|
Post by sfdynasty on Dec 30, 2008 15:27:19 GMT -5
Hey guys,
I was just wondering what everyone thinks about this subject. Should there be a certain amount of activity and/or success achieved in order to keep a team?
I AM NOT directing this at any one team in particular.
I'm referring to teams with minimal activity, very similar rosters year to year, and no record of success in the SBL. In other words, teams and owners with "no direction."
My basic question is this, "how long do we give an owner to prove themselves as a contender?" The SBL has a waiting list, and I was just wondering what people's thoughts are on this.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by marlins on Jan 10, 2009 22:46:23 GMT -5
My honest opinion is really what you define as Minimal Activity. For example, in my league the FSL, and prior to that the CCSL, i had to have at least a certain amount of lineups per season per owner, and they had to participate in the ammy/ free agency. If they would miss those 2 events twice( since i did about 4 seasons in a year) i would cut them and replace them once i got a new owner.. so if you define the minimum, then maybe based on that.. we can go from them that's my 2 cent
|
|
|
Post by nymets on Feb 2, 2009 20:35:46 GMT -5
Hey Pitty Pittsburgh, i sent ya a couple of offers for P Maine a while back, any news on that?
|
|
|
Post by SiNcy Reds on Feb 2, 2009 21:00:14 GMT -5
hey pitifulburgh no lineups since opening day!
|
|
|
Post by nymets on Feb 3, 2009 0:06:00 GMT -5
who pick Shooter Hunt #1 overall???
|
|
|
Post by punk42ae on Feb 12, 2009 0:38:25 GMT -5
It was magical
|
|