couldn't move their initial core 4 to keepers (if eligible) and select a new core 4?

They can't be keepers because they were never drafted. Any Core 4 who stop being Core 4 go back into the draft pool available to everyone.

Posted by brian1648 on 6/12/2021 8:28:00 AM (view original):
1-no
2-yes
3- , do u mean we dont have to keep any core 4 players from 1934 , but still have 4 core players on next years team 1935

That's right. In other words, the question I am asking is: should we require teams to repeat at least one or two of their Core 4 for the following season? Or should teams be free to drop all four Core 4 any year and pick four completely different players.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. I'd lean toward zero (it would make sense for some of the weaker teams).

As always, I'll go along with the consensus.

1) YES
2)Yes
3)Zero I amin a league run by Danino .Ithink Fatguyrd is also in the league.At first this league limited trading of legact and territorial players.Not to get specific about that league.But your top 6 0r 7 players were legacy guys(I.E. Koufax Ruth Cobb0 Your territrial were guys **** (Clemente,Drysdale,Berra) and the ablity to trade was severey limited.Why not allow a poor team to trade to a contender a core 4 guy for a number 1 pick or a rookie player who has many years left? The draft pook in this league will be restricted due to just 16 tens and the 1942-1945 WW2 situation.

Yes
yes
Zero