Backyard Contraction Discussion

[Anthony]

Wanted to open up a discussion about a contraction. We've struggled to keep a full 20 teams, and with very few new members coming to the site there's not a big pool to pull from. With that being said we're exploring contracting to 18 teams, removing the two vacent ones (Detroit and New York). We have the support from at least 4 of us.

There would need to be a plan in place if we went ahead, and to consider all the pros and cons. I'm opening up this thread for discussion on the general consensus on support/opposition of contraction, as well as thoughts on the best plan of action for it if we do proceed.

Things that need to be considered: how majors/minors players are made available, any free drops, change in salary cap, change in roster size, etc.

From here we'll take all the ideas presented and move ahead with what we best see fit for the league.

[Anthony]

moving jlapo's idea to this thread :

I will support a contraction but if we go ahead I suggest that we hold a special draft lottery based on teams available ( separate lottery rounds) for  their NHL roster so every team will have an equal chance to draft at least x players. Not sure however that some teams will have enough cap space to acquire top players so each team should have x free drops after the special draft. All minors should go back to minor draft or special separate draft as well

[Vik]

Even though we have a long way to go until next season I am not in favor of contraction this year.

Potentially open to the idea next off season but same time I don't think it is too difficult to find 2 GMs. Even with site losing traffic we are an established and competitive league so I'm sure between now and start of next year (whenver official opening day is) we can bring on 2 more solid GMs. The 18 teams with GMs have almost all been active since we allowed for offseason acitivyt and this alone should help attract a couple others to join and take on the challenge.

Plus, my main reason against contraction is that there has already been good activity and personally I made some moves to utilize my cap space already. If we contract I don't see a fair way to divide the players when teams have varying cap space to work with, even if we work in something like a free drop and other tweaks I am not a fan.

With that said, even though I vote no, if it turns out the majority of league really wants to contract I would be ok with it.

[jmtrops]

there are many options here. first I do have some interest in someone to take 1 of the teams but he has not committed to taking one yet.

if we do contract the 2 do we give teams the opportunity to switch team, those 2 are good teams and better than half of our teams. If we dont contract I do have a plan to keep those teams running until we find owners.

if we do I see us following the draft rules we already have in place. we already do a prospect draft so players with under 40 games played go into that draft. we have a 2 round contraction draft for the other players. in reverse order of last years finish. there contracts stay in place and extensions are done to our rules.

problems I see are cap for some teams and roster space for others. I really dont like any of the options here, increase cap, increase roster spots or free drops.

Im leaning towards keeping the teams but if the majority wants to contract I could do that with little problems for my team.

[SlackJack]

Okay Anthony, I'm chiming in. 

Setting issues of timing and mechanics aside, I believe that it is not at all easy to find two solid GM's. To be honest I don't consider half of the GM's that we have now to be solid. And by that I mean that time and again activity and participation are generated by the same half-dozen people. There used to be a convention in this league that stipulated GM's were required to answer all mail and trade offers. That has since fallen by the wayside, and as active GM's have become increasingly more rare the new de-facto standard is to tolerate the silence of those operating on cruise control. How do we enforce any code of conduct when we're just happy to have people here?

Sure there are flurries of activity around key dates but that's not the same as healthy, consistent, and growing engagement. Obviously the glory days of this site are well behind us so if we are to continue here it would be best to play to our strengths. For me that means building on the small core of our small community. Historically Backyard has been an 18 team league that always had great conversation and competition. I think we can get back to this but we first have to admit we've got a niche league on a niche site. Figuring out the when and the how matters, but is less important than embracing a model based on exclusivity. Who knows, maybe one day we'll have a waiting list and we'll once again be able to take GM's to task for not answering their mail!

[cloud91]

for me im ok what the majority decides. but i will  vote "no" on having a contraction. because for now the only affected players are the players of unmanaged teams that will be part of a contraction draft to be pick by remaining teams. but my issue there is when the Earth backs to normal and the fantasy world goes back to normal, and the league will decide to expand teams again, then we will have an expansion draft and that will not only involve 2 teams but all teams though we can protect some players but still not all players are protected in the expansion draft that we will have a tough time deciding who will be protected and not be protected. unlike the unmanaged teams its easy to release players because no one is managing them.

if the leagues decision is "no", then just let the unmanaged team as is just put players on active positions and bench empty it there are few players, just let the future GM fill it up.

 

[jmtrops]

Okay Anthony, I'm chiming in. 

Setting issues of timing and mechanics aside, I believe that it is not at all easy to find two solid GM's. To be honest I don't consider half of the GM's that we have now to be solid. And by that I mean that time and again activity and participation are generated by the same half-dozen people. There used to be a convention in this league that stipulated GM's were required to answer all mail and trade offers. That has since fallen by the wayside, and as active GM's have become increasingly more rare the new de-facto standard is to tolerate the silence of those operating on cruise control. How do we enforce any code of conduct when we're just happy to have people here?

Sure there are flurries of activity around key dates but that's not the same as healthy, consistent, and growing engagement. Obviously the glory days of this site are well behind us so if we are to continue here it would be best to play to our strengths. For me that means building on the small core of our small community. Historically Backyard has been an 18 team league that always had great conversation and competition. I think we can get back to this but we first have to admit we've got a niche league on a niche site. Figuring out the when and the how matters, but is less important than embracing a model based on exclusivity. Who knows, maybe one day we'll have a waiting list and we'll once again be able to take GM's to task for not answering their mail!

one of the problems I have with pm's is I dont know I have one unless I come to the site. it would be nice if I get an email telling me I have one also on some post, an email telling us a new post was made. maybe it can do it and I just couldnt find where to set it.
for me its not a problem because Im on here 6-8 times a day but others cant always be on every day because of life so they may only set there lineups 1 a week sometimes. if we limited the teams to only those really active ones we would be lucky to have 10 teams. now with the 2 missing we have isaman no one knows what happened to him but it must have been bad so he is not your usual MIA and I dont know anything about the other one but he seems more of the typical MIA. overall I think we are typical of the leagues on here

[jmtrops]

if the leagues decision is "no", then just let the unmanaged team as is just put players on active positions and bench empty it there are few players, just let the future GM fill it up.
 

If we dont contract I would set the lineups for the teams until we find someone for them. for the draft I would ask the teams that have no draft picks sellect for them since there will be no conflict of interest there. we would open them up for trades but I would only do trades that strengthen those teams and also consult with a few others to make sure there is no conflict of interest but I dont anticipate that there would be much trading approved with them. same with extentions and roster decisions.

[jmtrops]

so looking at all our teams it looks like the cap would be a problem for only 2 teams so I dont see a cap change or free drops needed. same for roster size, there are only 3 teams at the max roster size.

[Tony]

I’m ok with going back to 18 teams. I think all players should go to free agency so I can see how much someone will pay for Draisaitl.