Is this IFA ML ready? Topic

rangerup
Posts: 682 (0)
All Star
2 42
Prospect
If you all want to call it that, sure.  I didn't admit anything, teccywrg labeled it tanking.  Whatever he wants to think is fine by me.  The guys in my worlds where I play wouldn't agree.  In my estimation, any guy under 27 years old and "still progressing" can be held in the minors regardless if he is better than what is at the big league level and I wouldn't call it tanking.

What I would call it is an owner who gets it, knows what he is doing and is getting rapid results.
9/1/2011 5:03 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect

Most other people call it "indifference to winning at the ML level".  Or soft-tanking.  You're not intentionalyl trying to lose.  But you're certainly not doing everything you can to win.

And as others will point out, the wins you're not trying to get are going to somebody else.  So it impacts everybody.

9/1/2011 6:50 PM
rangerup
Posts: 682 (0)
All Star
2 42
Prospect
That seems a pretty weak interpretation.
9/1/2011 7:00 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
For someone in denial, sure.
9/1/2011 7:24 PM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
In my estimation, any guy under 27 years old and "still progressing" can be held in the minors regardless if he is better than what is at the big league level and I wouldn't call it tanking.

I would strongly disagree with this statement. You should, with very few exceptions, always play the better guy at the ML level.
9/1/2011 8:00 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by travisg on 9/1/2011 8:00:00 PM (view original):
In my estimation, any guy under 27 years old and "still progressing" can be held in the minors regardless if he is better than what is at the big league level and I wouldn't call it tanking.

I would strongly disagree with this statement. You should, with very few exceptions, always play the better guy at the ML level.
Unless you're tanking.
9/1/2011 8:12 PM
rangerup
Posts: 682 (0)
All Star
2 42
Prospect
Posted by travisg on 9/1/2011 8:00:00 PM (view original):
In my estimation, any guy under 27 years old and "still progressing" can be held in the minors regardless if he is better than what is at the big league level and I wouldn't call it tanking.

I would strongly disagree with this statement. You should, with very few exceptions, always play the better guy at the ML level.
Such as letting a prized prospect mature into the best player he can be travis?  Putting your best player at the ML level 'always' is a mistake and stupid, unless you are an owner that doesn't know what they are doing for the organization.

Tec you are an idiot, always trying to talk a ration of crap on the board and act like a know it all.  And your record sucks, so I take it you don't know what you are doing and just like to bluster like you do. It's in poor taste for you to feel like you can call someone out as a tanker, or excuse me, a 'soft tanker' on your interpretation alone.  Not that it affects me, I will keep moving along.  Check back in Tec, it shouldn't take too long before I have tripled your 'know it all' playoff appearances and world series rings.  But of course you will say I soft tanked my way to them.  Fool.
9/1/2011 8:27 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by rangerup on 9/1/2011 4:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg2 on 9/1/2011 11:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by moethedog on 9/1/2011 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Rangerup,

I'm not sure I understand what you gained by putting Reynoso at AAA for all of last year.  You gave up a year of ML innings to get a year of ML innings (which sill come later).  Basically all you gained, as  I see it, was 4 vL points.
It's called "tanking".  S17 was the season where he called him up because he was "in a pennant race that he should not have been in".  So he sent him down in S18 so that he could go 53-109, then bring him back up so that he could make it to the WS in S19.

17 rangerup ML 72-90 .444 4th No No      
18 rangerup ML 53-109 .327 4th No No      
19 rangerup ML 101-61 .623 1st No Yes yes yes no
Pretty much the reason yes.  I wouldn't call it tanking per se, but I had a very bad team, with many guys in the minors who would have been ready in one more year, so Reynoso played in AAA with them and won the AAA WS.  Then he came up with the rest of the prospects the next year.  I guess you could call it tanking, but he was a very young pitcher, newly signed and in the first or second year of his pro career so I didn't see any moral issues with holding him in AAA for a year.  Could he have played in the bigs?  Sure he could have.  My guess is there are many levels of tanking and it is often open to interpretation, this didn't hurt the league and wasn't malicious Teccywrg, I would call it being a damn good owner doing a complete rebuild from crap to WS in three seasons.

I also think it saved him one ML season on his card to date, which was the main reason I did it to stretch out the time until arb and payday came, to maximize years with him at a higher OVR.

"I guess you could call it tanking."

Your own words, moron.
9/1/2011 8:38 PM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
Me: You should, with very few exceptions, always play the better guy at the ML level [...] rangerup: Such as letting a prized prospect mature into the best player he can be travis?  Putting your best player at the ML level 'always' is a mistake and stupid, unless you are an owner that doesn't know what they are doing for the organization.

I'm not going to tell you how to spend your $25 and three months, but I don't understand the whole "I'm waiting to unleash a juggernaut all at once" mindset that so many owners seem to have. Some of my most satisfying experiences in this game have been finding undervalued assets and building a winner from scrap-heap talent (in which case I'm usually trying to develop young players behind the scenes), so I can tell you that winning now and winning later are not mutually exclusive.

It boggles my mind that you'd demote a guy who's already proven himself capable of playing in the majors. if I've got a ML-caliber player, then I'm going to find a spot for that player on my 25-man roster, because that saves me the trouble of finding a better one on the FA, waiver or trade markets. Holding a player down in the minors for a whole season to save service time is pointless, because the same thing can be accomplished by waiting for 20-25 games. And there's no point to holding back a player until he's peaked, because you're going to get his decline years instead of his growing pains. When it's my team, I'll always choose the win-now option.
9/1/2011 10:46 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
joshkvt
Posts: 6200 (0)
Hall of Famer
664 99
All Star
Well there's an intelligent argument in your defense, calling someone out for hiding behind a user name while posting from a user name. Demoting good players whose clock is already ticking (as opposed to waiting to call someone up to save a year of service time) so you can lose more games is tanking. You can deny it, defend it as a legitimate strategy, or say you don't care, but that's what it is. Saying someone who has played in the majors, or is better than what you have in the majors, is not ready for the majors, now that's assinine.
9/1/2011 11:51 PM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
I had a AAA team that could have whooped over half the ML teams in my world busy tearing up AAA.....because they were all.....ALL....still progressing, as a team.  The fact that they were better than my ML team is irrelevant, they 'were not ready' for the big leagues.

Not irrelevant at all. If your AAA team "could have whooped over half the ML teams in (your) world," they're most certainly "ready for the big leagues." Being able to whoop over half the teams would give you ... lemme see here ... approximately a .500 record. Which is about average. Players continue to progress in the majors, and they don't have to meet their projections to be good. So many people believe that, and it's simply not true.
9/1/2011 11:56 PM (edited)
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by rangerup on 9/1/2011 11:10:00 PM (view original):
Well that is the thing travisg, we may each have our own way of developing our teams, and I think that is ok.  But to have someone call it tanking out of jealousy in my mind isn't a cool thing to do, when it is pretty obvious intentional tanking never took place.  I fielded a major league team, I kept their fatigue managed, and I had a AAA team that could have whooped over half the ML teams in my world busy tearing up AAA.....because they were all.....ALL....still progressing, as a team.  The fact that they were better than my ML team is irrelevant, they 'were not ready' for the big leagues.  I could have called him up after 25 games, sure, but I kept him in AAA because he was part of that team, his impact at the ML level would not have changed much, and I wanted to see my AAA team win the world series.  

The main point here is 1) Tec never owned a player this good and 2) he was not done progressing yet.  There should not be a discussion on tanking regarding promoting him, its asinine.  It's also frustrating because if Tec was physically in the same room as me, he wouldn't have this attitude, unless he wanted an azz whooping.  I hate fake people who hide behind the frickin internet.  Nuff Said.
Another intelligent response: "If you were here, I'd beat you up".

How old are you, 12?

If you did beat me up, I'd have to tell your mom.  You'd be grounded for a week.
9/2/2011 5:56 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
Posted by rangerup on 9/1/2011 8:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by travisg on 9/1/2011 8:00:00 PM (view original):
In my estimation, any guy under 27 years old and "still progressing" can be held in the minors regardless if he is better than what is at the big league level and I wouldn't call it tanking.

I would strongly disagree with this statement. You should, with very few exceptions, always play the better guy at the ML level.
Such as letting a prized prospect mature into the best player he can be travis?  Putting your best player at the ML level 'always' is a mistake and stupid, unless you are an owner that doesn't know what they are doing for the organization.

Tec you are an idiot, always trying to talk a ration of crap on the board and act like a know it all.  And your record sucks, so I take it you don't know what you are doing and just like to bluster like you do. It's in poor taste for you to feel like you can call someone out as a tanker, or excuse me, a 'soft tanker' on your interpretation alone.  Not that it affects me, I will keep moving along.  Check back in Tec, it shouldn't take too long before I have tripled your 'know it all' playoff appearances and world series rings.  But of course you will say I soft tanked my way to them.  Fool.
The problem here is that you're talking like you're an MLB GM..."We don't want to rush our prized prospect to the bigs. We want to get him some seasoning and let him mature, and we'll bring him up when he's ready."

And yet it's been established (and you've been repeatedly told) that guys in HBD progress the same no matter what level they're at - maybe even better at the MLB level due to coaching. You even proved it to yourself by letting your guy come up and rake the majors before sending him back down to pad your ML losses.  What do you think would happen if next season the Braves decided to send Beachy and Minor down to AAA?  Or the Nats sent Strasburg down for "more seasoning"?  No one in this world would by they weren't trying to tank somehow.

If you'd never called your guy up, I might listen to your argument. But once it had already been proven - to you and everyone else - that he could not only perform at the ML level, but perform well, your decision to send him down and have a "AAA juggernaut" while your MLB team wallowed in the cellar is blatant tanking. 

Call people idiots all you want, but you've already described a clear tanking scenario, so trying to defend it now is making YOU look like the idiot.  I'm glad I'm not in a world with you.  Zero integrity in this game.
9/2/2011 8:25 AM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by rangerup on 9/1/2011 11:10:00 PM (view original):
Well that is the thing travisg, we may each have our own way of developing our teams, and I think that is ok.  But to have someone call it tanking out of jealousy in my mind isn't a cool thing to do, when it is pretty obvious intentional tanking never took place.  I fielded a major league team, I kept their fatigue managed, and I had a AAA team that could have whooped over half the ML teams in my world busy tearing up AAA.....because they were all.....ALL....still progressing, as a team.  The fact that they were better than my ML team is irrelevant, they 'were not ready' for the big leagues.  I could have called him up after 25 games, sure, but I kept him in AAA because he was part of that team, his impact at the ML level would not have changed much, and I wanted to see my AAA team win the world series.  

The main point here is 1) Tec never owned a player this good and 2) he was not done progressing yet.  There should not be a discussion on tanking regarding promoting him, its asinine.  It's also frustrating because if Tec was physically in the same room as me, he wouldn't have this attitude, unless he wanted an azz whooping.  I hate fake people who hide behind the frickin internet.  Nuff Said.

Wow.    I'll call you a tanker and I'd happily say it while in the same room.    Tethered to you by a leather strap in a cage.  

But not in a gay way.

9/2/2011 8:29 AM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...11 Next ▸
Is this IFA ML ready? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.