"or wasting half the money in a transfer and getting another marginal big league player so I can win an extra 5 games in a season that is already toast? "

This is a significant exaggeration. No marginal big leaguer can add 5 wins. A 5 win player is a star.


--

Ultimately, this discussion comes down to how much do you weigh short term goals versus long term goals. I think it's pretty obvious that anyone who is extremely focused on long term over short term isn't a "good" owner and probably isn't an ideal owner in a league that is striving for competitive balance. The issue in my mind is the extreme scorch the earth strategies that make the 1998 Marlins look like the New York Yankees. Obviously no one wants to be the 00 Balitimore Orioles.

I don't believe Mike or anyone believes an owners needs to maximize his expected regular season wins in any given year. The question is, are you trying to be competitive. If you chose to enter the season with a AAA utility guy expected to get 350 PA's then you aren't being competitive. If you are entering the season with a AA pitcher scheduled to be your number 5 starter, you aren't being competitive. Now if your not being competitive because you don't understand how the ratings interact, that's one thing. If your doing to deflate your win total, that's certainly taking.

If you take over a team and your best player is a 24 year all star level player in his first year of arbitration and you trade him for a couple of prospects rather than building around him you aren't being competitive. If that player is a 32 year old instead making 9mm 2 years away from free agency and you trade him for a bucket of balls you aren't being completive, but if you trade him for a couple of future big league regulars or an all-star then you are being competitive.

I think I've come to learn that a scorched earth strategy should never be needed in a salary cap situation. If your taking over a true disaster franchise an experienced (the key) owner should be able to improve a team in the long run and the short run. While it doesn't need to maximize wins, it does need to be competitive.

The real issue from where I sit is the "cycle" that I see some times. You see a team "tank" then dominate for 5-7 years then sell of the pieces get return in trade for the pieces and "tank" for a couple years restock the system and try again. I don't believe those situations are great for a league.

The way HBD is structured, there should be less boom and bust than in real life. Unfortunately, there is more. I'm not sure the best way to address that, but obviously a change to talent procurement is needed. You should never be incentivized to lose, which unfortunatly HBD does and win floors don't do it.

Posted by csherwood on 9/22/2010 11:28:00 AM (view original):
Comparing saving 40 million at the cost of 20 wins to saving 40 million at the cost of 20 wins. Definitely apples to boats.

You're trying to compare a 73 win team to a 49 win team.    Which is dumb.

The issue really centers around how comfortable owners are with losing.   I don't think anyone should be expected to spend 148m on payroll in order to win 70 games.  Much like MLB, payroll isn't the issue.    It's wins/losses.    As I said before, if you want to slash payroll, knock yourself out.   Owners are winning games with 40m in payroll.    However, if that's part of your rebuild plan, you have to make a reasonable showing.   Being incapable of playing .333 ball isn't a reasonable showing.   At least not if you want to be considered a good owner. 

Using MG as an example, I was disappointed in winning 77 games and missing the playoffs in S12.   I evaluated my problem and decided I could repair it.   Judging where my payroll was likely to be AND the age of my team, I knew I was setting myself up for a fall.  My S13 payroll was 106m and I improved by 19 games.  S14 was 109 and I won 93.  As expected, the team started to decline.   I made the playoffs in S13-S16 and I'm paying for it this season with a 93m payroll and .421 winning percentage.   But I only have 41m committed next season.   Will I keep it at 50m and win 50 games next season?   No.   Because i'm not comfortable losing.  Could I?  Yes.  Even with our anti-tanking rules, I've got some play within them because of my good seasons. But, as I said, I'm not going to enjoy the game very much after winning 70ish this year if I win 55 next season.    Some people are fine with that.  I'm not.

When the point of the game is to win the WS, and to do so you must make the playoffs, a team that doesnt make the playoffs is a team that doesnt make the playoffs. 'nuff said.

"When the point of the game is to win the WS, and to do so you must make the playoffs, a team that doesnt make the playoffs is a team that doesnt make the playoffs. 'nuff said."

I'm fairly certain this wrong. Do you need me to elaboriate on why?

Yes, tankerwood, a 20 win team is the exact same as a 78 win team.    Dumbass.

Posted by csherwood on 9/22/2010 1:45:00 PM (view original):
When the point of the game is to win the WS, and to do so you must make the playoffs, a team that doesnt make the playoffs is a team that doesnt make the playoffs. 'nuff said.

Actually, I decided to quote this because it proves my point about you being comfortable with losing.

When you begin to "build" your team, you pre-determine if it's a playoff team or not.   Which is fine.   That's how most of us do it.   But, if you decide "not", winning BL games becomes secondary(if that high on the totem pole) to you.   So you go about doing whatever it is you do to ensure the future of your team with no real concern for your current BL team.   And that's what makes you far too comfortable with losing.

He needs to win so we get an update to the WS winner thread.

Well, it's been 3 1/2 years of "rebuilding" since the last one.  I wouldn't hold my breath.

Posted by mrauseo on 9/22/2010 11:52:00 AM (view original):
"or wasting half the money in a transfer and getting another marginal big league player so I can win an extra 5 games in a season that is already toast? "

This is a significant exaggeration. No marginal big leaguer can add 5 wins. A 5 win player is a star.


--

Ultimately, this discussion comes down to how much do you weigh short term goals versus long term goals. I think it's pretty obvious that anyone who is extremely focused on long term over short term isn't a "good" owner and probably isn't an ideal owner in a league that is striving for competitive balance. The issue in my mind is the extreme scorch the earth strategies that make the 1998 Marlins look like the New York Yankees. Obviously no one wants to be the 00 Balitimore Orioles.

I don't believe Mike or anyone believes an owners needs to maximize his expected regular season wins in any given year. The question is, are you trying to be competitive. If you chose to enter the season with a AAA utility guy expected to get 350 PA's then you aren't being competitive. If you are entering the season with a AA pitcher scheduled to be your number 5 starter, you aren't being competitive. Now if your not being competitive because you don't understand how the ratings interact, that's one thing. If your doing to deflate your win total, that's certainly taking.

If you take over a team and your best player is a 24 year all star level player in his first year of arbitration and you trade him for a couple of prospects rather than building around him you aren't being competitive. If that player is a 32 year old instead making 9mm 2 years away from free agency and you trade him for a bucket of balls you aren't being completive, but if you trade him for a couple of future big league regulars or an all-star then you are being competitive.

I think I've come to learn that a scorched earth strategy should never be needed in a salary cap situation. If your taking over a true disaster franchise an experienced (the key) owner should be able to improve a team in the long run and the short run. While it doesn't need to maximize wins, it does need to be competitive.

The real issue from where I sit is the "cycle" that I see some times. You see a team "tank" then dominate for 5-7 years then sell of the pieces get return in trade for the pieces and "tank" for a couple years restock the system and try again. I don't believe those situations are great for a league.

The way HBD is structured, there should be less boom and bust than in real life. Unfortunately, there is more. I'm not sure the best way to address that, but obviously a change to talent procurement is needed. You should never be incentivized to lose, which unfortunatly HBD does and win floors don't do it.

This is a good post.

The boom-or-bust is a direct result of a lack of fuzziness in a prospect's potential.

By the way I did some research..these are my win totals and payroll in my first year of each rebuild I have done:

Mays Season 3: 64 million, 69 wins
NABCL Season 2: 74 million, 84 wins
Sandberg Season 12: 64 million, 78 wins
FYC Season 10: 62 million, 64 wins
Addicted Users Season 4: 73 million, 63 wins
CAPB Season 6: 42 million, 68 wins
ABU Season 4: 31 million, 49 wins

Given that I use the same basic startegy with each rebuild team, I think this shows that my 49 win season was an aberration, not the norm, and that the 6 others times I clearly won enough games to satisfy the MikeT Rule. I do not, again, remember what my ABU team was made up of that 49 win season, or what events in-season made it so bad that I only won 49, but again I believe the win total was a downward aberration, just like my 78 wins the first year back in Sandberg was probably an upward aberration.

So, despite the fact that your payroll was more than double what you had in your 49 win season in all but one of your rebuilds, you're contending that you used the same basic strategy?  C'mon.  You gave US THE NUMBERS!!!

Yes, because unlike the other teams, I was not straddled with huge payroll that first year in ABU (prior year was a 50 million payroll total).
Also, the "advantage" I got from having a low payroll and finishing with 49 wins:
that year I was able to sign 4 internationals - 2 relievers who are at best AAAA players, stuck in AAA still, a guy who is my mopup pitcher on my big league team, and a utility infielder on my big league team. I also got the #1 draft pick the following year. I used that to choose a guy that I later traded for a veteran starter who pitched one season for me then left to free agency...and if I had won 60 games I probably make the same or similar draft pick and pull off the same trade.
So I essentially gained almost no advantage...if I am ever able to rebuilt my roster from that season I will post it here and you can tell me how I was not fielding major league capable talent..talent that would have been the equivalent of anyone I could have gotten in free agency. I am not going to sign a guy for 2 million to replace a guy I already have just for the sake of making a change.
Final Note: That was the first season of "save this world" or whatever you called it. I am sure that the fact that I intended at the start to only be in there for a couple of seasons to fulfill my commitment to the project may have affected some decisions I made, though again it was so long ago that I have no memory of it one way or the other.

Well, since you're not producing WS winners, maybe you should change your strategy.

Nonetheless, if you're going to keep selling "I did my best to win games, I wasn't tanking", I'm going to have to say you suck at HBD.   Your titles came from ADMIN gifts.   When given a troubled team, your "best" is 49 wins.   A blind, one nut monkey can win 54 by randomly slamming his hands on a keyboard.   I expect people to be better than blind, one nut monkeys.

"Well, since you're not producing WS winners, maybe you should change your strategy."

Ahh. Out of bounds. Now your jumping to the same false conclusion that csherwood jumped to. The point isn't to win WS.... though I'd still like to win my first.