Tanking Rule

[chrisetc21]

In the past (2014 I think), we've had a situation where multiple teams were trying to score 0 points in order to get the highest picks possible.  Some of the teams signed inactive players and just filled out their teams with them despite the fact they had a lot of talent in their minor leagues.  Several owners complained about it and we put taking rules in place. 

The rules were something along the lines of each team had to have a minimum of 10 major league players active and earning points each week.  The first week they were given a warning, the second week they lost a 3rd round pick, the third week they lost a 2nd round pick, and the fourth week they lost their 1st round pick.  Maybe Jeremy can confirm as I think he and Sean were the Commissioners involved in putting the rule in place. 

In addition, I think the Commissioner's office needs the leeway to promote players on vacant teams in order that they have valid lineups and don't score 0 points. 

Just looking for feedback on this stuff.  Thanks.

[Jss0062]

If memory serves it was a pick for every 2 weeks starting with a 5th

[chrisetc21]

If memory serves it was a pick for every 2 weeks starting with a 5th

So...

2 weeks - 5th round pick
4 weeks - 4th round pick
6 weeks - 3rd round pick
8 weeks - 2nd round pick
10 weeks - 1st round pick

[cfarris1985]

Do we actually have people with obvious tanking going on?

[chrisetc21]

Do we actually have people with obvious tanking going on?

I think there are a couple teams that would be in violation at the moment. 

[Brian]

I agree if ranking is happening then start loseing picks

[mgzd]

I know my team, the White Sox, has a line-up that loses consistently.
I've been trying to call players up when they reach the majors, but otherwise leave the roster alone.
Believe it or not I'm not trying to tank. I'm just waiting for my players to reach the majors in a time frame that will make the team highly competitive all at once. Who knows if it'll work, but I find it fun and challenging. In my mind, that's what makes this league fun, having that minor league system to work with.
Now, as I see it, there's a couple of solutions to what you guys see as a problem. I don't care if I get the #1 pick, so how about I get the 30th? I like researching the draft and trying to find the best players, so I'd still have that to enjoy. If you guys are hellbent on taking picks away, that I don't care to deal with.
I don't think I'm really affecting the league or other owners in a negative way. But, if need be, feel free to find an owner who fits into the league in a more rules oriented way. I'm good with whatever.

[chrisetc21]

I know my team, the White Sox, has a line-up that loses consistently.
I've been trying to call players up when they reach the majors, but otherwise leave the roster alone.
Believe it or not I'm not trying to tank. I'm just waiting for my players to reach the majors in a time frame that will make the team highly competitive all at once. Who knows if it'll work, but I find it fun and challenging. In my mind, that's what makes this league fun, having that minor league system to work with.
Now, as I see it, there's a couple of solutions to what you guys see as a problem. I don't care if I get the #1 pick, so how about I get the 30th? I like researching the draft and trying to find the best players, so I'd still have that to enjoy. If you guys are hellbent on taking picks away, that I don't care to deal with.
I don't think I'm really affecting the league or other owners in a negative way. But, if need be, feel free to find an owner who fits into the league in a more rules oriented way. I'm good with whatever.

We're not going to implement this during the season as it's impossible for teams to fill out rosters with free agents at this point.  This is just to get feedback on whether this is a worthwhile rule.  Personally, the only reason tanking matters to me is when there are a bunch of teams all doing it at the same time.  It screws up the balance of the league. 

[RyanJames5]

This is actually somewhat outside of tanking, because obviously that would be done intentionally to gain a better pick.  But I figured this is a good place to post this because I feel like it is relevant to the balance of teams in a league like this one. 

A few years ago when I joined this league it was because I loved the idea of having so much minor league roster space to play with.  It truly forces you to dig into the deepest depths of minor league systems to find the hidden talent and I love that. That being said the amount of active positions in this league make it impossible for about 1/3 to 1/2 of the league to field a full roster.  Having 5 outfield slots and 6 infield slots and 2 catchers basically sets the lower portion of the league up for failure.

Just to use my team as an example.  I spent most of my off-season trying to use as much of my free cap to sign the very limited amount of prospects that are available for my long term success.  When those had dried up though I figured I could sign a few veteran players to cheap contracts.  Figuring they would help me fill out my lineup a little bit early in the year and that if they worked out I could deal a few of them closer to the deadline to a contender.  However, because of the amount of active roster spots in this league, the prices become so inflated that I paid 30 Million dollars for 6 players.  Of those 6 players, 1 has retired, 1 just signed a deal a week ago and 1 is out all season with an injury.  Meaning half of my investments have not set foot on the field this year.  Of the other 3 players I signed, 1 has produced anywhere near anything worth the amount of money I had to pay to sign him. 

My opinion is that it is this way because we start 420 players on offense as a league and the reality is that, that number is about 60 more offensive players than we will find on MLB rosters at any point during the season.  So that means that if every team in contention only fills its roster with starting players and has no additional depth, which we all know is not likely at all.  The bottom 10 or so teams are guaranteed to not have 6 starters on offense.  So tanking or not, they're not going to win more than a few games all year.  Which leads me to ask, why should I have bothered to sign the 6 players I did in an attempt to fill out my lineup when I had no shot at filling it out completely anyway.  I'd have probably been better off to keep my 30 million and just sign every minor league free agent that proved worthy of rostering. 

Sorry for such a long post/rant, and I understand the league is designed around this roster make up so it probably doesn't make much if any difference, but I've been thinking about this for awhile and found this to be an ideal place to voice my opinion.

thanks!!

[Jss0062]

This is actually somewhat outside of tanking, because obviously that would be done intentionally to gain a better pick.  But I figured this is a good place to post this because I feel like it is relevant to the balance of teams in a league like this one. 

A few years ago when I joined this league it was because I loved the idea of having so much minor league roster space to play with.  It truly forces you to dig into the deepest depths of minor league systems to find the hidden talent and I love that. That being said the amount of active positions in this league make it impossible for about 1/3 to 1/2 of the league to field a full roster.  Having 5 outfield slots and 6 infield slots and 2 catchers basically sets the lower portion of the league up for failure.

Just to use my team as an example.  I spent most of my off-season trying to use as much of my free cap to sign the very limited amount of prospects that are available for my long term success.  When those had dried up though I figured I could sign a few veteran players to cheap contracts.  Figuring they would help me fill out my lineup a little bit early in the year and that if they worked out I could deal a few of them closer to the deadline to a contender.  However, because of the amount of active roster spots in this league, the prices become so inflated that I paid 30 Million dollars for 6 players.  Of those 6 players, 1 has retired, 1 just signed a deal a week ago and 1 is out all season with an injury.  Meaning half of my investments have not set foot on the field this year.  Of the other 3 players I signed, 1 has produced anywhere near anything worth the amount of money I had to pay to sign him. 

My opinion is that it is this way because we start 420 players on offense as a league and the reality is that, that number is about 60 more offensive players than we will find on MLB rosters at any point during the season.  So that means that if every team in contention only fills its roster with starting players and has no additional depth, which we all know is not likely at all.  The bottom 10 or so teams are guaranteed to not have 6 starters on offense.  So tanking or not, they're not going to win more than a few games all year.  Which leads me to ask, why should I have bothered to sign the 6 players I did in an attempt to fill out my lineup when I had no shot at filling it out completely anyway.  I'd have probably been better off to keep my 30 million and just sign every minor league free agent that proved worthy of rostering. 

Sorry for such a long post/rant, and I understand the league is designed around this roster make up so it probably doesn't make much if any difference, but I've been thinking about this for awhile and found this to be an ideal place to voice my opinion.

thanks!!

This is a valid point.  Most big league teams carry 12 or 13 pitchers while we are at 11.  We may need to look at re-balancing this.  Consolidating the CI and MI positions and possibly adding a DH that doesn't count defensive stats in place of an OF could help. That would add 1 more pitcher.

 I'm not sure if its possible in fantrax or not, I think it is, to set up a swing position that can score for pitching and hitting.