There tends to be a lot of talk around these forums about tankers and how detrimental they are to the league. But what about the other extreme?  Owners who join a league, max out their payroll, and essentially hire a team of mercenaries to compete until there is no young talent left to help patch the ML team.  When the franchise begins to cave from the consequences of the massive payroll these owners leave behind a team that may be able to compete for another couple seasons but has a barren pipeline of talent.  

Unfortunately, times can be tough for leagues to fill so commissioners continue to give these owners opportunities.  

Personally, I came across an owner who ran a payroll ranging from 105 mil to 135 mil in 11 of 12 seasons, then bailed and now has no more than a handful of past seasons in any league.  His overall record looks great and has earned him double digit WS victories but this just gaming the system in a way that is potentially worse than tanking.

At the very least, tankers can potentially miss MWRs and they are building a pipeline of talent for the future (at least if they have any idea what they are doing). 

What's the worst case of this you have seen and how do you compare this form of owner to the $30 million in payroll tanker?

I don't know about the worst case I've seen but there are plenty of owners who "vulture" good teams, run the high payroll, ignore player development and depart. 

A commissioner should treat them the same way they treat the guy who joins worlds, takes the worst team, loses for 5 seasons(complaining the entire time that the team had no talent when they took it) with 36m payrolls and then starts winning. 

Neither is good for a world but, if I had to take one, I take the guy who wants to win now.    I'll handle the problem he leaves behind when the time comes.

That's an interesting take Mike, because a lot of owners don't seem to have the win now attitude just about ever.  If they can maintain the payroll and competitiveness for say 10 seasons, it likely is a net benefit to a league for that duration of time over someone actively attempting to not win.

It is really just a matter of delaying the problem though, since the next owner to take over that team will more than likely ride out or try to dump those bad contracts in order to pursue the "win eventually" strategy.

I guess it just comes with the territory of operating below the  "top level" leagues.