A Couple of Suggestions

[AndyP]

Lottery isn't happening. I don't believe it works in real life and the whole concept is a farce to me. All it does is shift tanking for the first pick to tanking for the best odds at the first pick. It isn't effective as a deterrent.

I'm also not keen on the career window idea, I'd rather have less of these incentive, not more.

Now I'll agree that we have an especially putrid pile of NL teams that are making this conversation relevant, but I'm still not as hung up on it as many people are. Do I wish there was a better effort to at least field 55+ wins? Or even 50+? Yes, I do. It really isn't that hard. But the alternatives aren't without warts either. Penalizing teams by docking fan loyalty makes sense in some ways, but it also requires us to tamper with the file in ways I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. In real life teams lose loyalty but it can be replenished quickly by winning - mogul isn't always so good at reflecting that. So the punishment might last long past what it was intended and it might still be irrelevant if draft position is the number one aim.

What I'd rather have people realize is that you do your long-term competitiveness far more favors if you try not to tank out. Model your mogul franchise on the real life Cardinals, that's the real way to go.

[Geaux Blue]

I'm not sure many are concerned with long-term competitiveness, people like the draw of winning big and then hording draft picks and seeing them jump into their next super team and then rinse and repeat.

I think this dialogue is a good start and would like to see something in place in the future to make tanking much less attractive.

[Peter]

Lottery isn't happening. I don't believe it works in real life and the whole concept is a farce to me. All it does is shift tanking for the first pick to tanking for the best odds at the first pick. It isn't effective as a deterrent.

I'm also not keen on the career window idea, I'd rather have less of these incentive, not more.

Now I'll agree that we have an especially putrid pile of NL teams that are making this conversation relevant, but I'm still not as hung up on it as many people are. Do I wish there was a better effort to at least field 55+ wins? Or even 50+? Yes, I do. It really isn't that hard. But the alternatives aren't without warts either. Penalizing teams by docking fan loyalty makes sense in some ways, but it also requires us to tamper with the file in ways I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. In real life teams lose loyalty but it can be replenished quickly by winning - mogul isn't always so good at reflecting that. So the punishment might last long past what it was intended and it might still be irrelevant if draft position is the number one aim.

What I'd rather have people realize is that you do your long-term competitiveness far more favors if you try not to tank out. Model your mogul franchise on the real life Cardinals, that's the real way to go.

You didn't seem to understand my suggestion on a lottery. All odds among the non playoff teams for the first 5 picks would be equal odds. After those 5 numbers are taken the remaining teams will be ordered for 6 and beyond picks.

The incentive to lose for a top 1, 2 or 3 pick vs a top 10 pick is a lot lot different and would have a certain impact.

[jhc54]

I am open to new tanking rules but less open to the career window idea.

[Rhendricks]

I am open to new tanking rules but less open to the career window idea.

My thoughts short and simple as well. I'm not a huge fan of the career window idea. I think the less involvement with the file, the better (unless I'm misunderstanding here).

As for tanking, rules are going to be hard to implement, I feel. There are always going to be loopholes and if someone really wants to do it, they will. Rules might make it harder, and I'm for that, but I don't see it going away completely.

[rockybull]

Outahere mogul had anti tanking laws in place that worked well, there were fines and potential loss of DP if people were actively tanking. I think that route is the better way to go.

i remember that. i think it was ok at the time, but in hindsight i don't think it was that great of an idea. they went with a certain amount of win type of system. always gotta remember some divisions are better than others. one team that would rebuild but in toughest division could end up with being in the penalty while another that tanked much worse but in a much easier division might not be penalized because they win just enough because of their crappy division. i wouldn't really be in favor of something like that.

The point was it was mildly objective, there is a differnece between purposely fielding a shit team and having them play under projection, hint look at my team.

---

I think it's much harder to hoard cash with the penalties we have in place for that. With all the cash I was able to hoard in Tampa, I'm going to be out of cash by the beginning of next season. I'm open to a draft lottery system ONLY for the top 5 teams.

I think for teams who are on their second straight season of under .430 winning percentage should be docked 5 fan loyalty points. Teams on their third straight season of under .430 Winning percentage should be docked 10 fan loyalty points and fined $25M cash (There is no way an active GM on a rebuilding team can lose for three years and not have 25M cash to pay in penalties. If that's the case, the GM should be removed.), and for teams going on their fourth straight season and on of under .430 Winning percentage should be docked an additional 10 fan loyalty points, fined $15M and stripped of their 1st and 3rd round draft picks. If a GM reaches a 5th straight season of under .430%, they should be stripped of their team.

I'd rather have 5 teams under commish control than 5 tanking, neglected teams under flaky GM's control. There is absolutely no reason a team would be unable to reach 70 wins by their third to fourth rebuilding season, absolutely none. For people who will say "well we don't want to totally kill a team just because they have a crappy GM", this system will weed out the GMs who obviously don't give a shit about their teams, and The Czar reserves the right to exercise an executive order of removing a GM from their post should it be obvious they have no care for their team. If someone has shown no urgency to prevent his team from falling into those 3rd or 4th season penalties, they should be booted immediately. People like GD, Erik, Jason, Fred, Warpriest and Corey have proven that you don't have to be excessively active to field a winning team, let alone a team who can top 70 wins in a season. This suggestion may seem harsh, but I think it will prevent any quality GM from tanking enough to reach those third or fourth season penalties.

I dont like a draft lottery personally i think its asinine however the rest if your post im in agreement with. But i would add the Boss man can decide not to levy penalties on any given hear if he believes they were warrentes, however the team still slide down the track to the next penalty level, which again Andy can enforce or not.

absolutely, teams underperform all the time here, i get that. i was making the point about outahere (which you brought up) and saying they didn't care if your team was underperforming or not, nor did they care if you were in a ruthless division or not. if you got less wins than the number they posted then you were fined, plain and simple. matty's idea i agree a lot more with because it shows you aren't trying to tank or at least tank bad.

[Vertigo]

Not interested in the career window suggestions but an anti-tanking suggestion is needed and has been needed for years.

I've suggested a draft lottery for years where lottery teams (non playoff teams) each have a chance to get the 1st ovr pick. I suggest this scale be simply even for each team in the lottery so every non playoff team has an equal shot. I think a reasonable way to do this would be similar to the NBA where the 1st 5 teams are chosen from the number drawing and after that the remaining picks are distributed in order or descending record. So if you were the team with the worst record you would at worst get the 6th ovr pick.

In my opinion this would make losing on a purpose a much less attractive strategy because mogul simply does not adjust well to this tanking strategy. Teams are allowed to run a piss poor budget and just rake in the cash because the doofus artificial fans are still showing up to the games and advertisers are still paying the TV network like the team is decent. The money aspect just does not play out like it would in real life.

2 things I absolutely hate about your idea of the lottery.

1. I think it's totally unfair that a 90ish win team who just missed out on the playoffs has an equal chance at a TOP pick as a 70ish win team who clearly has less talent to be competitive.

2. I also think it's unfair that an 85 win team who got into the playoffs because of a weak division only to be annihilated in the first round would be ineligible while a better team who missed out on the playoffs because of being in a tougher league would be given a random opportunity for a top pick.

IMO, this penalizes too many teams who ARE trying but just don't have the talent to compete with the upper-level teams. Which is why, again imo, a weighted system would make much more sense.

If I was the best team in a terrible division, but knew I didn't stand a chance against the elite, this would make me want to tank out of the playoffs and be given a great opportunity at a really high pick.

You're trying to discourage those feeding off of welfare while putting the middle and upper class on equal footing.

[AndyP]

You didn't seem to understand my suggestion on a lottery. All odds among the non playoff teams for the first 5 picks would be equal odds. After those 5 numbers are taken the remaining teams will be ordered for 6 and beyond picks.

The incentive to lose for a top 1, 2 or 3 pick vs a top 10 pick is a lot lot different and would have a certain impact.

In addition to Vert's point, all your lottery system does is shift "tank for 1st" to "tank for no worse than 6". It's why lotterys don't work, they don't ever truly take the incentive to tank away unless you totally inverse the draft. And that ain't happening.

What about this:

Teams that do not win at least 50 games are subject to having their entire cash stock depleted and lose all winterball spots for 5 seasons.

Teams that do not win at least 60 games will docked 50M or down to zero bank, whichever comes first.

We don't tamper with the file and we take away two sizable assets from teams that are clearly tanking. Keeping up 50 wins isn't hard.

We can also substitute for player ratings in place of wins if necessary.

[rockybull]

You didn't seem to understand my suggestion on a lottery. All odds among the non playoff teams for the first 5 picks would be equal odds. After those 5 numbers are taken the remaining teams will be ordered for 6 and beyond picks.

The incentive to lose for a top 1, 2 or 3 pick vs a top 10 pick is a lot lot different and would have a certain impact.

In addition to Vert's point, all your lottery system does is shift "tank for 1st" to "tank for no worse than 6". It's why lotterys don't work, they don't ever truly take the incentive to tank away unless you totally inverse the draft. And that ain't happening.

What about this:

Teams that do not win at least 50 games are subject to having their entire cash stock depleted and lose all winterball spots for 5 seasons.

Teams that do not win at least 60 games will docked 50M or down to zero bank, whichever comes first.

We don't tamper with the file and we take away two sizable assets from teams that are clearly tanking. Keeping up 50 wins isn't hard.

We can also substitute for player ratings in place of wins if necessary.

i do agree 50 wins shouldn't be that hard to get, no matter what division you're in.

as far as the 60 wins, i think it could be a bit unfair if one team is in a division with say 3 90 win teams or something, but yet their team is better overall but has say 58 wins and another team is in a division with the winner of division that only has say 85 wins, but they squeak by with 60 wins and not punished at all. i think it would be fair to do a judgment call and deem that 58 win team looks better than their record shows and not get punished.

[Atlbravesfan27]

I'm down with penalties on 50 games, but to me, penalizing for 60 games is excessive. There are power divisions in each league that could make it tough for a team to win 60.