So you promote him to the bigs a little quicker and alters is "control clock".  He'll be getting ML coaches which is great, and it wont stunt any development. 

I have acquired studs before that were in AAA and put them where they belonged, High A and I saw no discernible slowing of development.  They didn't seem to notice being assigned to a lower level than they just got traded from.  This demotion penalty may just work within the same org.

Posted by rangerup on 7/2/2012 11:47:00 PM (view original):
I have acquired studs before that were in AAA and put them where they belonged, High A and I saw no discernible slowing of development.  They didn't seem to notice being assigned to a lower level than they just got traded from.  This demotion penalty may just work within the same org.

Sometimes assigning to a lower level after trade does result in a demotion penalty. It has not happened to me, but my experience with this is limited...anyway, I have heard complaints about it in world chat before.

Posted by rangerup on 6/12/2012 1:50:00 PM (view original):
We have had this argument before.  If you play within the rules, you play within the rules.  Tanking is a term that people have made up to soothe their own moral codes.  I have two responsibilities playing this game.  1) Play within the rules.  2) Make my major league team the best that it can be.  If that means I can play within the rules (and there are game rules and private worlds rules, mind you, you have to abide by all) and obtain the #1 pick in the draft because my team does not have a shot at the world series, then I do so.  If that means I run a 17M payroll and keep my ML team healthy and playing in the right positions, then I do so.  They have actually won too many games this season and surprised me, but I won't break rules to better my draft status.

Just differing opinions is all.  There are aspects of playing the game that you consider and label tanking.  I could care less about tanking.  I care much more about playing by the rules, whether WiFS rules or private world rules.  I don't know why someone would "do the most they can to win" and keep a major league team hovering at the 60-85 win mark for seasons on end, never really having a chance to win it all.  I see it all the time, every world has those suckers that are taken in by the tanking argument and their teams are consistently mediocre.  Play by the rules, be terrible for a time and then enjoy your time at the top. 

Again, just my take on things.  I know you don't agree.  If you are having fun doing it that way, that is all that is important.

Funny how the tankers say tanking is just a made up word. Are you obligated to rush a prospect from High A to the majors to help a struggling ballclub? No, and no one's saying that. But if you have options to make your team better and you choose not to take them, you're trying to lose (ie: tanking).

I'm by no means a great owner, but in 21 seasons, the fewest games I've won is 64, and that was just in Coop this past season. I was leading for the first overall pick. I won my last three games, other guy lost his last three, boom, I have the second pick. I could easily have thrown one of those games to ensure myself top pick and no one would have noticed, but that's not how the game is played.

Are you a baseball fan? Would you encourage your real-life team to tank for top pick if it didn't have a realistic chance of making the playoffs? NO ONE would stand for that, but because this is just a computer game, you feel you have the right to manipulate it and cheat other owners to better your situation.

That, to me, is the definition of tanking.

Since I'm only in my third season, I probably shouldn't get into the tanking argument.  That said, I do have a question.  I've noticed that some coaches set their lineups, then seem to ignore their team for the rest of the season.  Why is it that some teams can rotate their lineups and keep their team healthy all season, while others, even at the major league level, have players at 94%...88%...77%, by the end of the season?  Is it "tanking", if you seemingly ignore your players health (the everyday position players), and just hope they don't get hurt (or secretly hope that they do)?

I guess it depends how good the players are. Though letting your players get that fatigued isn't good, some owners may feel a guy at 80% is better than his backup at 100%. Either way, that would seem on the surface to be more of a laziness issue than a tanking issue.

I am rebuilding in a couple worlds, and there is no need to run Low-A level players in the ML. At the start of spring training after the initial FA signing period, there is a TON of cheap ML-level FA that you can sign and keep your payroll down. Now to me (since the tankers can freely express their opinion here, I suppose I can) a 17m ML payroll is absolute BS.  

Now, a minimum ML payroll rule is not necessary in the top private worlds filled with good, veteran owners. But yes, I can see where a minimum ML payroll rule--nothing outlandish, say 25m, would be a good private world rule.

Posted by shobob on 6/11/2012 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Vancouver Savages Franchise Profile

Funny thing is this team will only be picking third next season.  Looks like cdc will have to tank harder if he wants a first overall pick.

The WC in that world is enlightening

Posted by willsauve on 7/6/2012 11:27:00 AM (view original):
The WC in that world is enlightening

Yes, quite interesting reading.  It seems that cdc thinks that it's me sending out those sitemails.  It's not.

Burn the witch!!!