Maybe he'll tell us 50 shades of grey is one of the worst books ever written.









Oh, wait, nevermind.   That was you who reviewed the chick book. 

Posted by njohnson78 on 2/18/2015 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by willsauve on 2/18/2015 3:36:00 PM (view original):
I liked the 1st 3 better.. Recent episodes have been to slow for me.. It could also be becasue I've read alot of the comics now which really ruins most of the suspense effect..

Same reason I liked the 1st season of Game of Thrones the best... I've read those books and I know whats going to happen before it happens now..  

Comic books and fantasy novels? Are you sure you don't want to edit that post?

I used to read like a book a week, not all fantasy books but I've read a lot of them. I ahvent read the 50 shades book but did get a little more action from the old lady when she did.. 

What's a bigger red flag? If a league has teams that win a ton or a commissioner that had 4-5 seasons in a row of less then 70 wins? To me id rather try to beat the big winner then have a tanking commissioner. But then again is it just me or does there seem to be tankers in every league?

Leagues that have a Minimum Win Requirement for more than one season usually don't have tankers, as long as the owners not meeting the MWR are removed properly. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2015 4:38:00 PM (view original):
Maybe he'll tell us 50 shades of grey is one of the worst books ever written.









Oh, wait, nevermind.   That was you who reviewed the chick book. 

You still haven't given us your review of the movie. Did it turn you on?

Posted by frymaster99 on 2/18/2015 10:55:00 PM (view original):
Leagues that have a Minimum Win Requirement for more than one season usually don't have tankers, as long as the owners not meeting the MWR are removed properly. 

In my opinion mw rules are a joke a tanker tanks no matter what. A crap world(imo) is one who's commish tanks.

Do you believe there's a difference between a team that wins 70-72 games 4 seasons in a row and multiple teams winning 35-50 every season?

Better yet, is this tanking?

Mantle	SCO Fighting Artichokes	21	$82.3M	72-90 (.444)	4	-
Mantle	SCO Fighting Artichokes	22	$102.2M	89-73 (.549)	1	-
Mantle	SCO Fighting Artichokes	23	$108.1M	75-87 (.463)	3	-
Mantle	SCO Fighting Artichokes	24	$109.3M	85-77 (.525)	1	-
Mantle	SCO Fighting Artichokes	25	$115.2M	90-72 (.556)	1	-
Mantle	SCO Fighting Artichokes	26	$112.7M	84-78 (.519)	2	-
Mantle	SCO Fighting Artichokes	27	$117.2M	81-81 (.500)	3	-
Mantle	SCO Fighting Artichokes	28	$122.8M	93-69 (.574)	1	X
Mantle	SCO Fighting Artichokes	29	$124.1M	88-74 (.543)	2	-
Mantle	SCO Fighting Artichokes	30	$109.0M	97-65 (.599)	1	X
Mantle	SCO Fighting Artichokes	31	$102.2M	86-76 (.531)	3	-
Mantle	HON Warriors in Grass Skirts	32	$70.6M	65-97 (.401)	4	-
Mantle	HON Warriors in Grass Skirts	33	$83.9M	70-92 (.432)	4	-
Mantle	HON Warriors in Grass Skirts	34	$91.4M	83-79 (.512)	2	-
Mantle	HON Warriors in Grass Skirts	35	-	87-67 (.565)	-	-

In my two down seasons, I got the 3rd pick, 7th pick and one big IFA.   None are in the bigs yet. 

It depends what everyone else is doing really 70 wins could be tanking also. There are a lot of ways to tank. Some people tank for a protected pick others tank for prospect $ . What do win totals like this say? 75-87, 69-93 , 55-107, 65-97, 61-101, 76-86. I tanked once and only got to 75 wins. It was hard to lose that many even when I played a c at ss. That made me feel like people were tanking even harder with worse players. I also think that if a guy fields crappier players then are available in fa then that could be tanking. Id view this guys great record as a challenge and want to beat him.

Fyi mike it wasn't directed at you. I can honestly say I tanked one season and only won 70 games. Ive also tanken over abandoned teams and not tanked and only won 70 so its hard to say. You can answer the question on if you tanked or not.

I know it wasn't directed at me.   And that's not a world a commish but there are times when you just can't keep up.   My team had a nice run, got old, very expensive and there wasn't much in the pipeline.   I played the best players I could find and wasn't horrible.   I didn't drop my payroll to 26m and I didn't play guys out of position.    But, if I stayed on the same path(big FA spending), I was going to be stuck at 75-80 wins for an eternity.   The only way to keep it going forever is to trade.  And, if you're in a world where the other owners do know what they're doing, you're not getting the #2 pick for previous picks of 29, 32 and 32(which, BTW, were unscouted by the guy drafting them).   

I agree with brianp87 that there are different ways to tank.  It's not even necessary to blatantly tank unless you are explicitly going for the #1 pick.  A nice "Soft Tank" can get you a top five draft pick easily.  You can put together a crappy team while spending $$$ in free agency.

When I started playing this, I obviously thought tanking was the cardinal sin.  Over time I've come to believe that trade rape is much worse for teams, owners, and the world.

What if you had a commish who was a trade raper?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/19/2015 11:00:00 AM (view original):
I know it wasn't directed at me.   And that's not a world a commish but there are times when you just can't keep up.   My team had a nice run, got old, very expensive and there wasn't much in the pipeline.   I played the best players I could find and wasn't horrible.   I didn't drop my payroll to 26m and I didn't play guys out of position.    But, if I stayed on the same path(big FA spending), I was going to be stuck at 75-80 wins for an eternity.   The only way to keep it going forever is to trade.  And, if you're in a world where the other owners do know what they're doing, you're not getting the #2 pick for previous picks of 29, 32 and 32(which, BTW, were unscouted by the guy drafting them).   

I agree for the most part. I do not see how a guy cannot win 70 games unless he is trying to lose. Whats worse a world with a few really good teams or a commish that tanks? I guess its all a matter of opinion.

Posted by damag on 2/19/2015 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I agree with brianp87 that there are different ways to tank.  It's not even necessary to blatantly tank unless you are explicitly going for the #1 pick.  A nice "Soft Tank" can get you a top five draft pick easily.  You can put together a crappy team while spending $$$ in free agency.

When I started playing this, I obviously thought tanking was the cardinal sin.  Over time I've come to believe that trade rape is much worse for teams, owners, and the world.

What if you had a commish who was a trade raper?

I don't know if I think there is such a thing as trade rape. Rape is making someone do something they do not want to do. And well both owners in the trade have to accept it for it to happen. I think each owner plays for different reasons. Some like myself just like to win. Some like to have closers (even though we all know that's dumb ;-0 ). Some just play for fun in leagues with friends. Are some trades lopsided? Well of course we have all probally overpaid for players. Everyone values things differently. Someones diamond may be anothers piece of chit.

There is a big difference between "tanking" to 70 wins and tanking to 50 wins. A 70 win team may not be the best team that you could put together in a given season, but at least it's a competent team that won't just roll over and die whenever it played a contending team. A 70 won team isn't good, but it's a team with dignity. Tanking is never a good thing, but winning 70 is more like taking a break to restock the roster, rather than actually tanking.

A 50 win team is just pathetic, and it ruins the balance of the world. It's also unrealistic - in the past generation I can only think of two teams that have approached that level of awfulness in real baseball (the '04 Tigers and the '13 Astros).