Ok....I've been kicking around an idea for a few weeks and am am looking for some input.

Here are what I want to accomplish:

1. A Progressive type league that starts in or around the 1920's.
2. A league that is user friendly, with drafts that are easy to manage.
3. A system that does reward finishing in last place.
4. A league with enough talent to field a team but the average team salary not be over 90ish million.
5, A league where AAA was at worst had a minimal impact, at best no impact at all. 

Here are my thoughts:

1. A 16 team league (4-4-4-4) starting in 1921.  

2. All 1921 players would be available, they would "progress" in future seasons like normal progressives.

3. All players who's last WIS season was in 1920 would also be available in the initial draft.  They would "regress" in future seasons.

4.  In future seasons, the rookies from the next year would be available as would retirees from the "next" season.  For example, In Season 2 the draft would have 1922 rookies and 1919 retirees, the Season 3 would have 1923 rookies and 1918 retirees.  

5. There would be no roster size limit.   Players would never have to cut a player.  Once drafted, a player would be property of the owner until he "expires" or traded.  This would eliminate the need for keeper lists.

6. The draft order be by lottery for non-playoff teams.


I think this creates easy, short drafts with teams that will not need AAA within a few seasons.


Thoughts?  Possible pitfalls?  Huge gaps in logic?  Your opinions are appreciated.

In my opinion, a few points to at least consider: 

1.  I don't know how that target average salary of 90 million is going to work once you start getting the really good years of the deadball pitchers thrown in there.  Just looking real quickly at the top 50 pitchers in 1919 and 1920 there seems to be about a 10% jump in salary once you go back to 1919 and you haven't even hit the glory days of Young, Mathewson, Brown, Silver King, etc. 

2.  If it's a progressive/regressive, what happens if you reach the mid-1950's and you hit 1885 in the regressive portion?  After that point it's a very different league.

3.  You may want to lay out at least a general plan for expansion, again assuming you are able to reach that time period.  If you want to stay at 16, let that be known.

I've not played in progressives, but I'm curious: how (and why) would you reward a team for finishing last?

So, basically I would have a 40 or 50 man roster, and I'd just pick my best 25 guys for a season (say 1923/1917) and enter them into the league?

I agree with gumbercules, that is going to result in a salary way higher than 90mil/team.

Otherwise I like the idea, the 20s are a fun time for a progressive with lots of all-time greats, and the deadball pitchers make for an interesting addition to the mix.

I hate the lack of a wild card without some kind of realignment plan. Not that I know what you'd do, but it's something to think about. Relegation? Realign by salary?

Posted by pinotfan on 1/28/2011 1:47:00 PM (view original):
I've not played in progressives, but I'm curious: how (and why) would you reward a team for finishing last?

"Rewarding a team for finishing last" maybe isn't the greatest way to phrase it.  It comes down to attempting to level the playing field for the bad teams.  

This happens all the time in real life, as the team that wins the title doesn't pick first in the draft- they go last.   The draft is the most common way to do this, both in real life and in progressives.  As for why you would want to do this; if you didn't, the same handful of teams would be great in perpetuity if they were better now AND could have better draft picks, therefore (theoretically) have better talent coming in as well.  There's an added element to a WIS progressive, as owners leave leagues a lot more often than in real life.  If I"m searching the classifieds and see a last place team with the last pick in the draft, I'm not signing up. 

On a side note, WIS progressive leagues (from what I've seen) are actually better than real life in not "rewarding a team for finishing last".  I can think of only one major US sports league (NBA) that does not automatically award the top pick to the team with the worst record; many progressives either have some sort of lottery system or a minimum number of wins that must be reached to be eligible to pick first. 

hmmm..maybe the "rookie" draft should be limited to 2 picks to avoid 900 man rosters....

also, I was thinking if someone didn't get drafted as a "rookie" they were forever out of the player pool

and by "rewarding someone for finishing last" I mean getting the #1 draft pick.

thanks for the input guys....

contrarian23's No Whining Progressive has the best anti-tanking system in place that I've come across.  From his league constitution:

DRAFT ORDER. The NWP removes all incentive to tank. The draft order will be determined by 2 random drawings. In the 16-team league format, the 12 non-playoff teams will be seeded 1-12 in a random drawing, and the 4 playoff teams will be seeded 13-16 in a random drawing. Note that this means that draft picks may not have their conventional value in trades. There will be no exceptions to this draft order, even for expansion teams or teams with new owners.

Absolutely no incentive to lose.  Even if your team finishes last, all you're "guaranteed" is a higher pick than the 4 playoff teams.  No one's tempted to "tank" (or "not try as hard as they might" if you want to be diplomatic about it), and you never have to feel bad because your team won a game when it would have better served your future prospects to lose it. 

that's exactly what I plan to do.