Posted by esf0242 on 5/8/2016 6:41:00 PM (view original):
so your answer is to just outspend & thats it, no other solution

If that were the solution, everyone would do it. If you want to take the easy route, tank it up.

Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	6	$36.0M	75-87 (.463)	4	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	7	$81.0M	89-73 (.549)	3	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	8	$78.9M	91-71 (.562)	2	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	9	$100.4M	101-61 (.623)	2	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	10	$112.7M	109-53 (.673)	1	X
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	11	$111.3M	107-55 (.660)	1	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	12	$123.0M	101-61 (.623)	1	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	13	$127.5M	113-49 (.698)	1	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	14	$118.8M	112-50 (.691)	1	-
Hamilton	KC Swing Kings	15	$125.8M	90-72 (.556)	2	-

I think I had 2nd pick when I took this team.

not going to lie - i am sure its a viable (obviously) alternative to "tanking" just keep FA'ing it every year (assumption) and keep that payroll in Yankees/Dodgers/Red Sox range - i have never went into a situation thinking that was the way to go....maybe it is, maybe depending on drafting is not the way to go , especially given the changes in scouting. I can see how you are adamant about tanking given that record. Maybe i will join another lg & just go for it lol

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2016 6:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by esf0242 on 5/8/2016 6:41:00 PM (view original):
so your answer is to just outspend & thats it, no other solution

If that were the solution, everyone would do it. If you want to take the easy route, tank it up.

don't get me wrong, i think there is merit to it...while a lot of others are in tank mode or middling etc...come in & don't worry about anything below AAA and just keep spending. again not a knock on winning at the ML level, but what do you have if that owner doesn't win and decides to bolt? maybe it doesn't matter idk, it would seem that might not be an attractive team to entice a new owner - drafting low & dependent on FA's . again idk good topic tho

I've found that I can compete for 8-10 season stretches. Then I have a couple of down years. In those down years, I look for players who can contribute when I think I can fight for a playoff spot again(I build 3 year rosters). I signed a max deal in S33 of Mantle because I thought he could help me in S34-S37. And a lot of my payrolls aren't 1-2 big FA signings. It's 4-5 reasonable FA signings.

No one has to roll over and play dead for 3-4 seasons in order to get back in the playoff picture. But owners have this vision of 5 top 3 picks and 4 28m IFA being the foundation of their team for 10 seasons. So they slash payroll and lose 100+ games for a real life year or longer.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2016 6:55:00 PM (view original):
I've found that I can compete for 8-10 season stretches. Then I have a couple of down years. In those down years, I look for players who can contribute when I think I can fight for a playoff spot again(I build 3 year rosters). I signed a max deal in S33 of Mantle because I thought he could help me in S34-S37. And a lot of my payrolls aren't 1-2 big FA signings. It's 4-5 reasonable FA signings.

No one has to roll over and play dead for 3-4 seasons in order to get back in the playoff picture. But owners have this vision of 5 top 3 picks and 4 28m IFA being the foundation of their team for 10 seasons. So they slash payroll and lose 100+ games for a real life year or longer.

agreed that is not necessary

Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	25	$80.3M	92-70 (.568)	1	X
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	26	$73.2M	84-78 (.519)	3	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	27	$80.0M	90-72 (.556)	1	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	28	$98.9M	94-68 (.580)	1	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	29	$114.0M	106-56 (.654)	1	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	30	$97.5M	86-76 (.531)	2	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	31	$95.1M	77-85 (.475)	3	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	32	$104.0M	83-79 (.512)	3	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	33	$116.1M	97-65 (.599)	1	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	34	$114.6M	86-76 (.531)	3	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	35	$121.0M	86-76 (.531)	2	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	36	$114.3M	79-83 (.488)	2	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	37	$70.1M	78-84 (.481)	4	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	38	$60.9M	72-90 (.444)	4	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	39	$80.0M	81-81 (.500)	3	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	40	-	0-0 (.000)	-	-

The last three seasons on this team has been pretty much nothing but draftees who couldn't make the cut before. Still managed to average 77 wins in one of the toughest worlds in HBD. So when you say "Don't worry about anything below AAA", it's inaccurate. I picked up some competent players drafting in the mid/late 20s.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2016 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	25	$80.3M	92-70 (.568)	1	X
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	26	$73.2M	84-78 (.519)	3	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	27	$80.0M	90-72 (.556)	1	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	28	$98.9M	94-68 (.580)	1	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	29	$114.0M	106-56 (.654)	1	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	30	$97.5M	86-76 (.531)	2	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	31	$95.1M	77-85 (.475)	3	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	32	$104.0M	83-79 (.512)	3	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	33	$116.1M	97-65 (.599)	1	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	34	$114.6M	86-76 (.531)	3	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	35	$121.0M	86-76 (.531)	2	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	36	$114.3M	79-83 (.488)	2	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	37	$70.1M	78-84 (.481)	4	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	38	$60.9M	72-90 (.444)	4	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	39	$80.0M	81-81 (.500)	3	-
Moonlight Graham	NY1 Honey Badgers	40	-	0-0 (.000)	-	-

The last three seasons on this team has been pretty much nothing but draftees who couldn't make the cut before. Still managed to average 77 wins in one of the toughest worlds in HBD. So when you say "Don't worry about anything below AAA", it's inaccurate. I picked up some competent players drafting in the mid/late 20s.

please dont get offended, not my intention

Not offended. Just showing you that what you think about being able to compete is wrong. I've done it several ways but haven't had to revert to tanking(not counting the TWC leagues where that's part of the deal). You can get decent players, lower payroll and still remain competitive. It helps that I'm in worlds where tanking gets you a boot in the ***. Stinking and winning 72 still gets a decent pick. So there's no incentive to drop 110 per season.

But, again, it really just matters in how you choose to play. If you want to play in a world that has no issue with 6 teams finishing 1-9 with 110 losses, that's fine. If I played in worlds where that's acceptable, I'd likely do it. But I choose to not play in those because, eventually, I'm getting screwed out of a playoff spot because another owner is going to benefit from playing guys who do that over the last 10 games. That would make me want to punch someone in the throat. I don't want my silly internet games to make me want to punch people in the throat.

i honestly cant think of a season where i have been over 80 or 85 max payroll, (i may have been but it doesnt come to mind) i mean even when my teams were "rolling". probably just a mindset to overcome in the future, thanks

It's not real money. There are lots of ways to play the game but cutting good players loose because you don't want to pay them seems a little silly.

oh i dont do that unless i get a projected return worthy (above) the current of the player. unless its just a horrid signing (paying 5 mil for AAA level talent or something) but if they are decent & happen to be making $ i wont accept less than fair value & would play the guy

Reviving this thread a bit because I hope I might find sympathetic ears here.

I'm pretty tired of the ******* whining about "new fuzzy ratings" after every draft and every IFA signs. "I'm gonna drop my teams." "I think we should have more certainty than this." It's a ******* GAME. If you wanted a ******* investment, buy Google. They did it to take some of the teeth and the complete predictability out of tanking, for Christ sake. But now everyone who doesn't invest the full 20 mil AND understand that projections have NEVER been certain gets all butthurt because their projected 87 is "only" a 78.

Whining. ******* bunch of Sam Bradfords.

Sam Bradford never lived up to his ratings!!!!