If I now NL they'll focus on some shiny new objects at the expense of boys who've been there awhile, so there will be some free agents out there who can play.
that is a silly criticism. all team take new players at tryouts, often at the expense of incumbents who have been there awhile, if the new player is better. do you know of a single team that does NOT do that?
I diagnose the comment above as "parent who just came up to Elite ball from A-AA clubs 1 year ago....and now their kid is going back to AA. "
Below the HoCo AAA level, the new kid could score 250 to the incumbent kid's 40, and they are keeping the old kid. And that's probably good. Good for player development, "love of the game" etc.
At AAA or above, there just needs to be an APPARENT differentiation between new kid's and incumbent kid's skill set, and the winner is the winner. That's when as a parent you will hear those phrases, "dominated," "lost a step," "trouble keeping up" "aggressiveness" "foot race" etc. It's also when you're more likely to see 5-6 kids trying out for 1 roster spot that has been vacated, which to me is one of the craziest aspects of youth lax.
But this parent is kidding themselves if they think that a new kid walks into FCA, NL, Crabs tryouts etc and gets a roster spot because he scored 10/12 on the corners, and the incumbent (their kid) scored 9/12 on the corners, and everything else was equal. Coaches will keep the devil they know, unless there is an apparent reason to try somebody new (which, yeah, could include political factors off the field, so buyer beware on that front). .
