"Now I know it isn't luck, I just understand the game better than most of you."

Awesome!  The Narcissus Complex has kicked in!

"Hah, if that is the case I will be coming to a division near you in the future to begin more champ runs."

Hah!  Because of this thread, you've blacklisted yourself from any self-respecting world.  You know, the ones that don't tolerate tankers.  Meaning you'll never be in one of my worlds.

I'll try and be reasonable, since the forum trolls can't. First, I agree that promotion of a prospect is / can be independent of what's going on in the majors if that is your mindset. I ALWAYS wait until a player is pretty close to being done developing before the big promotion, so I get my moneys worth so to speak. That is regardless of whether or not the player they may replace is worse, the same, or better than they.
Now, having said that, I don't leave them down when they are 25,26,27 while their ratings go up 1 point a year. Players only develope significantly for 5 yrs max. Many, fewer than that. Then, I think you are without excuse. If you are winning 50 games at the ML level and have studs in AAA with at least 4 yrs pro, id call that tanking to yer face (preferably without any leather involved).
There's obviously grey areas where its hard to draw a perfect line on what's okay and what isn't, but I don't think going from 50 to 100 wins in one season is evidence of doing thing the way most people appreciate them being done. I'm with you in that the Nazi-extremists are idiots and are just as bad for the game imo as the tankers. I field low payroll teams and appreciate building for the long run and developing prospects, but I think there's a little better way to do it than what you did.

Exactly boogerlips.  Thank you.  I rebuilt the entire org from the ground up, and when doing that, happened to accumulate talent all at the same level, which is why they all spent a year at AAA.  Having said that, I did not expect them to win 100 games upon call up, I was thinking more like close to 90, they surprised everyone by going to the WS.  

This entire thread was antagonistic by the forum Trolls because that is what they do.  Any world that would "blacklist" me having read through this is a world I would not want to be in.  I am interested in playing in worlds with intelligent, mature owners that play the game with integrity and don't constantly look for people to put blame on and posts to twist words on.  That is what guys like Tec and Mike12233 do, among others.  

People have different ways they approach this game in how they play it....I'm not advocating a right way or a wrong way....I am simply saying what I did was NOT tanking, I have never tanked and don't plan to.  After about 5 seasons played I realized how it all worked, play well within the rules, both moral and other, and am successful.  I also said if the forum Trolls want to call it tanking, go ahead, I dont care what they think.  I don't think it is tanking.

Bottom line is that Reynoso guy has one season played on his card, when he would have two had I left him up while progressing.  So it was a smart move and the right move.

Hey booger...I'm assuming though that you wouldn't bring up a guy, have him tear up the majors in a playoff run, then send him back down the entire next season for further development.  Ranger doesn't seem to get that none of this would be an issue if he hadn't called Reynoso up the season prior to put up the numbers he did and prove he was ML ready.

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/3/2011 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Hey booger...I'm assuming though that you wouldn't bring up a guy, have him tear up the majors in a playoff run, then send him back down the entire next season for further development.  Ranger doesn't seem to get that none of this would be an issue if he hadn't called Reynoso up the season prior to put up the numbers he did and prove he was ML ready.

I don't see what the big deal is here. If I have a 72(86) prospect at the beginning of his second pro year, he's going to be in the minors. That's regardless of what happened the year before. Now if its an 81(86) ifa who isn't developing much, then ya he should stay at the big league level.
I'm not with you that if you bring him up early to help win your crappy division, you are then required to keep him up even if he is a long way from being developed.
I would guess that most of what appears to be tanking happened because of a handful of players who were ready but were held back, not just one guy.

Beleive me if anyone knows what tanking is it would be boogerlips..

This dude ranger is awesome!!!  Storming the beaches Normandy at such a young age is inspiring..

ranger and booger have a rendesvouz:

 

lol

Posted by rangerup on 9/3/2011 11:01:00 AM (view original):
Exactly boogerlips.  Thank you.  I rebuilt the entire org from the ground up, and when doing that, happened to accumulate talent all at the same level, which is why they all spent a year at AAA.  Having said that, I did not expect them to win 100 games upon call up, I was thinking more like close to 90, they surprised everyone by going to the WS.  

This entire thread was antagonistic by the forum Trolls because that is what they do.  Any world that would "blacklist" me having read through this is a world I would not want to be in.  I am interested in playing in worlds with intelligent, mature owners that play the game with integrity and don't constantly look for people to put blame on and posts to twist words on.  That is what guys like Tec and Mike12233 do, among others.  

People have different ways they approach this game in how they play it....I'm not advocating a right way or a wrong way....I am simply saying what I did was NOT tanking, I have never tanked and don't plan to.  After about 5 seasons played I realized how it all worked, play well within the rules, both moral and other, and am successful.  I also said if the forum Trolls want to call it tanking, go ahead, I dont care what they think.  I don't think it is tanking.

Bottom line is that Reynoso guy has one season played on his card, when he would have two had I left him up while progressing.  So it was a smart move and the right move.

There's some real gems in this post.

First, ranger wants to play with "intelligent and mature" owners.  Yet he threatened to give me an "azz whooping" for calling him a tanker.  Around 7 hours after he himself admitted "I guess you could call it tanking".  Maybe it's me, but threatening to beat somebody up because of something they say about pretend baseball on the internet might not be an attribute of the class valedictorian.  Or of somebody over the age of 12.

Also, he mentions "integrity" after admitting that he sent a guy who went 10-3 with a 2.72 ERA in a pennant race back to the minors the next season.  A season in which he then went 53-109.  Exactly how much "integrity" is involved in intentionally NOT fielding a competitive team, and then bragging about it?

Really.  You can't make this stuff up.

Any time you lose 100 games and had the resources to avoid said fate, you tanked. In real life, you'd be fired as the GM. Unfortunately in HBD you get to run the team as long as you'd like. There is no real incentive to winning at the ML level other than the moral obligations to others. In the world I commish, you would have been kicked out for failing to hit the wins minimum of 55, a number that is so low it should never be threatened by a veteran owner.

Blah blah blah.

That seems to be a very mature comment. 

blah

There's no such thing as tanking if there isnt a rule to prevent it.. It sounds like nobody in the world had an issue with how this guy was managed.  Which would lead you to beleive that this may be a common practice in the world..   I would think that if this was done in a world with win floors this guy would've been booted or he would've been forced to bring up some talent to win more games.

The fact that he claims that nobody in his world objected to the way ranger ran his team is more an indictment of the world rather than a vindication of his actions.

Then again, none of his fellow owners have come running to this thread in his defense.  So maybe his claim that nobody had a problem with it might not be entirely accurate.