Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
I've played in worlds with both, and no, you don't have to have MWR to have a good world.  All other things being equal, however, your odds of having a consistently competetive one, I think, increase if you do. 

We can go back and forth on what the exact ramifications are, but the fact of the matters is that there are negative ramifications to an organization from losing big time for a number of seasons that just don't exist in HBD.  In HBD, absent a MWR, if you don't have a team that can make a run at the playoffs, the best thing you can do for the long term health of your franchise is bottom out with it.  That's not true of real teams, because bottoming out has consequences that extend beyond just that season.

Again, what are those ramifications.  Cause the truth is in MLB, those teams that are profitably typically remain profitable winning or losing, while those that are not typically don't.

You're seriously questioning whether there are negative ramifications of long term, rampant losing on an organization in real-life?  Profitability is hardly a metric here, because it simply measures how much you spend.   You can be profitable no matter what your revenue if you keep expenses low enough.  Pittsburgh, for instance, turned a profit of 25 million last year according to Forbes.   Looks great, but then, they only had a 35 million dollar payroll, so had they invested all that profit in payroll, they could have had... 60 million good for like 25th in the league.  And let's just say they suddenly still did have a wealth of resources - if they want to get a big time talent to come there, it's either not going to happen, or they are going to have to massively overpay because they don't win and they've poisoned their fanbase.

You want to hold up the Rays - sure, they lost for a while and got a ton of talent - and they can't keep it because they spent the first 10 years of their existance killing off any chance they had of developing a fanbase.

ML teams profitable has more to do with Market and Market size than it has to do with on the field performance to a degree.  A team like the yankees have a model that requires them to be competitive, but that is cause their market is a fan base that now expects it year and year out.  The Pirates, don't have that same fanbase or access to that kind of market.  The Rays, inability to keep its players has nothing to do with what they did the first 10 years in TB.  It has to do with the simple fact that the market isn't there.  Even when they won they didn't put anyone in the stands.

HBD assumes same exact market sizes.  In the real world the differences are vast.

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 3:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/12/2012 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/12/2012 12:36:00 PM (view original):
"I believe a soft MWR, with a small comittee of veteran owners (3 or 5) review teams that fall under the MWR to see if they had any clear evidence of tanking.  The league should define what type of evidence identifies tanking, and then the committe votes on it."

Once you make it subjective, i.e. a "committee decision", then you're asking for trouble.  When you get into a situation where two owners fall short with similar stories, and one gets booted while the other one stays, then you're sliding down the slippery slope.  Especially when the guy who stays is the popular owner who everybody likes and the guy who got the boot was the troublesome jackass.  Then the "committee" approach is little more than a farce, it's a popularity contest.

I didn't say subjective.  I said the league needs to define clear evidence of tanking.  Which from my experience is quite clear.  Things like rookie league players at the ML level, Catchers playing CF, 0% pitchers, etc.  It is not hard to identify clear evidence of tanking.  By identifying these rules it will force owners to player at the very least mediocre players at the ML.  Meaning teams won't be losing 125 games each year.

Of course a committee would be subjective.  Three (or five) owners deciding what's tanking or what isn't.  If it's blatant tanking, then it's obvious.  But if it's soft-tanking (i.e. "indifference to winning", or "not making a reasonable effort"), then it absolutely becomes subjective . . . what might be OK with one committee member might not be for another committee member.

As others have said . . . if you (or anybody) has a problem with MWR rules, then don't play in worlds that have them.  There are 160+ worlds out there, many of which don't have MWR rules.  Don't feel obliged that you should be allowed to play by your own rules in any world you choose.

So cause you don't like my opinion, I don't have the right to share it in thread?  Is that correct.  I am not saying everyone has to follow my opinion, I am arguing my opinion.  Do I not have that right do that in this thread?

The you don't have to play by those rules, is a weak way of getting out of the discussion.  You don't have to reply to my posts, if you don't like what I have to say.

Repeating that MWR works, hardly makes that a fact.  Especially when some research shows that is not necessarily the case.

In 2000, the Phillies drew 1.6 million fans to the park.   Last year, they drew 3.6 million.  Obviously the market grew in that time frame.

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 3/12/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Sorry yanks, you're out to lunch on this one.  If you don't like MWR, don't join worlds that have them.  Building a "dynasty" by losing is the easiest strategy in this game.  That's why over time, many worlds have enacted MWR.  That's also why, over time, worlds that have teams winning 40 games for 3 seasons and later becoming dominant are now considered "'tard worlds".  Worlds have added MWR because it has an overall net positive effect.  Everybody wants to win for 10 seasons.  Not everyone can do it.  There are many strategies not even addressed here (see the "Tanking 101" thread).

The bottom line is that a good owner can turn around a franchise, sometimes very quickly, even with good competition (I do know this first hand).  Teams win WS with 80 wins.  I've seen it happen.  The idea that owners want to be sure they can win 108 before even calling up guys from AAA who are better than their MLB players is what decreases the enjoyment level in a world.  No one is saying you shouldn't use the arbitration system to your advantage, or that you should rush every prospect before they're ready.  But if you're transferring 40M (+20 to the Prospects Budget) every season and hanging with a 40M or less payroll, you are tanking, pure and simple.  Can you get away with that in a MWR world?  Sure, but not for long.  Nor should you.  What HBD doesn't have is the natural feedback of fan support and profits (or lack thereof).  There are no consequences to it, which is why it works.  Worlds that have MWR have put in a process, an imperfect one, but a process that encourages competition.  It's better than the alternative, and the worlds that have them, by and large, are far more healthy than those that don't.

Again, if you don't like MWR, don't join a world that has them.  If your world adopts them, you can always go somewhere else....

Where did I say I want to join and MWR league.  I am not arguing all leagues have to agree with me and get rid of MWR.  I am in this thread, cause Reino asked me to post here, cause he has a commisioner is trying to implement said rule in a league I've been in a long time

People added MWR, not to get politcal cause way to may people buy into socialistic views.  Me personally, I think a good owner, who knows what they are doing can win in any circumstance.  I think most owners in HBD, including a few in this thread, don't do a very good job of judging ratings and understand values of certain positions vs. others.  So I don't think you need an MWR to make a good world.  In fact, I've been in enough worlds some with MWR, some without, and the competitive level is not any different.

"But if you're transferring 40M (+20 to the Prospects Budget) every season and hanging with a 40M or less payroll, you are tanking, pure and simple"

This is a flat out ignorant comment.  That is not a hard and fast rule.  This can be just as much proper player management as it could be sign of tanking.  Again, hard and fast rules like this are a sign of ignorance.

Yeah, why?  My current record?  There is talent on that team so I'm confident we'll get there. Check out the early returns from Derrick French this year. Several such cases on my roster at the moment that should normalize eventually.