Posted by shobob on 4/17/2014 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/17/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):
I knew there had to be a drawback.   The guy that wants a high pick and IFA will aim for 63+.   The guy that doesn't care about IFA will be aiming for 60-62.   You're actually giving him a tanking advantage because, in their race to suck, he knows that the guy with the IFA scouting has to win more than him. 

While it's convoluted, I'd prefer the tanker playing the limits of the MWR, be aiming for the lowest number possible and have competition to get there.  Because it's more likely to bite him in the *** in S4 when he needs to total 280.

As you know, when you "target" 63, random chance can stick you with 54.  

Well, I guess what I mean is since he's not worried about a draft pick, he won't be worried about how many he wins as long as he doesn't lose 100.    So, IMO, he would try to skimp as much on payroll as possible to transfer to prospect.

We are thinking about instituting such a system in Yaz world, because right now we have a MWR that triggers a vote.  Everyone is too nicey-nicey to vote out a tanker there, so I'm looking for a rule that is nicey-nicey to suit the group, but still has enough teeth to curb tanking type of behavior.  We have a prospect cap, so I'm not worried about anyone transferring all their dough to IFAs.

That's the problem with a vote.    Too much "Aww, he's a good guy that's been here 10 seasons.  Looks like he had a handful of guys underperform.  Let's give him another chance" if he's well-liked.    If he's a dick, it's "Screw him.  He knows the rules.  Buh bye."

IMO you'll never be able to institute a rule that takes away a teams top 10 draft pick.. People will just leave.. Now if you create a different penalty for the following season they will probably stick around since they get to keep the draft pick that they may've tanked to receive.. You'll never find a rule that will make everyone happy.. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/17/2014 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shobob on 4/17/2014 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/17/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):
I knew there had to be a drawback.   The guy that wants a high pick and IFA will aim for 63+.   The guy that doesn't care about IFA will be aiming for 60-62.   You're actually giving him a tanking advantage because, in their race to suck, he knows that the guy with the IFA scouting has to win more than him. 

While it's convoluted, I'd prefer the tanker playing the limits of the MWR, be aiming for the lowest number possible and have competition to get there.  Because it's more likely to bite him in the *** in S4 when he needs to total 280.

As you know, when you "target" 63, random chance can stick you with 54.  

Well, I guess what I mean is since he's not worried about a draft pick, he won't be worried about how many he wins as long as he doesn't lose 100.    So, IMO, he would try to skimp as much on payroll as possible to transfer to prospect.

At least you will be eliminate the guy who is trying to get both a top pick and a top IFA..  Also the 1st pick at 63 wins is at least an improvement over the 1st pick being at 55 wins.. the 3-4 season win floor is going to catch a lot of the tankers on its own anyway.. 

Posted by willsauve on 4/17/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):
IMO you'll never be able to institute a rule that takes away a teams top 10 draft pick.. People will just leave.. Now if you create a different penalty for the following season they will probably stick around since they get to keep the draft pick that they may've tanked to receive.. You'll never find a rule that will make everyone happy.. 

Seems to me that Satchel Paige has instituted the rule, and is using it quite effectively.  If the tanker leaves, let them leave.  I'd rather that then have our group of bleeding hearts keep on voting to let the tanker stay.  As I said before, in the case of the punished owner leaving, I wouldn't give that franchise to a newly created account.  I would only give it to an established user to prevent alias abuse.

I don't understand why the witch hunt against people who divert payroll to prospect to sign a good IFA.  If you are really worried about that, set a prospect cap.  If you can spend no more than 25-30 M on prospects, that leaves you with no choice but to spend money elsewhere, such as training, medical, draft scouting and player payroll.  All of those things would lead to a healthier, more competitive world, because players would develop and maintain ratings better, recover from injury better, duration and impact of injuries would be lessened, and veteran free agents wouldn't be left to rot and retire.

The 55/125/195/280 MWR seems to work pretty well in getting rid of owners who are losing for picks/IFA and, once they get caught, they leave behind a pretty healthy farm.    What it's bad at is the owner who doesn't quite get it.   They leave behind a mess because they're were mostly throwing money at expensive FA in hopes of fighting off the MWR.. 

It's just a punishment for losing too many games through soft tanking.  It's not a witch-hunt against people who divert payroll to prospect, it's a witch hunt against people who lose.  And forces you to spend money on FAs to improve your team quicker.  If you don't spend more than say, 8M on prospects, you have no choice to spend money on players.

EDIT: That said, as Mike said, if you're not good at the game, and you're spending money on FAs who aren't worth the money, and you lose games anyway, you leave behind more of a mess.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/17/2014 4:06:00 PM (view original):
The 55/125/195/280 MWR seems to work pretty well in getting rid of owners who are losing for picks/IFA and, once they get caught, they leave behind a pretty healthy farm.    What it's bad at is the owner who doesn't quite get it.   They leave behind a mess because they're were mostly throwing money at expensive FA in hopes of fighting off the MWR.. 

I appreciate what this type of MWR does, which is why I took over one of the worst messes I've ever taken over in MG.  I'm looking for a challenge, and that fits the bill.  Each world has it's own "flavor", and Yaz has a less harsh flavor than Coop or MG.  What I want to achieve with the rules is less about "kicking out tankers", and more about "eliminating tanking behavior".

The answer I got from mongoose_22 at the beginning was enough to convince me to give it a try.  Nobody has showed up saying "We tried that and it didn't work".  All of the "objections" so far have been theoretical, and don't seem to address the exact issue (tanking for draft picks) that I'm worried about.  It seems to me that taking away 1st round draft picks from MWR missers does seem to nullify the incentive to lose, and nobody seems to be refuting that.

Oh, c'mon.  You won 65 with a 57m payroll.  You weren't left with a 100m payroll and no talent.   You were left with low payroll, no talent.   That allows you to build a team from scratch, more or less.

Posted by willsauve on 4/17/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):
IMO you'll never be able to institute a rule that takes away a teams top 10 draft pick.. People will just leave.. Now if you create a different penalty for the following season they will probably stick around since they get to keep the draft pick that they may've tanked to receive.. You'll never find a rule that will make everyone happy.. 

Actually, we have yet to have someone leave.

And Mike has pointed out potential loopholes. While all theoretically true/possible, in practice, none of that has happened. We've had the rule in place now for about six, maybe seven, seasons now. We've had three teams loose picks so far, and two more this season. Haven't had a problem yet. Not to say we won't ever, but the early returns on our draft forfeiture rule have been overwhelmingly positive. I think its a very nice alternative to kicking a guy out. 

@shobob... try SMing overeasy if you'd like as well. He instituted the rule in Kinsella, after seeing what I did in Satchel Paige, and (though I won't speak for him) I'm pretty sure he's had good results as well. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/17/2014 3:35:00 PM (view original):
That's the problem with a vote.    Too much "Aww, he's a good guy that's been here 10 seasons.  Looks like he had a handful of guys underperform.  Let's give him another chance" if he's well-liked.    If he's a dick, it's "Screw him.  He knows the rules.  Buh bye."

You're right about this. In Paige we used to have a Veterans Commitee vote. Somebody always complained. Too harsh. Not harsh enough. Etc. 

I got tired of that pretty quick and we've moved to a "If you miss the MWR, you loose your draft pick." Period.