Help setting a MWR in a private world... Topic

olemiss33
Posts: 88 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 352
Prospect
We have a really strong world for the most part, but there are a few guys with long histories in this game that are doing what most folks would consider "tanking".  Sub 20mil payrolls, two guys on the ML roster rated a 70ovr or better, multiple r5 guys starting, keeping frontline prospects in AAA even though they are ready to be called up, etc......

Im looking for suggestions from worlds that have set a reasonable MWR, budget constraints, etc.   We aren't interested in capping the prospect budget as a whole.  Maybe cap it if someone doesn't meet the MWR, but not as a rule for all, because some folks can field a solid team AND have a low payroll. 

Also, this world isn't going to pass a MWR that's 200+ wins over 3 seasons.  I would be for it, but it won't pass.  So, we are looking for any suggestions as to how some of you have implemented a MWR that isn't hard to obtain, but still stringent enough to keep people from completely tanking.  
11/7/2013 3:19 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
In Mantle, we have a four season MWR of 55/120/185/260.  Those are hard requirements, no "reviews" or "votes" if somebody falls a game or two short.  You either make it and stay, or miss it and leave.

No budget constraints, per se.  The only "money" constraints we have concern cash in trades, but those are more targeted towards preventing owners from accumulating excessive cash rather than to combat/prevent tanking.  The MWR rules are the only "anti-tanking" measures in place, and seem to be sufficient.
11/7/2013 3:32 PM
willsauve
Posts: 2255 (0)
Hall of Famer
168 1 1 1 200
Prospect
I like

55/125/190 which is easy to reach
Cap Prospect budget at 30M..  

With a prospect cap teams will have no choice but to sign free agents and invest in other areas.. 




11/7/2013 3:39 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

I use 55/125/195/280 in my worlds.    A little tougher than most.    No reviews, budgets or prospect restrictions. 

Season 4 is the "trap" season for those playing the "What my minimum this season?" game. 

11/7/2013 4:09 PM
crickett13
Posts: 2396 (0)
Hall of Famer
398 74 25 145
Prospect
  The only other thing you may want to consider if the world is already screwed up is a first season waiver for new owners. You don't have to waive the wins floor completely (a bad idea) but tell them for season 1 they have to win 20% (rounded up) more games than last season or 55 wins whichever is less. That way if they take over a team who won 35 games and has bad contracts they get 1 season of breathing room but they still have to make a reasonable effort to improve.

  It isn't enough of a break to allow someone to come in and completely tank like a full waiver would but it also helps convince new owners they wont invest time and money just to lose the team right away because its so screwed up. Also winning 42 or 48 games in season 1 it takes about the same effort as winning 55 but they feel safer.

  Then start the 55/125//190 or whatever you decide on in season 2.

  You could make a provision that this rule is only in place for 5 seasons while the world balance is restored.
11/8/2013 12:17 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Probably a bad idea.   Had to get a replacement mid-season.  Told him MWR doesn't apply and that this season wouldn't count for future season requirements.   He won enough but, at the end fo the season, he went on a losing streak.   So I looked at his team.   He'd signed a scrap heap player after roster expansion.   Put his 60ish fielding ratings at SS.

If you give people a loophole, they'll take it.

11/8/2013 1:02 PM
crickett13
Posts: 2396 (0)
Hall of Famer
398 74 25 145
Prospect
Well since your world was not totally screwed up then what I suggested would not apply, which I'm pretty sure you are aware of.
11/8/2013 6:21 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

My example wasn't really my point.    HBD is designed to allow owners to at least be "competitive" from Day 1.    I'd point to the two horrible teams I picked up in Happy Jack and Hamilton.    Two entirely different situations but they were second worst and worst teams, respectively, the season before.   I managed to improve the Hamilton team to 75 wins(65) and the HJ to 66(42).   Hamilton had no talent and little payroll while HJ had little talent and a huge payroll.    I'm not the only person capable of this.   It's just better to not say "You have a season grace period because your team sucks."   Because, if that owner is prone to tank, he'll do it.

11/8/2013 7:42 PM
mirky
Posts: 180 (0)
Hall of Famer
178 1 65 11 129
Prospect

2 easy rules would accomplish what you want and meet your parameters. "We aren't interested in capping the prospect budget as a whole." and "this world isn't going to pass a MWR that's 200+ wins over 3 seasons."

1. MWR for a single season i.e. 60, 65 etc.
2. Anyone that has a top 3 pick may not sign an IFA. ( can be top 2, 5, 7, 10, etc..)
 
If you think about it with a 60 win MWR, for example, the worst record for a season would be 60-102 and I guarantee you that any team trying to rebuild with a low budget will do everything in their power not to have a top 3 pick.  Even without a MWR the IFA rule would allow a bad team to get a good player with a top 3 pick (somebody has to have the worst team) and use their budget as they wish while creating  competition to NOT have one of the worst records. Would you rather have a top 3 pick and no IFA or the 4th pick and a top IFA? Also, think about having a $20M payroll with a top 3 pick and not being able to use your excess money for IFA.

11/10/2013 10:07 AM
Help setting a MWR in a private world... 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.