How do you know he isn't paying attention?  

As I read it, the commish knows he can't change rules in the middle of the season.   But he can start the discussion while calling out the tanker.   I see no reason not to put the tanker on full blast. 

yall niggaz is throwin shade

The chat reminds me of the dudes that said "If rape is inevitable, just sit back and enjoy it."

"Hey, since there are no rules against starting a tryout camp pitcher every 5th day, just sit back and enjoy it."

so nobody should say anything about the tanker until after the season? that is ridiculous. 

you can't write a rule for every tanking scenario....so not sure what CLEAR rules you're going to come up with. you're going to have guys try to tank even with a strict MWR and a good world is going to call them out on it. 

NO WORLD CHAT DRAMA!!!!!   THAT DESTROYS ALL WORLDS!!!!!

Yeah, you should want to be done with this.

31	Sockless_Joe	ML	70-92	.432	4th	No	No
32	Sockless_Joe	ML	67-95	.414	4th	No	No
33	Sockless_Joe	ML	64-98	.395	4th	No	No
34	Sockless_Joe	ML	67-95	.414	4th	No	No
35	Sockless_Joe	ML	18-26	.409	-	-	-

But, to be fair, two of those picks he "earned" are already in the bigs.   Grossly out of position but in the bigs.

Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Duke Spehr is playing SS poorly.
Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Kurt Lennon is adequate at 2B but his bat makes him worthy.

I had often wondered what would happen if Admin allowed commissioners to fine owners for tanking. So, let's say you set a MWR of 60 or 62 or 65, any team that fails to win that many games will lose $1 million off of their payroll for the next season. So you can have a 30-40-50 win season but it's going to cost you and make it a lot more difficult to sign big IFA's.

You can do that without Admin. Create a specific, evenly enforced rule and Admin will back it.
1. If you win fewer than 60 games, the next season you must have $2M in unused Payroll all season
2. If you win fewer than 55 games, the next season you must have $5M in unused Payroll all season
3. If you win fewer than 50 games, you are not allowed to return
4. An owner in violation of 1 or 2 will not be allowed to return

We're trying a similar approach in Rickey to limit IFA signings of teams that miss the MWR. Don't know how effective it will be since it doesn't do anything about the draft, but we felt it was worth trying. Since Payroll is of limited value to a tanker, barring transfers to Prospects or limiting signing bonuses for IFA is probably more of a deterrent. You can enact anything you want as long as it's tied to a number (MWR, Budgets) and not using nebulous definitions such as "tanking" or "out of position."

The problem is approaches like that don't prevent someone from tanking his way to 60 wins.

Posted by bripat42 on 9/3/2015 9:52:00 AM (view original):
sjpoker, there's an old cliche about the definition of insanity: repeating the exact same process over and over, yet expecting different results. You're new to the world, so perhaps you don't know, but this exact same scenario has played out in the past with this exact same owner over the exact same pitcher, and it has led to no change in the owner's behavior. To spudpicker's credit, he has agreed to put the MWR rule to a vote and has invited conversation on other rules updates/revisions, so hopefully the change in approach leads to a different outcome this time in the sense that at least we'll have stricter rules moving forward.

As a side note, I don't understand what you mean when you say clear and enforceable rules are needed but that it's silly to discuss them midseason. When would you propose discussing them? Later? The issue is on the table now, so I see no point in holding off on addressing it. No one in the world chat has suggested that any resulting changes go into effect midseason or retroactively. Perhaps that was your concern?

bripat42  - I'm in agreement. spudpucker's been active about it, so hopefully we can all come to an agreement.

I guess I'm not a fan of discussing the rule changes all season long. Other chat items get lost. But perhaps thats unavoidable.

Discussing rules changes during the season (not enacting them) is the only way to get it done. The more time for discussion the better, in terms of troubleshooting unintended consequences before changing them and in terms of getting league members to buy into them.

Posted by joshkvt on 9/3/2015 10:59:00 AM (view original):
You can do that without Admin. Create a specific, evenly enforced rule and Admin will back it.
1. If you win fewer than 60 games, the next season you must have $2M in unused Payroll all season
2. If you win fewer than 55 games, the next season you must have $5M in unused Payroll all season
3. If you win fewer than 50 games, you are not allowed to return
4. An owner in violation of 1 or 2 will not be allowed to return

We're trying a similar approach in Rickey to limit IFA signings of teams that miss the MWR. Don't know how effective it will be since it doesn't do anything about the draft, but we felt it was worth trying. Since Payroll is of limited value to a tanker, barring transfers to Prospects or limiting signing bonuses for IFA is probably more of a deterrent. You can enact anything you want as long as it's tied to a number (MWR, Budgets) and not using nebulous definitions such as "tanking" or "out of position."

The problem is approaches like that don't prevent someone from tanking his way to 60 wins.

I have also heard of a league where if you don't meet the MWR of 50 you forfit your first pick in the draft. Only problem with that is then everyone stalls at 50. Maybe that rule plus the payroll for anything under 60 wins?

Don't forget unfair injury updates

Ha, Yeah I guess that's a good point.

Although that said, I did pick up a half decent stopgap DH in Kaline during FA because an owner complained he "left a really good DH leave to FA because the guy wasn't hitting." I hadn't noticed the player until the guy posted. So while the whole "complaining about X player not hitting" thing can be a drag, at least this time it worked out.