Tanking

Peter · 05-09-2012, 07:31 AM

Ill start by saying im against tanking but its tough because there are two different forms, inactive (aka the old Phily) and active tanking (aka Texas) and it would be tough to try to punish those scenarios differently because i will give the credit to the active team that they are at least trying. But it would be tough to try to punish a team that is inactive and already needs help

Cdawg · 05-09-2012, 09:46 PM

I'm w/ BH on this. Set a number(I'll go opposite and say make it low 60 wins is something everyone should be able to get) if teams are grossly under like say, Texas then by all means review and let them know that it's in the leagues view that they are not following the rules. While we aren't asking them to spend 55M in FA to get 10 wins, we are asking that they put forth the effort to at least "act" competitive.

***mattynokes*** · 05-10-2012, 02:07 PM

(05-09-2012, 07:31 AM)Peter Wrote: Ill start by saying im against tanking but its tough because there are two different forms, inactive (aka the old Phily) and active tanking (aka Texas) and it would be tough to try to punish those scenarios differently because i will give the credit to the active team that they are at least trying. But it would be tough to try to punish a team that is inactive and already needs help

I think that's why a committee would work. It'd be a case by case scenario so it could be seen that further punishing an inactive team would be counter productive. Maybe even removing the gm in that case would be the best call, at least a pm giving them a wake up call.

Corey · 05-12-2012, 08:05 PM

I vote for a committee of one, Mike.

In seriousness, I think it has to be a case by case basis. Set rules are just asking for people to find loopholes around it in some way.

psbaseballfan27 · 05-13-2012, 07:25 PM

(05-12-2012, 08:05 PM)CoreyMetsGM Wrote: I vote for a committee of one, Mike.

In seriousness, I think it has to be a case by case basis. Set rules are just asking for people to find loopholes around it in some way.

+1

***mattynokes*** · 05-13-2012, 08:14 PM

I'm a little confused by the last two posts. Maybe it's better to call it a tanking guidelines or procedure cause that's exactly what my suggestion would do. Letting it be a case-by-case scenario, but based on strength of division there would be a win limit. The win limit wouldn't be known until the end of the season so a team thinking that they're going to be fine could be in trouble if their division foes go on a big win streak.

There's nothing that is tanking and is what a committee would decide. I could see a 40 win team that tried to field a competitive team, but maybe had injuries to key players let off the hook while a 50 win team that didn't attempt to improve there club with even minor league deals and left obvious holes exposed could get slapped with a tanking penalty.

More than anything having some sort of "what could happen you if you're caught tanking" thing in place will deter people from tanking in the first place. And really if this goes into effect but no one is ever considered to be tanking in the future, then it's done its job.

jhc54 · 05-16-2012, 01:15 AM

As the last team to be accused of tanking (I won 48 games though mogul had me wining 68 games as a projection). I don't see who is really being hurt or helped by this. Maybe if there were further explanation on this I might be more receptive. In fact can we even define tanking in this sense, the first pick isn't an advantage whatsoever.

Also to Mike's point this is being unrealistic, I made the request that I be fired as CHW gm (when I was also being accused of tanking). The commish denied it.

mike · 05-16-2012, 03:23 AM

Yes be cause thats actually gonna happen JHC. It would make no sense to fire someone who is active.

jhc54 · 05-16-2012, 03:15 PM

You did not answer the larger philisophical problem, who is being hurt by tanking and who is being helped. Feel free to chime in. From my perspective it seems like three gms are really worried: you, Andy and Matty. No problem with that but if the majority of the league, or almost 90% of the league doesn't care then why is it such a big deal.

***AndyP*** · 05-16-2012, 04:05 PM

I wouldn't categorize myself as worried about it, but we also don't want it trending as a viable method. While you and hokey are both solid, active GMs - look at what PR did to Philly. Or the pre-Sean Angels.

It's not good for the league if it's an accepted strategy. I disagree with creating a system of rules for it. It's "don't be an ass" covered already. But I also feel it is worthwhile for the practice to be called out for what it is publicly as well. I can't stand the fact that we have teams fielding players that don't belong in AA and calling it "rebuilding".