An owner can't control the world he plays in. The issue is to play in a world where you understand the rules and expectations, so that everyone in the world is playing by the same rules. Otherwise you end up with discussions like this playing out in the world forum.

I play in two worlds. One of which, anything goes. There's lots of tanking, except for me and a few others. Even the commissioner has tanked. Why do I stay in that world? Habit. It was my first team, and I built it. Matter of fact, my payroll is under 50 mil, because I drafted or IFA'd my entire team. No one in that world buys up free agents - until some new owners just came in - because there's no incentive to. I won a pile of division championships with a homegrown cheap team, because two other owners in my division were tanking the whole time. So low payroll isn't exactly the only measuring stick.

In the other world we have a MWR with a commissioner who enforces it stringently. Prior to arbitration/free agency this season, my payroll was somewhere under 40mil. Again, homegrown and young. Traded away my best player for a first rounder to replace him, dropped 10 mil and replaced it with 343k. Then went and signed 60 mil in free agents and arb. Totally different world, different rules.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/29/2018 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 11/29/2018 12:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/29/2018 12:19:00 PM (view original):
Tell that to anyone in an elite, highly competitive world and see what kind of response you get.

You are tanking if you are not trying to field a competitive team.

Also, the whole “elite, highly competitive” narrative is just bad for the game.

Wait, what!?! Having worlds where anyone has a chance every season is bad for the game? Please explain.

Also, we both know that just as many people have a chance in my world and your "elite world."

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/29/2018 1:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 11/29/2018 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/29/2018 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 11/29/2018 12:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/29/2018 12:19:00 PM (view original):
Tell that to anyone in an elite, highly competitive world and see what kind of response you get.

You are tanking if you are not trying to field a competitive team.

Also, the whole “elite, highly competitive” narrative is just bad for the game.

Wait, what!?! Having worlds where anyone has a chance every season is bad for the game? Please explain.

Also, we both know that just as many people have a chance in my world and your "elite world."

This is very untrue. We both don't know that because it's not true.

In a world, there are always only a handful of teams who can realistically win the WS.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/29/2018 1:54:00 PM (view original):
In Doubleday, a 6-seed just won the WS. This doesn't happen in the lesser worlds where teams are winning 110+ games.

Like how teams almost win 110 and lose 45 in the MLB?

Also, a good world to you is not always a good world to someone else. I love my world. You may not. That’s why you’re not in it.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/29/2018 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Yes. That's fine. We have gotten completely away from the point over the last 3 pages. You are tanking. Your world is apparently okay with that. Like Damag said, play within the rules of the world. You will probably not ever be invited to some of the more prestigious worlds, but that is okay. I don't think you have that interest anyways.

I didn't plan on arguing with you for 3 pages, but it is a pet-peeve of mine when people tank and refuse to admit that they're tanking.

Tanking in sports is defined by "deliberately losing." That means intentionally losing. I'm not intentionally losing. I improve my team through the WW and the rule five draft. If I was trying to lose I wouldn't.

You had a team that won 114 games in your world, Doubleday. That kind of hurts your argument.

Here, I'll say something MikeT23 used to say. Tanking is overrated, and there are worse things than tanking, anyway.

If this is your starting ss you are not trying hard to win. I could go on. I bet there were better players available in fa. But that means not getting a high draft spot. So technically that is not trying to win. Maybe its just my opinion but its tanking. So the statement you made about trying to win was false. I just do not see how anyone who is trying cannot win at least 45% of there games. I understand taking over an team mid season other wise its either incompetence or tanking.
Player Profile: Galahad Offerman - Hardball Dynasty Baseball | WhatIfSports

I dont think anyone expects a rebuilding team to break the bank on type A or even B free agents. But reasonable 1-2 year deals dont hamstring you that much and can make you halfway competitive, also allows you to turn arround and trade those FA's for more useful future pieces if the opportunity lends itself.

I went into my latest season in L. E. G not really expecting much, i have so-so hitting that k's too much and not good enough pitching. But found myself leading the division for most of the year before losing out on the last game of the reg season.

Most of that was a result of picking up two starters in their early to mid 30s at reasonable 1 and two year deals

I see both sides of the argument. What tends to happen in leagues with a mandatory payroll floor? Has that ever been tried?

Posted by LoboOne04 on 11/29/2018 5:51:00 PM (view original):
I see both sides of the argument. What tends to happen in leagues with a mandatory payroll floor? Has that ever been tried?

I have never heard of a mandatory payroll floor, but more competitive leagues have win requirements that are strictly enforced. This really narrows the gap between the worst and best teams.

Player Profile: Willie Morlan - Hardball Dynasty Baseball | WhatIfSports

Here's the guy I chose.

He is 20 already so keep that in mind when looking at projections.

Posted by brianp87 on 11/30/2018 12:30:00 PM (view original):
He is 20 already so keep that in mind when looking at projections.

He’s at a 69 and he’s projected to a 92.