off season

I know I'm fairly new and was not around for the last off season but I've been trying to read some of the issues that came up then. Would starting the offseason discussions now be something that people would be interested in? I'm not saying anything has to be decided now, but it would allow people to share ideas and discuss different topics throughout the rest of the regular season, which would help speed up the offseason.

If done right it could be set up so when the season is over all of the issues that are going to be voted on are decided, as well as the potential solutions. Just a thought. Plus I'm 26 games out and have nothing better to do.

jcclemen2 wrote:

If done right it could be set up so when the season is over all of the issues that are going to be voted on are decided, as well as the potential solutions. Just a thought. Plus I'm 26 games out and have nothing better to do.

We set up the "Winter Meetings" right after the trading deadline... hold your horses, we're almost there

jcclemen2 wrote:

I know I'm fairly new and was not around for the last off season but I've been trying to read some of the issues that came up then. Would starting the offseason discussions now be something that people would be interested in? I'm not saying anything has to be decided now, but it would allow people to share ideas and discuss different topics throughout the rest of the regular season, which would help speed up the offseason.

If done right it could be set up so when the season is over all of the issues that are going to be voted on are decided, as well as the potential solutions. Just a thought. Plus I'm 26 games out and have nothing better to do.

They should begin in under a week.

First issue should be fill inactive teams, which is about 15 i think

ty84moss wrote:

First issue should be fill inactive teams, which is about 15 i think

Its alot less then that.... its more like "not as active" owners or currently busy owners unable to operate as much as others... we only have 4 or 5 teams that are really an issue right now (Oakland/Houston/ChiSox/Milaukee)

what about the guy that took florida, how many posts does he have?
also look at depth chart thread, onl about 15 teams have update in the past month (last time i checked this)

ty84moss wrote:

what about the guy that took florida, how many posts does he have?
also look at depth chart thread, onl about 15 teams have update in the past month (last time i checked this)

Some people have been using the trade screens as depth charts....

ty84moss wrote:

First issue should be fill inactive teams, which is about 15 i think

It isn't as high as that. Oakland, Houston, and Milwaukee have no owners so no doubt about them. Then not much from there. If you check the memberlist, 23 people checked this site since April 10th, and 22 of them are gms(I have no idea who the heck BobStan is). Maybe Florida isn't one of the top active gms, but he submitted a depth chart, and does check the site out(doesn't just join, and forget about the site), so that is all we can ask out of a gm. The Dodgers are a "less active, but still active" owner. He does do stuff to help improve his team. The White Sox for some doesn't visit the site too often, but he does trade if you catch him on aim. He is borderline active, but still good enough while we have other teams without any owner. The rest though(Rangers, Royals, Indians), I am not sure about. But I agree, we will have to try to get interest back from those teams gms, or try to get owners for the other teams:

Brewers
Astros
A's
Rangers*
Royals*
Indians*

defense wrote:

ty84moss wrote:

First issue should be fill inactive teams, which is about 15 i think

It isn't as high as that. Oakland, Houston, and Milwaukee have no owners so no doubt about them. Then not much from there. If you check the memberlist, 23 people checked this site since April 10th, and 22 of them are gms(I have no idea who the heck BobStan is). Maybe Florida isn't one of the top active gms, but he submitted a depth chart, and does check the site out(doesn't just join, and forget about the site), so that is all we can ask out of a gm. The Dodgers are a "less active, but still active" owner. He does do stuff to help improve his team. The White Sox for some doesn't visit the site too often, but he does trade if you catch him on aim. He is borderline active, but still good enough while we have other teams without any owner. The rest though(Rangers, Royals, Indians), I am not sure about. But I agree, we will have to try to get interest back from those teams gms, or try to get owners for the other teams:

Brewers
Astros
A's
Rangers*
Royals*
Indians*

Rangers have been active (sorta)