Quote: Originally posted by tecwrg on 1/27/2010
3)  DITR changes.  This has been discussed ad-nauseum by the folks who feel that everybody should be entitled to better players.  There's no need to change the DITR process, it does just what it's intended to do.  It's not intended to make everybody's 16th round draft pick a potential ML all-star.  Likewise, it should not randomly turn first-round draft picks into busts.  Some owner's mismanagement of prospects already does a good enough job with that.

I wouldn't mind if the most common DITR profile was broadened, so it didn't mostly affect C, RP and 1B/DH types. Rather than minimal, across-the-board improvements to projections, it might be better if players developed power potential or better control. That's both realistic and possibly helpful.

Ive seen worse deals philly. I cant see the projections but it looks like Brownson has probably maxed out and the SS going the other way I can't see how good he will turn out. I'm sure you could find worse deals if you looked but this is a poor example if you are trying to show lobsided deals.

Quote: Originally posted by timf on 1/27/2010Ive seen worse deals philly.  I cant see the projections but it looks like Brownson has probably maxed out and the SS going the other way I can't see how good he will turn out. I'm sure you could find worse deals if you looked but this is a poor example if you are trying to show lobsided deals.

tim.. not the case... Was just asking, it was in the same division, and the owner abandoned team before season's end. There are alot of suspect trades that were made, I was just asking if "YOU" would make that trade.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

I think the HBD's view of tanking has taken a strong turn to the extreme. Before when it wasn't really monitored, now it is anyone who loses or finishes in last place is tanking. There is a fine line between focusing and building for the future and tanking. To me Tankers are people who purposely lose (i.e. pitch rookie league pitchers in the majors, play catchers in CF, let their pitching go down to 0, etc.) vs. owners who recognize they don't have the talent to compete, and focus on building trough trades for prospects, the draft and IFA's. It doesn't mean they can't put a somewhat competant team on the field, they can play AAAA players, pick up some vets that don't get signed on the cheap, etc. But it would be foolish for them to dive head first into the free agent pool. Let's face it, the Free agent pool each season has maybe 5-6 players worth investing in heavily and a lot of teams are going to be going after them, meaning they are going to get a lot of dough. And most of these players are already 30 or older. Very few big time players hit free agency prior to being 30 in HBD. So it doesn't make sense for a rebuilding team to invest in a 30, 31, 32 yr old when it would only make them marginally better and they would've had to invest big dollars on a player who will be declining when that team is ready to compete.

I don't think you can prevent tanking. What I think HBD can do is minimize the effects of tankers, along with worlds policing themselves.

Here are a couple of options that could minimize benefits to "tanking"

1) Lottery Draft. I know this is not how MLB does it, but lets face it MLB also doesn't have 4 rounds of playoffs and 4 divisions in each leage either. The Teams that don't make the playoffs go into the lottery and based on record get a certain % for the 1st pick, etc. Just like the NBA. It leaves owners with a less certainty of draft position.

2) Make the IFA process more competitive and less certain. I propose a multi step approach to fixing this:

• In the real world IFA's are mostly 16-17 years of age (with some exceptions of course, i.e. Aroldis Chapman), make the ages of our IFA's start at 16 and their current ratings significantly lower than their projections, i.e. 85 ovr may have a current ovr of say 35 or 40. It will create less certainty about their ability to reach their ceilings.
• Have more high ceiling players than currently, with less likelihood of reaching ceilings. More IFA's in the market will create competition.
• Don't make it a year round process. Do just like the majors does. Have an IFA signing period sometime right before the All-star break. What will happen is all the IFA's for the season will come out some time after the draft, a 7 day "blind" bid period will open up, on the last day IFA's will sign. The blind bid will create competition, as there will be no feed back on your offer. What this means is that even though a few teams might have say $35M in prospect budget if they all bid on the same IFA, 2 might get shut out. Opening up the rest of the IFA's to the field. It will create more decision making in the process.
• Remove Japanese players from the IFA process and create a posting system to take place during the pre-season activities. These players will range from 21-28 and will have current ratings much closer to projections, and will likely be players who could either start directly in the ML lineup, rotation, bullpen or AAA, AA. This will be a blind bid process as well and the bid money will come out of player payroll. On top of that the Team will also have to sign said player, if they win the bid, to a contract.
• Remove 50% of the budget transfer process. Only allow budget to be transferred from player payroll to coaching payroll and vice versa.
• Up the amount a team can put into Prospect payroll during budgeting to $30M. It's a one time shot and that's it.
  

Is it perfect? No. But I am not sure there is a perfect way. But like I said you can't prevent tanking, but you could minimize the impact of it. This process would create more competition for IFA's and Japanese players and open up teams to make more a play for them, the blind bid process makes it trickier for owners who have payroll strength on their side to guarantee a winning bid.

Quote: Originally Posted By phillyfan009 on 1/27/2010

Quote: Originally posted by snake_p on 1/27/2010
Topic: My ideas to address the tanking issue

Let 'em. Who cares? If you're not a good enough manager to beat a tanker then you need to improve, not rag about it in the forums.

Proceed with your ragging.

Even if they trade rape newbies?

That's a different issue altogether.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

snake has no real answers for anything. Just inane commentary on other people's post. You're better off just ignoring him.

Quote: Originally posted by tecwrg on 1/27/2010snake has no real answers for anything.  Just inane commentary on other people's post.  You're better off just ignoring him.

Thanks for the warning!

Some interesting ideas.

For the record, I wasnt really posting to complain, etc. I just thought it would be good to have something constructive idea-wise to maybe make it more like the real show.

Quote: Originally Posted By phillyfan009 on 1/27/2010
OK, true. If you are in the final week of the season....You are 2 games behind, and you have to play a decent team. The team ahead of you gets to play a tanking team who is 32-144, how would you feel knowing they have the almost guarantee to sweep the series and knock you out of the running. The team has AA players on it, maybe rated 50-60, all fatigued, and the owner is throwing games to solidify that 1st pick. How would you handle this? Say oh well, I should have been a better manager?

Dumb example. It could just as easily be the shoe on the other foot.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 1/27/2010snake has no real answers for anything. Just inane commentary on other people's post. You're better off just ignoring him

Ohh, why does little tec-wrgie have his panties in a bunch? Could it be because he struck out so miserably in another thread when his attempt to discuss something on its merits crashed and burned?

Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 1/27/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 1/26/2010
BTW . . . one can already tweak up the quality of the draft class by increasing your scouting budget (you'll see more players, including more of the top end guys). And you can already tweak down the quality of the IFA's by decreasing your IFA scouting budget (you'll see less players, and fewer of the top end guys).

False on both counts. Changing your scouting budgets does nothing whatsoever to change the FA's available, not one bit. It only changes what you see and how reliably you see the projections.

I thought you were a veteran at this game.

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 1/26/2010
Please explain why you feel that the quality of amateur draft prospects needs to be tweaked up, and the quality IFA prospects need to be tweaked down.

Please explain what makes you think I said these were needed. I didn't.

What I said was in the context of a discussion of the proposed cap, a proposal that WIS has wisely decided to revisit. Complaints were being made about money being poured into IFA's. Rather than the proposed cap it would have been a logical response to that problem to slightly degrade the IFA market, and slightly upgrade the draftables (which probably would help the game anyway) to keep the total incoming talent pool about the same.

Quote: Originally Posted By phillyfan009 on 1/27/2010tanking..is tanking no matter how you do it, and how you try to hide it

!!!! If you had only said it that clearly and that profoundly from the start, there would have been no need for this thread.

That is all I had to say! Damn all that for a simple sentence.