Hi,

Something must be done about the owners who intentionally lose to accumulate draft picks and IFAs. I'm not talking about teams rebuilding and winning 65 games, or guys who just vanish and abandon a team, I'm talking about the teams clearly and actively tanking and putting up sub-60 wins seasons in multiple years.

In "real" baseball this sort of tactic would be met with diminished attendance, and thus diminsihed revenue. Heads would roll. There is no con side to the ledger for owners intentionally trying to lose. What's worse is that I'm sick and tired of them pretending that isn't what they're doing.

As an owner who prefers vet, salary heavy teams, I risk certain things in building my teams that way. I understand those risks and accept them. There are no equivalent risks for tanking owners trying to lose. After all, it is much easier to lose 110  games than it is to win even 81. It is too easy to lose on purpose and gather only rewards.

Please put in to the engine some sort of repercussions for owners with horrible seasons...just as in real life they should have to face the music and take not just the rewards, but also the risks.

To me, this is the *biggest* issue with the  game engine...and I have plenty of issues with the game engine.

Thank you.

First the real life punishment for tanking is that you need to lose and spend $100 or so on bad teams for it to work.  That is a year of your life at least.  Also the risk is that you aren't very good at it and even after 4 years you only have a moderately successful franchise.  This is probably more common than successfully building a super team through tanking honestly.  IFA could have a couple down years in the 4 you are tanking.  Another risk.  You may not see the biggest two studs in a draft class.....etc. etc.  The idea that it is really easy to tank and build a super team is mostly overstated in these forums.  I would bet just as many super teams are built through unfair trade practices as are through draft/payroll manipulation.

You should probably play in worlds with a 3 or 4 year Minimum Win Requirement.  That way the punishment for not winning enough is to lose your team.  Putting something in the engine where you lose revenue or draft picks or some such would be complicated, drive people away from teams, and keep them away longer from a rebuilding franchise.

I understand and agree with most of what you say, gotigers17. Primarily, I want there to be repercussions for losing on purpose. That's what we're talking about.

While it won't be a big deterrent as tankers probably aren't doing it for the $4, doing away with that last place credit would be a start.

As far as in-game "punishment", there's nothing I've seen, beyond banishment from the world, that would work.

I agree, Mike. I doubt anyone is losing on purpose to rake in 4 bucks. It does seem odd that you get a "reward" for finishing last and nothing for finishing second, though. So, glad they are eliminating the last place bonus. I hadn't heard that.

I wonder if they could code in to the engine something that adds or subtracts budget for the following season if the same owenr returns, based on record. This is off the top of my head, so there may be ovious issues, but it does tie in to "real world" in that revenue generally goes up when a team does well, and drops when it does not do well. I would actually recommend a very wide range in the middle where there is no impact at all on next year's budget, but if tremendously bad, or if elite, your budget is impacted. I do worry about the "rich get richer" (literally and figuratively) apsect of that, though. It does hold some real world relevance, though.

They aren't.  It was a suggestion.


Lowering budgets in the future won't help.   All the tanker will do is lower payroll to the minimum.