"THOSE WERE THE DAYS" LEAGUE

The Law of Unintended Consequences may rear it's inevitable head with the passing of this rule. Take year 2012 two future Hall of Famers Harper and Machado. It is a far reach to tank your way to the two worst records . Some would try ,I would .Others would be dissuaded by the odds and play to win the max. But ,if one could get a chance at Manny or Bryce by finishing in the bottom eight and not look so evil while doing it many more may take the chance .Maybe half the league or twelve teams would try , at least a little bit, to finish bottom eight for a chance at the first or second pick. Such is human nature. Such is the danger of legislating morality , especially in an online game

So you are saying it is human nature to cheat?

I am human and I try to avoiding cheating at anything if at all possible.

Of course maybe our world has gone to such shit that you just cannot find 24 honest people with a shred or respect for their peers.

The two draft picks that I referred to were players that were terrible that year and with no future value. They were picked for one reason, to help make the team as bad as possible. I did the same thing this year with some of my picks. If we're going to stop tanking for higher draft picks, then this needs to stop as well. Terry's instinct was to disallow this type of pick and it's my understanding that a lot of keeper leagues enforce this. You might think that going to a lottery system would discourage it, but it's just going to make it tempting for teams in the middle of the pack to do it to get a shot at #1 pick. We were asked for suggestions so I'm proposing that we no longer allow this either. It's just another way of tanking to get an artificially high pick. I know we're in the middle of a vote so maybe after it is over I would appreciate Terry's or anyone else's thoughts on this.

Gotcha thanks for clarifying, those are some shady moves as well and I would agree that falls under "intentionally tanking" and not a proper effort at rebuilding or building for the future. I honestly don't think I would have ever thought of that but I guess my dad did too good of a job in raising me right.

By the way Happy Fathers day to those actually trying to be good fathers.

I thought we were judging our "keeper league" selves on total wins and losses over several seasons. I know half the fun is building your team but it is really hard to recover from 120 losses.

Interesting thought. You could certainly make the case for a positive win/loss ratio over the course of the league as the measure of success. Others,myself included, would look at championships, playoff appearances and free credits as the goal. Not that you couldn't have both obviously. The way I saw this league unfolding with 24 teams and only 13 seasons was that there would be a group of teams around the middle of the pack who would draft around 12th to 16th, high enough to get a decent player and keep the team ok but not good enough to move up into serious contention. There would be exceptions in both directions and trades that would help but generally I think this is what will happen. To meet my goal of contending for titles I wanted to be either very good or terrible while rebuilding. When I saw what was happening with the tanking I figured hey this will make my job even easier. Now with the rule change those middle teams, with a little luck, could be drafting a lot higher. Hopefully what Wilmurr suggests might happen with those teams won't. Let me be clear -- I'm willing to play by whatever rules are considered fair, but if i see any form of tanking being tolerated in order for teams to get into the bottom eight then I am out.

I've always been fascinated by that fallacy of the "one great draft pick" -- as if that would make a big difference. If a manager tries to play poorly in an ongoing keeper league, I think he's only hurting himself.

For example, Mike Trout may be one of the greatest players of his generation and yet he can not make the Angels champions all by himself. He was rookie of the year in 2012 and in 6 seasons with him, the Angels have had a winning record 3 times and have made it into the playoffs (briefly) only once.

I intentionally entered the 2007 draft with the goal of picking up players who would reach their full potential 2 to 4 years later. Those first seasons did not matter to me, because I knew I was building a strong squad for the future

Managers who wipe out their rosters now, though, in hopes of rebuilding quickly, seem kinda crazy to me. Unlike at the start of the league, the player pool available in any given year's draft is just not large enough to provide much new talent all at one time.

It was never meant as a one and done. Leaving aside the morality issue for a moment, just look at what thechamp was trying to accomplish. He would have had McCutcheon, Votto, Posey and Trout along with some extra picks he's traded for. For me, I was hoping for Trout, Harper and another top pick in 2013 to go along with Lucroy, Chris Davis and the 3 extra 1st rounders I traded my devaluing stars for. Goal was to start having decent teams again in 2014 and contend the last 3 or 4 years. Now that may be wishful thinking but I don't think it's crazy. In retrospect I would have done what you and several others did. Original draft go strictly for the future and have the bonus of fielding bad teams legally the first 2 or 3 years and have shots at kershaw, Votto and company. Stupid me, I never saw that as a viable strategy going in. So now I'm left with my foolish attempt at coming back at some point and its being made even more unlikely with the possibility that I will be drafting 8th instead of 1st the next 2 years. Live and learn I guess.

The flood of thoughts on this situation is remarkable.

I like the rule changes suggested, they seem totally fair to most, and mostly fair to everyone.

COUNT ME AS A YES VOTE

For my part, my initial draft strategy was: take the best careers while taking care to build position balance. After A-Gon and Greinke, Cruz, Ethier, Gomez and Jimenez, I was set up great for 10 years...but already knew my 2007 team would be crap. Then I just drafted for 2008-2016. I ended up getting to draft Longoria after the season.

I feel this qualified as "tanking" the 2007 season but without the utterly disrespectful drafting of useless .50 players. I mean, I still played my best guys. Since I expect to have a chance in every other season, you will not see me tanking again, or hopefully even in the bottom 8. I apologize if these seems against the spirit of the rules, but it is a 24 team legacy league. There is no way to come in first place every single year.

I hope to make the playoffs 3 times, and hope to win 1 championship, and to compete in every season but one.

Shall the amendment be approved?

1. tcochran --- yes
2. buzz --- yes
3. Paul_Long -- yes
4. Jerm12 ---Yes
5. willmurr24 --- no
6. FALCON -- Yes
7.WJS6768-yes
8. Black Knights-Yes
9. Terry101- Yes
10. oldmansmith2 - Yes
11. padrenurgle - yes

Remember the NBA instituted the weighted lottery because teams were tanking.
I never dreamed I‘d see teams worse than the 62 Mets or the Cleveland Browns- yet my team finds a way to lose to them two or more times in a season!
I vote "YES" on the rule change for 2012.

Mike

There are different ways to build in a 24 league team....i for one am against tanking...im not going to waste my credits on watching a team go 30-132 however...it will be the case for 1-3 yrs in a keeper league.....drafting 21st overall I had to make a decision and the way owners were drafting in season one it left me no choice but to win now and somehow fill in the gaps as best i can in my "DOWN YEARS". YES i traded a lot of my picks but overall i was looking at a chance to be 1 of the top teams and make the play-offs the first 6 yrs...rebuild and try to be competitive the last 3.....If you told me when i joined this league i would win 3 divisional championships and 1 overall championship against 23 other Managers...i'd take them odds.My team when im rebuilding will still have CC/Braun/Desmond/Markakais and Prado.....not bad players to build around but not good enough to win but they will not sit on the bench..thats against my love for trying to win every year...the supporting cast may be bad but i dont consider this tanking...its called rebuilding after 3-5 years of good luck making the play offs and having a chance.

I actually love this stuff more than the actual game of strat. It doesn't happen but every ten seasons or so ,but when it does it is a kick. The strat version of zoning laws and school prayers and low income housing and borders. And like the real world some fellas sit pretty tall in their high horses looking down their long noses. Life at all levels is about advantages. Sometimes their are rules. We have rules . They are being altered. Fine. I saw no one breaking past rules. I saw people , in their own way , gaming those rules . I am currently playing four seasons. I believe all with tcochran, as he is the best commish. In the other three leagues I am doing well. All teams were built with eyes for the future,accepting and yes even welcoming lost seasons to build with multiple high picks . I like it like that . If it fits in the league rules and strat engine it is legal no matter what Mother Teresa thinks