Any update on Pulaski?

The Appalachian League (ApL) forum
charliec107
Site Admin
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:35 am

Any update on Pulaski?

Post by charliec107 » Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:51 am

I haven't heard anything since Toronto dropped them. Are they going to play in 2007 or are they still up in the air?

sportsguy12
Site Admin
Posts: 654
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:41 pm

I couldn't find anything

Post by sportsguy12 » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:55 pm

[quote=""charliec107""]I haven't heard anything since Toronto dropped them. Are they going to play in 2007 or are they still up in the air?[/quote]

Nothing on the Appy League page or Pulaski's website. Hmmm ... their schedule has to be released soon. I had read they might operate as a co-op or independent. The league needs an even number of teams ideally.

charliec107
Site Admin
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:35 am

Post by charliec107 » Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:28 pm

Thanks. I had heard co-op as well, but that was a while ago. I think the league will find a way to keep them operating.

heavesrock
Site Admin
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:05 am

Post by heavesrock » Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:08 am

I'd like to see a co-op or independent team return. But, if it did, they team would suck. And what would they call themselves?
Vermont Frost Heaves fan site: http://freewebs.com/frostheavesfans

Frost Heaves Forum: http://frostheaves.proboards.com

sportsguy12
Site Admin
Posts: 654
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:41 pm

Well co-op baseball is better

Post by sportsguy12 » Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:58 am

[quote=""heavesrock""]I'd like to see a co-op or independent team return. But, if it did, they team would suck. And what would they call themselves?[/quote]

... than no baseball. If every team contributes, who knows how the team might do. You would figure they wouldn't send their best players, but the best teams don't always have the best players. They could call themselves the Pulaski Jays.

charliec107
Site Admin
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:35 am

Post by charliec107 » Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:49 pm

It looks like no Pulaski in 2007

http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/app/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061206&content_id=147634&vkey=news_milb&fext=.jsp

That really stinks. You see a small town investing $1M in their ballpark and they cannot find a team.

sportsguy12
Site Admin
Posts: 654
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:41 pm

I hate this idea ...

Post by sportsguy12 » Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:19 pm

[quote=""charliec107""]It looks like no Pulaski in 2007

http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/app/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061206&content_id=147634&vkey=news_milb&fext=.jsp

That really stinks. You see a small town investing $1M in their ballpark and they cannot find a team.[/quote]

but would they consider a traveling team? It would only be for one year. Hopefully, they could contract another team or add one.

charliec107
Site Admin
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:35 am

Post by charliec107 » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:30 pm

[quote=""sportsguy12""]but would they consider a traveling team? It would only be for one year. Hopefully, they could contract another team or add one.[/quote]

I don't think a traveling team would work because if they found an MLB team willing to have a team, then they would just go to Pulaski.

sportsguy12
Site Admin
Posts: 654
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:41 pm

Post by sportsguy12 » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:36 pm

[quote=""charliec107""]I don't think a traveling team would work because if they found an MLB team willing to have a team, then they would just go to Pulaski.[/quote]

Right, but they don't have an MLB team willing to do that. So they are left with three options:
  • Having an odd number of teams, which is a scheduling nightmare.
  • Using a traveling team which could be called Bluejays and doesn't need a hometown.
  • Contracting a team to get an even number.

charliec107
Site Admin
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:35 am

Post by charliec107 » Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:41 pm

[quote=""sportsguy12""]Right, but they don't have an MLB team willing to do that. So they are left with three options:
  • Having an odd number of teams, which is a scheduling nightmare.
  • Using a traveling team which could be called Bluejays and doesn't need a hometown.
  • Contracting a team to get an even number.
[/quote]

I think I don't understand where you are coming from. If you could find enough players, even to enter as a co-op or independent team, wouldn't they just put them in Pulaski? This way they would be back up to 10 teams, and Pulaski would have a team again. I don't think any teams have any thing against Pulaski, I think they have problems supplying enoguh players.

I don't think the league wants to contract any teams. The article makes it seem like the league will try to work with 9 teams and be optimistic for 2008. Maybe by then the Nationals will have almost replenished their farm system and can take over Pulaski.

Post Reply

Return to “ApL”