Minimum win rules Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Again, asking owners to not average 92+ losses over 4 seasons isn't asking a lot if you think you have a good, competitive world.   I don't care what the unintended results are.  If you're about to lose 200 games in two seasons, you need to do something.

10/13/2010 5:58 PM
iain
Posts: 1864 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 1 18 1 279
Prospect
I think bottom dwellers trading prospects for vets is the exception, rather than the rule.

Typically, this is not seen in Moneyball.

Owners try to make the minimum win totals with scrap heap FAs because they refuse to mortgage the future.
10/13/2010 6:15 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Again, I never said the rule was good or bad. If you are happy with the rule then you are happy with the rule, I could care less. People were acting like the minimum win rule was all sunshine, I am pointing out the negatives of the minimum win rule, the rule has its side effects, if that does not bother you so be it, good for you. It's a rule that has a larger benefit to teams that are already doing well, its a rule that hurts owners coming into the world that has to take over one of these overinflated salary pumped up teams that are void of  prospects.
10/13/2010 6:17 PM
iain
Posts: 1864 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 1 18 1 279
Prospect
Posted by plague on 10/13/2010 6:17:00 PM (view original):
Again, I never said the rule was good or bad. If you are happy with the rule then you are happy with the rule, I could care less. People were acting like the minimum win rule was all sunshine, I am pointing out the negatives of the minimum win rule, the rule has its side effects, if that does not bother you so be it, good for you. It's a rule that has a larger benefit to teams that are already doing well, its a rule that hurts owners coming into the world that has to take over one of these overinflated salary pumped up teams that are void of  prospects.
I think you're getting all huffy about this because you took over a team in MB that hatt had run into the ground (it's kind of his thing... did it in MG, too!) and you didn't know what to do about it, so you left.
10/13/2010 6:20 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And we keep saying we're not seeing this type of behavior in Moneyball, Cooperstown or Moonlight Graham.    Which, quite frankly, is probably 3 of the top 5 worlds in HBD.    You keep ignoring this but I know I can't make you accept it. 
10/13/2010 6:26 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Posted by iain on 10/13/2010 6:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by plague on 10/13/2010 6:17:00 PM (view original):
Again, I never said the rule was good or bad. If you are happy with the rule then you are happy with the rule, I could care less. People were acting like the minimum win rule was all sunshine, I am pointing out the negatives of the minimum win rule, the rule has its side effects, if that does not bother you so be it, good for you. It's a rule that has a larger benefit to teams that are already doing well, its a rule that hurts owners coming into the world that has to take over one of these overinflated salary pumped up teams that are void of  prospects.
I think you're getting all huffy about this because you took over a team in MB that hatt had run into the ground (it's kind of his thing... did it in MG, too!) and you didn't know what to do about it, so you left.
That had nothing to do why I left, my rebuild plan was working as intended. I quit because of personal life. I was going to cut down my teams to 4 HBD teams and 4 GD teams and moneyball was one of my most recent teams and teams I was not attached, after about 3 weeks things changed and I had more time again,  I had yet to lose any GD teams, and renewed the 2 GD teams that I was 100% planning on dumping, only loss with those teams is I could not redshirt. However it was too late for Moneyball. I don't know how well I would of done in Moneyball in the long term, but the plan I was following was still on target. I knew the mess I was getting into, that is why I targeted my free agents to leave at the same time. I wrote the first 4 seasons off and then I was going to rebuild, I just never got to the 5th season. The next coach came in and offered long term contracts to players I wanted to dump.
10/13/2010 7:02 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/13/2010 6:26:00 PM (view original):
And we keep saying we're not seeing this type of behavior in Moneyball, Cooperstown or Moonlight Graham.    Which, quite frankly, is probably 3 of the top 5 worlds in HBD.    You keep ignoring this but I know I can't make you accept it. 
Moneyball last 3 seasons.

Owners with 63 wins or less the season before traded-

Prospects for veterans 7 times
Veterans for prospects 0 times.

Just because you guys do not notice it does not mean its not happening.

I would be willing to bet if we had every world with a minimum win rule list their rules, we would find that the percentage of trades would greatly favor those in jeopardy of trading prospects for veterans compared to veterans for prospects. It's common sense.

I also looked at your two worlds and saw that it was

prospects for veterans 1 time
veterans for prospects 0 times.

For whatever reason people in jeopardy in Moonlight Graham chose to do zero trades.
10/13/2010 7:13 PM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
One whole trade in two worlds?  WOW!!  It's a goddam epidemic!!!

I don't know jackdoodie about Moneyball.  But I knew it wasn't an issue in MG/Coop.  
10/13/2010 7:13 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I also think, as a whole, there's less tanking in MG/Coop than in most worlds because I'm a grade A ******* about tanking activities.  Plus I only accept owners who feel the same way about tanking.
10/13/2010 7:14 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Who said it was a epidemic? That was 1 trade in 3 seasons, I did not go through the whole history of your 2 worlds, but I would have no problem doing that and post it tomorrow so you can have another excuse.  One post ago Moneyball was one of the top 5 worlds, now you know jackdoodie about that world.
10/13/2010 7:15 PM
willsauve
Posts: 2255 (0)
Hall of Famer
168 1 1 1 200
Prospect
I think a team can be active enough in FA, WW and R5 to easily win 60+ games.
10/13/2010 7:16 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/13/2010 7:14:00 PM (view original):
I also think, as a whole, there's less tanking in MG/Coop than in most worlds because I'm a grade A ******* about tanking activities.  Plus I only accept owners who feel the same way about tanking.
That would not surprise me. Some worlds are run better than others and by your posting I believe you would make a excellent GM.

When I looked at your 2 worlds(especially moonlight graham) the teams that were doing subpar and close to jeopardy seem to have a large turnover rate.
10/13/2010 7:18 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Posted by willsauve on 10/13/2010 7:16:00 PM (view original):
I think a team can be active enough in FA, WW and R5 to easily win 60+ games.
I agree. In my opinion you don't have to trade prospects for veterans to win 60+ games. However from my observation, and any fact finding I do I find that in minimum win rule leagues teams that are in jeopardy trade prospects for veterans.
10/13/2010 7:20 PM
willsauve
Posts: 2255 (0)
Hall of Famer
168 1 1 1 200
Prospect
Probably happens alot when teams are content with barely making min and get dealt a few unexpected injuries..
10/13/2010 7:23 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 112
Prospect
Plagues got a point about the trading. It makes it harder to tank and horde stud prospects when you need x wins. I'm not so sure its as detrimental as portrayed to have those trades occur assuming no trade rapage. The team trading prospects gets players that can play now to balance out their team, meanwhile nothing is stopping them from getting more prospects in the future through IFA and the draft. The team getting youth clears up cap while replacing solid vets to help sustain success. It's not hard to reach these 50-60 minimum win conditions. I can do it on FA scraps and high 60s low 70s rated rookies with a team payroll under 40 mil.
10/13/2010 7:27 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...9 Next ▸
Minimum win rules Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.