A new kind of anti-tanking rule. Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Obviously that's not going to happen, Mrextremewrg.    But the point is that the "forfeit your 1st round pick" rule has a loophole.   And loopholes always get exploited.
4/17/2014 8:22 AM
eeyore1959
Posts: 357 (0)
Hall of Famer
62 67 36
Prospect
Of course, nobody is even addressing the one and done, or two and done owners, who can take an 80-90 win team, gut the team by dealing the high salaries for "prospects", demote the best players short of arbitration, keep AAA pitchers with a 10 ERA in the closer position, play 3rd base gloves at short, play gold glove SS at 1b, etc.  When they are done, they move on to wreck another franchise, and the new owner takes the penalty(?)
4/17/2014 9:39 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Well, that is the alias problem.   Owner does what you suggest and new(alias) owner takes team.    Surely you can't penalize the new guy.
4/17/2014 9:58 AM
willsauve
Posts: 2251 (0)
Hall of Famer
168 1 1 1 179
Prospect
I like the 3-4 year MWF.. Another idea is to not allow 100 loss teams to sign IFA's in the following season.  a top draft pick alone is not going to be enough for a determined tanker.
4/17/2014 10:14 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by willsauve on 4/17/2014 10:14:00 AM (view original):
I like the 3-4 year MWF.. Another idea is to not allow 100 loss teams to sign IFA's in the following season.  a top draft pick alone is not going to be enough for a determined tanker.
I like this better.  Also encourages to use his player payroll on MLB FAs the following year, making his team better.
4/17/2014 10:22 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Problem is you can't make owners stay in a world.   If you make it impossible for them to add a good, young player from time to time, there are a lot of worlds looking for owners.   Not that I'm saying anyone should be rewarded for losing a hundred games but you have to be practical about owner retention.

"OK, you lost 108 games.   No 1st round pick, no IFA for you.  Deal?"

4/17/2014 10:26 AM
willsauve
Posts: 2251 (0)
Hall of Famer
168 1 1 1 179
Prospect
I'm not saying that they lose a 1st round pick.. That would never work.... I'm saying that if you lose too many games you cant invest $$ the next season in IFA's.  
4/17/2014 10:29 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Agree.  They're getting a great draft pick, and they're asked to spend money to make their team better.  If they don't want to, then that's someone you don't want in your world anyway.  Some reasons you have MWR - you don't want these guys in your world if they're upset that YOU'RE upset about them losing.  It's not the biggest deal in the world, ultimately.  There are plenty of times teams gear up for the big INT signing and never get it.  This is better than that scenario.  
4/17/2014 10:43 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
The more I think about it, the more I love the idea.
4/17/2014 10:43 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I still think you're allowing people to run 40 win teams out there.    And that's not good.
4/17/2014 12:14 PM
willsauve
Posts: 2251 (0)
Hall of Famer
168 1 1 1 179
Prospect
I would use this rule in addition to a 55/125/190 type win floor. 
4/17/2014 12:15 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

The rule would have a very limited area of enforcement.   55-62 win teams can't sign IFA.   Not that I'd have a problem with that.

4/17/2014 12:25 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I knew there had to be a drawback.   The guy that wants a high pick and IFA will aim for 63+.   The guy that doesn't care about IFA will be aiming for 60-62.   You're actually giving him a tanking advantage because, in their race to suck, he knows that the guy with the IFA scouting has to win more than him. 

While it's convoluted, I'd prefer the tanker playing the limits of the MWR, be aiming for the lowest number possible and have competition to get there.  Because it's more likely to bite him in the *** in S4 when he needs to total 280.
4/17/2014 12:42 PM
shobob
Posts: 3273 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 330
Prospect
I don't see how people define lowering payroll to get an IFA as "tanking".  Tanking, by definition, is losing on purpose for DRAFT POSITION.  If you take away the incentive to tank (high draft pick), why would anyone in their right mind lose games on purpose?  To get that early R5 draft pick?  Early waiver wire priority?  Not worth it.  As for the alias problem - if someone would rather quit than give up their first rounder, I would only replace them with an established user, not a newly created "alias" account.
4/17/2014 2:05 PM
shobob
Posts: 3273 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 330
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/17/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):
I knew there had to be a drawback.   The guy that wants a high pick and IFA will aim for 63+.   The guy that doesn't care about IFA will be aiming for 60-62.   You're actually giving him a tanking advantage because, in their race to suck, he knows that the guy with the IFA scouting has to win more than him. 

While it's convoluted, I'd prefer the tanker playing the limits of the MWR, be aiming for the lowest number possible and have competition to get there.  Because it's more likely to bite him in the *** in S4 when he needs to total 280.
As you know, when you "target" 63, random chance can stick you with 54.  
4/17/2014 2:06 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
A new kind of anti-tanking rule. Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.