Is this IFA ML ready? Topic

a_ersberg
Posts: 1363 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 75
Prospect
Four year old's storming the beach at Normandy??  Now THATS a story!
9/2/2011 3:37 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
Now now, ersberg.  He said nothing about the war.  He could have stormed them on his vacation last year.
9/2/2011 3:58 PM
taz21
Posts: 470 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 93
Prospect
Posted by rangerup on 9/2/2011 3:03:00 PM (view original):
I'm 73 years old and stormed the beaches at Normandy, I don't have to take this from sniveling fatties
So you stormed the beaches of normandy at 6?  Yeah, didn't think.  Please don't insult the suffering of the real people who lost their lives on that beach.
9/2/2011 5:03 PM
soursurfer
Posts: 371 (0)
Hall of Famer
72
Prospect
rangerup, your argument would be a lot more compelling if your ML team didn't lose 100+ games while you held back guys who should have been in the majors.  Making no effort to be competitive at the ML level while you had the resources to do so is blatant tanking.
9/2/2011 5:32 PM
rangerup
Posts: 682 (0)
All Star
2 42
Prospect
To each their own but I find it curious that not a single team/owner in the world mentioned anything about that during the season in question.  Personally I don't think it is tanking at all.  I was trying to bring all of my prospects up while at or very near their projected's ratings in an effort to maximize return at the ML level prior to their big paydays.  That is not tanking in any sense of the word, regardless of whether they were better than what was at the ML level.

If you have a guy projected to be an OVR 100 in the minors, and currently sits at 84 (still a long way to go to his 100), your telling me he needs to be force fed to the ML level if the guy at that level playing his position is OVR 77, regardless of his contractual obligations?  Simply because he is "better" than his ML counterpart?  Not many smart owners would agree with this. 

There was no tanking involved, some message board trolls just like to talk a ration and are idiots.
9/2/2011 7:02 PM
jonas1102
Posts: 1016 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 24 43 11
Rookie
Can you tell us more how you got confused while watching Saving Private Ryan and thought you were actually there?
9/2/2011 7:24 PM
soursurfer
Posts: 371 (0)
Hall of Famer
72
Prospect
The owners probably weren't scouring every AAA system in a tanking witch hunt.

If he gives you the best chance to win, yes, he should probably be on the field. Especially if he had already been up previously. And why was he up previously? Because you gave a damn about winning at the ML level at that time, and he gave you the best chance to do so of the options available to you.
9/2/2011 7:40 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by rangerup on 9/2/2011 7:02:00 PM (view original):
To each their own but I find it curious that not a single team/owner in the world mentioned anything about that during the season in question.  Personally I don't think it is tanking at all.  I was trying to bring all of my prospects up while at or very near their projected's ratings in an effort to maximize return at the ML level prior to their big paydays.  That is not tanking in any sense of the word, regardless of whether they were better than what was at the ML level.

If you have a guy projected to be an OVR 100 in the minors, and currently sits at 84 (still a long way to go to his 100), your telling me he needs to be force fed to the ML level if the guy at that level playing his position is OVR 77, regardless of his contractual obligations?  Simply because he is "better" than his ML counterpart?  Not many smart owners would agree with this. 

There was no tanking involved, some message board trolls just like to talk a ration and are idiots.
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.

 
9/2/2011 8:07 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
Posted by rangerup on 9/2/2011 7:02:00 PM (view original):
To each their own but I find it curious that not a single team/owner in the world mentioned anything about that during the season in question.  Personally I don't think it is tanking at all.  I was trying to bring all of my prospects up while at or very near their projected's ratings in an effort to maximize return at the ML level prior to their big paydays.  That is not tanking in any sense of the word, regardless of whether they were better than what was at the ML level.

If you have a guy projected to be an OVR 100 in the minors, and currently sits at 84 (still a long way to go to his 100), your telling me he needs to be force fed to the ML level if the guy at that level playing his position is OVR 77, regardless of his contractual obligations?  Simply because he is "better" than his ML counterpart?  Not many smart owners would agree with this. 

There was no tanking involved, some message board trolls just like to talk a ration and are idiots.
I'll go ahead and state the obvious here...denial does not = innocence.

You say you wanted to bring all your prospects up together.  Yet all you did was cost Reynoso a year of ML production.  You didn't stop his aging.  So whether he spent that year in AAA or the majors, he still would have been the same age, at the same progression when your other prospects arrived.  Therefore, there was no logical reason for holding him in the minors, other than to keep your ML team from winning too many games and costing you a high draft pick.

That, amigo, is the definition of tanking.
9/2/2011 8:08 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect

So he himself confirms that he tanked, admits "I guess you could call it tanking".  And then denies it all.

Who exactly is the idiot?

9/2/2011 8:09 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
"If you have a guy projected to be an OVR 100 in the minors, and currently sits at 84 (still a long way to go to his 100), your telling me he needs to be force fed to the ML level if the guy at that level playing his position is OVR 77, regardless of his contractual obligations?  Simply because he is "better" than his ML counterpart?  Not many smart owners would agree with this."

And PS: This argument went flying out the window the second you brought Reynoso up to help you with a playoff run because he was better than what you had in your ML rotation.  And by your admission, better than everyone in your ML rotation.
9/2/2011 8:10 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect

Does rangerup understand that projections are not always future actuals?

Does he also not understand that OVR is a pretty inaccurate measure of talent?

9/2/2011 8:21 PM
rangerup
Posts: 682 (0)
All Star
2 42
Prospect
Posted by Jtpsops on 9/2/2011 8:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rangerup on 9/2/2011 7:02:00 PM (view original):
To each their own but I find it curious that not a single team/owner in the world mentioned anything about that during the season in question.  Personally I don't think it is tanking at all.  I was trying to bring all of my prospects up while at or very near their projected's ratings in an effort to maximize return at the ML level prior to their big paydays.  That is not tanking in any sense of the word, regardless of whether they were better than what was at the ML level.

If you have a guy projected to be an OVR 100 in the minors, and currently sits at 84 (still a long way to go to his 100), your telling me he needs to be force fed to the ML level if the guy at that level playing his position is OVR 77, regardless of his contractual obligations?  Simply because he is "better" than his ML counterpart?  Not many smart owners would agree with this. 

There was no tanking involved, some message board trolls just like to talk a ration and are idiots.
I'll go ahead and state the obvious here...denial does not = innocence.

You say you wanted to bring all your prospects up together.  Yet all you did was cost Reynoso a year of ML production.  You didn't stop his aging.  So whether he spent that year in AAA or the majors, he still would have been the same age, at the same progression when your other prospects arrived.  Therefore, there was no logical reason for holding him in the minors, other than to keep your ML team from winning too many games and costing you a high draft pick.

That, amigo, is the definition of tanking.
No, by holding him in AAA for the season to develop (and yes he would have developed at the same rate most likely whether ML or AAA) I saved him a year on his card, hence I will now get one more year out of him at the ML level with the rest of the prospects before he either A) demands a lot of money, or B) hits free agency.

He wasn't fully developed and therefore I had no obligation, by anyone's definition, to promote him to anything I didn't choose to.  It is not tanking.  You may call it that, but it isn't.  I am not obligated as an owner to call up anyone at all if they are not fully developed, bottom line, under any circumstances, and putting the best player on the field is not a good enough reason by you guys.

I used to wonder what was going on.....at only 10 seasons with all 5 of my worlds beginning to take division championship after division championship..and other players with 50+ seasons with just an occasional good year here or there......was I just lucky?  Now I know it isn't luck, I just understand the game better than most of you.  Of course you will just call it tanking.  Hah, if that is the case I will be coming to a division near you in the future to begin more champ runs.
9/2/2011 8:43 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
No, he's a ******* idiot who has refused my offer a strap/cage match to settle it once and for all.
9/2/2011 8:44 PM
rangerup
Posts: 682 (0)
All Star
2 42
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 9/2/2011 8:21:00 PM (view original):

Does rangerup understand that projections are not always future actuals?

Does he also not understand that OVR is a pretty inaccurate measure of talent?

Yes I do, as usual I use the term for simplicity sake.
9/2/2011 8:44 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5|6...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.