I would never lose a game on purpose in order to get a lower playoff seed because I think the matchups are morefavorable, but that is simply because I believe karma will kick my *** if I do that. However, if I will rest more players if I have already clinched a bye or already clinched that I wil not get the bye, simply because I believe having my team as close to 100% and my pitchers lined up correctly for the postseason is way more important than a shift between a seed line or two. I am more inclined to go with rgeulars in games down the stretch against teams battling for playoff spots, and more likely to rest guys against teams that are out of contention or have already clinched a berth.

All that said, I dont think it is tanking either way. If you believe that your team has a better chance to win a title this season by losing a couple regular season games, go for it. I think it is stupid, but it is a strategy to be successful THIS YEAR. Losing games on purpose to be successful NEXT YEAR is a different story.

That actually may be the best answer.   I couldn't figure out the difference in my head but I knew I didn't consider it tanking.  

Now that we've properly blurred the lines, there's a part two.

You've clinched your spot but two owners are battling for the 6 seed.    One team has owned you all season.  You're 1-9 against them.  The other team, the team you're playing in the last series, is a different story.  You've beaten them 6 out of 7.    While it's easily explained as "Setting my team for the playoffs" would it be tanking if you played your call-ups despite not needing the rest(you have a bye)?

Not tanking.  You're sitting them to avoid the risk of injury.

But that's not why you're sitting them.  You can use that as an excuse, but it would really be to set up the matchup you want.

I go back to what I said before.  Trying to lose = tanking.  The difference is it's tanking a game (for a seemingly acceptable reason), while the usual reference to tanking is referring to tanking a season.

Also explained as avoiding a chance at injuries...but its the same story, you are helping your team this season by losing the games, so it isn't tanking. However, I still dont like tempting fate like that. 1983 Phillies lost 11 of 12 regular season games to the Dodgers but took them in the NLCS 3 games to 1.

Actually, you don't have to tank a season to be considered tanking.   You can start tanking when you're out of the hunt to keep your pick below 16th.  There are lots of reasons to lose a game or three. 

In my second scenario, I definitely wouldn't care if I won.    I wouldn't be actively trying to lose(playing guys out of position) but I wouldn't care if I did.   I've often referred to that as soft-tanking.   Although, in my defense, I wouldn't be playing my best  because of injury.   I can't think of anything dumber than losing a couple of your best players in game 160 when you're have bye.

"Actually, you don't have to tank a season to be considered tanking.   You can start tanking when you're out of the hunt to keep your pick below 16th.  There are lots of reasons to lose a game or three."

Agreed...same premise.

You're sort of discounting injury-risk.  I don't think that's unimportant.

But your question wasn't "is it tanking if I sit my regulars to avoid injury?"  If that were the question, I'd say, 'no.'  Trying to lose is different than resting starters for fatigue or injury reasons.  In both cases your starters are on the bench.

That's why I said the lines were blurry.   I know I'd play it differently if I were playing for a playoff spot or a bye.   Screw injury-risk.  But the "logic" behind resting players can change even if you're the only one thinking it.

This is a higher philosophical conversation on "what is wrong". Did it feel wrong? Then it was wrong.

Woah, death is getting philosophical.  I'm out.  :)

And is that like the Matrix?  "What is real?"

Equivalent; I don't think trades with cash is right. I can tolerate up to $1M.

I'm in a world that allows cash trades.

I veto if I see one above $1m. Most (not all) pass, because others have a different value system.

I get offered a trade that I believe would help me out. It has $2M on it to get it under the cap. The person sending the offer has no qualms about it; the money is used to get it under the cap, he has a different value system.

Do I accept? no. Because, in my eyes, it's wrong.

Move over to your dilemma. Is it wrong in your eyes? You can ask how we feel, but ultimately you have to feel right about what you are doing.