Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 11:55:00 AM (view original):
I'm just saying that we should use expertise when it's sitting here in front of us.  If I had a question about ****** prime-time TV, I'd ask Welsh.  If I had a question about how to get the best productivity to salary ratio out of a JD, you'd be my boy.  But if the question is about tanking and win totals?  You really should just shut up and listen to me.

Funny, but I think I'm making reasonable points.

Posted by AlCheez on 7/27/2010 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tylermathias on 7/27/2010 11:49:00 AM (view original):
I think that's harsh enough that it will discourage passable owners from joining the league in the future, and make it more difficult to retain new owners we do bring in.

Okay, if we make bret exempt so we don't have to kick him out in a few seasons, will that get you on board?

yeah, because I would be offended to no longer take crap from you guys regarding my team, drafting, FA signings, trades and lack of general caring to learn the game.....yup, I might almost break down into

Posted by AlCheez on 7/27/2010 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tylermathias on 7/27/2010 11:49:00 AM (view original):
I think that's harsh enough that it will discourage passable owners from joining the league in the future, and make it more difficult to retain new owners we do bring in.

Okay, if we make bret exempt so we don't have to kick him out in a few seasons, will that get you on board?

Kicked out, is probably harsh, install sanctions, or have a 3-5 member team investigate an owners franchise who falls under some arbitrary cutoff

Posted by bret2775 on 7/27/2010 11:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 7/27/2010 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tylermathias on 7/27/2010 11:49:00 AM (view original):
I think that's harsh enough that it will discourage passable owners from joining the league in the future, and make it more difficult to retain new owners we do bring in.

Okay, if we make bret exempt so we don't have to kick him out in a few seasons, will that get you on board?

yeah, because I would be offended to no longer take crap from you guys regarding my team, drafting, FA signings, trades and lack of general caring to learn the game.....yup, I might almost break down into

I wasn't concerned about you - I was concerned about what your departure might do to TM.

Posted by AlCheez on 7/27/2010 11:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bret2775 on 7/27/2010 11:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 7/27/2010 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tylermathias on 7/27/2010 11:49:00 AM (view original):
I think that's harsh enough that it will discourage passable owners from joining the league in the future, and make it more difficult to retain new owners we do bring in.

Okay, if we make bret exempt so we don't have to kick him out in a few seasons, will that get you on board?

yeah, because I would be offended to no longer take crap from you guys regarding my team, drafting, FA signings, trades and lack of general caring to learn the game.....yup, I might almost break down into

I wasn't concerned about you - I was concerned about what your departure might do to TM.

oh, he'll be fine.  I'd still be here to talk poker with him or maybe late night tv....oh wait that was dubbs.

'B0t, HR TP.  I promise it is something to think about.

Posted by tylermathias on 7/27/2010 11:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 11:55:00 AM (view original):
I'm just saying that we should use expertise when it's sitting here in front of us.  If I had a question about ****** prime-time TV, I'd ask Welsh.  If I had a question about how to get the best productivity to salary ratio out of a JD, you'd be my boy.  But if the question is about tanking and win totals?  You really should just shut up and listen to me.

Funny, but I think I'm making reasonable points.

Your points are my points.  Seriously.  You just have them at the wrong threshold.  Like take that last post and put in 69 wins instead of 59, I'm on board...I just don't think you realize how easy it is to get to 60.  Those teams that I had in the low 60's were like half rule-v players, and the rest FA dregs...all played, more or less, at the correct position, but still sacrifcing a lot of defense.  And I was doing it with payrolls in the 20's (sign and trade shenannigans excepted).  You REALLY have to be crappy to get below that line...like 1B in CF crappy.

Posted by robusk on 7/27/2010 11:19:00 AM (view original):
The fact that it directly led to someone as incompetent as moy winning a WS should be the strongest argument on the side of the anti-tanking mob.

He wasn't the only one to employ that strategy.

Nah, I won 55 in MLB/Erff last year by just not trying to do any optimization in-season and not doing any in-season signings to replace injured guys.  Yes, I could have won 60 easily, but why would/should I, and what's the real benefit of making someone do that?

I don't think you understand my supposed misunderstanding as well as you think you do, or at least that's my understanding.

Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 11:37:00 AM (view original):
That's true for 70 wins...one year contracts with the dregs of FA will get you 60.

More than that, even. You can use those cheap late signings off the FA market to really fill out roster cheaply. But it isn't as effective now that Type A's hold their status up until the draft pool is generated. Before when you can just go the day after FA ends to sign guys without forfeiting a pick, it was a nice way to fill out a lineup.

Posted by tylermathias on 7/27/2010 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Dammit, 11 day injury to Robin Kirby in HR.  Not too bad, but I've got a San Antonio and Durham series in there. 

To be fair, he's out the same amount of time as Almanzar. It'll keep us even.

I have fielded teams with no chance of winning a bunch of times.  I don't play players out of position, promote my best prospects to the majors, or sign anything better than the dregs of FA on one-year contracts.  My worst 6 seasons (with those requirements), in wins: 64, 64, 60, 50, 61, 59.
So it is possible to win less than 60.  But each of those teams was a playoff contender 2-3 years later.  So maybe it should be something like "if you win under 120 combined in 2 consecutive years, you must win 155 or make the playoffs in the next 2."

Posted by tylermathias on 7/27/2010 12:07:00 PM (view original):
Nah, I won 55 in MLB/Erff last year by just not trying to do any optimization in-season and not doing any in-season signings to replace injured guys.  Yes, I could have won 60 easily, but why would/should I, and what's the real benefit of making someone do that?

I don't think you understand my supposed misunderstanding as well as you think you do, or at least that's my understanding.

OK.  With the understanding that we'd want a conservative estimation of tanking, I'd be good with a single season total of 55...or combined totals of 120.  But the real question is where we define the standard.  Is it, "what a team could reasonably be expected to win while doing nothing to harm their long-term outlook" or "what a team could reasonably be expected to win while miminally affecting their long-term outlook."  I'm saying that it should be the second...small price to pay for not having some of those Scottsdale teams kicking around.

Posted by tylermathias on 7/27/2010 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Honestly, I think it would be more fair not to have a necessarily arbitrary line in the sand.  Let's just write up our subjective consensus of what we don't want people doing and appoint a 3 or 5 man committee to review questionable organizations each season. 

I know nobody will want to go with that, but my point is that when 70% of this argument revolves around tanking being a subjective, nebulous issue, assigning a hard win floor seems incongruous and maybe even counterproductive.

Isn't our usual strategy of just ridiculing someone for it just as effective? I don't think someone can really sneak continuing incompetence beneath the public radar. The populist nature of the league will push owners to at least make some effort.

I mean, I'm in season 3 of that reclamation project, and it was awful.  Tons of bad long-term contracts, little to no young talent, and so on.  Could I be winning more than 60 each year with very little effort?  Sure, but what's the point of a system that forces that without taking a deeper look at budget planning, prospect development, etc.

I'm not against taking measures to sanction/remove tankers, I just think a one-season win floor is a far from optimal solution that may even slow down our rollovers.