AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 17,313
Threads: 4,599
Joined: Jul 2010
I make no bones about this being the nuclear option - so if it's "too harsh"? Good.
And I'm going to make this very simple, since I hate rules that are complicated:
If you can't make 50 "real wins" the punishment is a wipe out of your cash and the loss of 5 years of WB. No scaled punishments, just a rule that if you can't even manage 50-112 I'm going to throw the book at you.
World Champion 2018, 2021, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2037, 2039
AL Champion 12 times
FCM Best Record-Holder - 121-41 2028
Overall Record: 3530-1978 .641%
gmoney
Offline
The Voice of the Angels
Posts: 3,530
Threads: 1,046
Joined: Aug 2010
If the ownership of the team switches, is the new owner subject to these penalties?
 co-GM: 2041 - present
Mets GM 2050 - 2070, 2122 - ?
Padres co-GM: 2117 - 2121
Cubs co-GM: 2098 - 2101, 2110 - 2116
Royals GM 2085, 2101 - 2110
White Sox GM 2089 - 2091
Expos GM 2071 - 2084
Orioles co-GM 2012 - 2014, GM 2039 - 2050
5 Pennants (2040, 2048, 2051, 2074, 2082)
4 World Championships (2040, 2048, 2051, 2082)
AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 17,313
Threads: 4,599
Joined: Jul 2010
No the owner responsible only
World Champion 2018, 2021, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2037, 2039
AL Champion 12 times
FCM Best Record-Holder - 121-41 2028
Overall Record: 3530-1978 .641%
jhc54
Offline
Chicago White Sox GM
Posts: 2,811
Threads: 644
Joined: Aug 2010
Any reason for the 50 game cutoff? I'm fine with it. Just seems arbitrary.
AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 17,313
Threads: 4,599
Joined: Jul 2010
It is arbitrary, any decision we make will be. It's for simplicity.
World Champion 2018, 2021, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2037, 2039
AL Champion 12 times
FCM Best Record-Holder - 121-41 2028
Overall Record: 3530-1978 .641%
hickoxb2
Offline
Los Angeles Dodgers GM
Posts: 1,784
Threads: 600
Joined: Aug 2012
gillyd
Offline
Posts: 2,820
Threads: 955
Joined: Mar 2013
Timely article, feels like I am reading an entry out of the Onion though.
mattynokes
Offline
Cleveland Guardians GM
Posts: 9,358
Threads: 4,448
Joined: Feb 2011
I've sat on where we're at on tanking rules for a few days and I've thought, "do I throw out the 'P' word or not?" Yes, I believe it's the best way to end tanking. The root of tanking is to get better picks, so if we're even going to consider a punishment, why not start there?
I don't believe losing Winterball is all that big of a deterrent. On the old system, sure. A positive WB roll meant guaranteed improvement for prospects. Now, a positive WB roll is just a chance to maybe improve more if the player jumps during the season. If you tell me that I can't Winterball, I say, "Oh, well."
I like losing the cash. They can't build/upgrade their stadium or buy prospects/picks. But the draft picks will really make people think. I don't believe they should lose picks, but rather slide their 1st and 2nd round picks back 10 slots each. So, instead of getting picks #1 and #31, they now get picks #11 and #41.
And all of this just for one year. Remove all cash and drop picks after re-signings for tanking and we're done. It makes it easier to handle than having to remove cash each season and having to make sure that team doesn't post Winterball. If they're able to collect the cash for WB, I say let them! It's not a guarantee that it's going to work.
Tanking Rule
Under 50 "real" wins means loss of ALL Cash and 1st + 2nd round picks drop 10 slots each.
Cleveland Record: 7313-6184 (.542) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2153]
AL Post: 24 (ALC), 18 (WC) - ALDS Win: 17 - ALCS Champ: 9 - WS Champ: 5
AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 17,313
Threads: 4,599
Joined: Jul 2010
I'm not touching picks until this rule is ineffective.
World Champion 2018, 2021, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2037, 2039
AL Champion 12 times
FCM Best Record-Holder - 121-41 2028
Overall Record: 3530-1978 .641%
|
