Reddington
General Manager 
Atlanta Braves
Posts: 17,870 
|
Post by Reddington on Jan 15, 2019 8:32:52 GMT -5
the world today... I tell everyone my plans then it's an issue when people dislike how I did it and make snarky comments about it like they are morally superior
|
|
Reddington
General Manager
Atlanta Braves
Posts: 17,870
|
Post by Reddington on Jan 15, 2019 8:39:03 GMT -5
I tried to do it the right way but none of the other teams wanted to put up anything for a bril pitcher in their prime, only got a 20 something pick for him. yet no one wants to complain that people don't try to compete. what would Matlack gotten that was even older... sigh
|
|
Matt
Other 
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Jan 15, 2019 8:41:07 GMT -5
Trading has been an issue for as long as I remember in this league.
Sometimes you sell low, sometimes you get lucky.
Everyone bitches, nothing changes.
It's a yearly process.
|
|
Reddington
General Manager
Atlanta Braves
Posts: 17,870
|
Post by Reddington on Jan 15, 2019 8:48:17 GMT -5
well now that everyone has finished bitching, I'll also tell people that the line up that was complained about had only been in for a single sim and was done as an experiment because I was perplexed by how the team would win. had fugham and robinson in quite a bit, but I had also place a horrible pitcher in and he went like 16 innings without giving up a run. the offense was only not all starters for a week.
There is a reason my closer still was one of the tops in saves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jan 15, 2019 13:51:22 GMT -5
I tried to do it the right way but none of the other teams wanted to put up anything for a bril pitcher in their prime, only got a 20 something pick for him. yet no one wants to complain that people don't try to compete. what would Matlack gotten that was even older... sigh This phrasing reeks of cognitive dissonance. You claim you did nothing wrong but you also claim you "tried to do it the right way" which is a complete admission you know what you did would be called out if someone saw it. |
|
Reddington
General Manager
Atlanta Braves
Posts: 17,870
|
Post by Reddington on Jan 15, 2019 14:14:53 GMT -5
I tried to do it the right way but none of the other teams wanted to put up anything for a bril pitcher in their prime, only got a 20 something pick for him. yet no one wants to complain that people don't try to compete. what would Matlack gotten that was even older... sigh This phrasing reeks of cognitive dissonance. You claim you did nothing wrong but you also claim you "tried to do it the right way" which is a complete admission you know what you did would be called out if someone saw it. I claimed I tanked, and I claimed I tried other routes such as trading. Where oh where in the above did I "claim to do nothing wrong"? Your post reeks of cognitive dissonance. I did say I didn't break any rule, which... oh snap I didn't People did see it and I'd been straight up honest all along what I was doing to anyone that inquired. quit trying to justify what you did at the expense of what I did. You don't like what I did, that's fine. |
|
Reddington
General Manager
Atlanta Braves
Posts: 17,870
|
Post by Reddington on Jan 15, 2019 14:25:17 GMT -5
hmmm that has such an honorable connotation... smh
|
|
Spencer
General Manager
Posts: 5,924
|
Post by Spencer on Jan 15, 2019 14:43:32 GMT -5
Tanking is a analytical way to acquire talent. Statistically being a mediocre team is pointless. Tanking can be useful and real MLB, NBA and NFL teams have tanked for top tier talent.
Benching un injured superior players is essentially throwing games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jan 15, 2019 14:43:39 GMT -5
hmmm that has such an honorable connotation... smh If you can't see the difference between choosing to not sign talent because the talent in your AAA is slightly worse but already in your system and benching an ace pitcher to lose on purpose you're extremely dull. |
|
Reddington
General Manager
Atlanta Braves
Posts: 17,870
|
Post by Reddington on Jan 15, 2019 15:00:05 GMT -5
hmmm that has such an honorable connotation... smh If you can't see the difference between choosing to not sign talent because the talent in your AAA is slightly worse but already in your system and benching an ace pitcher to lose on purpose you're extremely dull. if you fail to realize that you could have easily had a better team each of the 3 years straight you tanked at no real net cost difference to your payroll, yer extremely challenged. free #1's without using the franchise player points or loosing additional draft picks... yer hysterical |
|
Reddington
General Manager
Atlanta Braves
Posts: 17,870
|
Post by Reddington on Jan 15, 2019 15:03:52 GMT -5
but but but his tanking was more egregious than my tanking, I'm the victim here of anyone pointing out I tanked 3 years straight.
some people
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Jan 15, 2019 15:18:12 GMT -5
I'm getting more annoyed at "loosing" things instead of "losing" things than I am at this argument that's going nowhere.
You both tanked (as did I) and got a benefit out of it.
Move on with it.
How do we fix the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jan 15, 2019 15:47:32 GMT -5
I'm getting more annoyed at "loosing" things instead of "losing" things than I am at this argument that's going nowhere. You both tanked (as did I) and got a benefit out of it. Move on with it. How do we fix the problem? Choosing not to spend because you know you have no chance isn't tanking it's called rebuilding. |
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Jan 15, 2019 15:54:05 GMT -5
I'm getting more annoyed at "loosing" things instead of "losing" things than I am at this argument that's going nowhere. You both tanked (as did I) and got a benefit out of it. Move on with it. How do we fix the problem? Choosing not to spend because you know you have no chance isn't tanking it's called rebuilding. And why did you have no chance? I'm assuming your team was bad because you either just got done tanking or you were beginning to tank? Otherwise why would a team be that bad? |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jan 15, 2019 15:57:27 GMT -5
Choosing not to spend because you know you have no chance isn't tanking it's called rebuilding. And why did you have no chance? I'm assuming your team was bad because you either just got done tanking or you were beginning to tank? Otherwise why would a team be that bad? Because my team was very old and I sold everyone over 30 because that's how you rebuild? I then made some small longterm signings and used what i had in aaa. I didn't use FA for one season... |
|
|
|
Post by tadontask on Jan 15, 2019 15:57:45 GMT -5
Choosing not to spend because you know you have no chance isn't tanking it's called rebuilding. We can keep going back and forth about who is right and wrong, but it's not going to get us anywhere. I agree with the Cardinals. It would be more productive if teams would list what is acceptable and what isn't, and the conversation can continue from there. What I gather is that being bad because you don't have the talent on your MLB roster is acceptable. Having starter caliber players on your roster and not playing any of them is not acceptable. That's fine. Now we're getting somewhere. But let's expand. What if there are better players at AAA? When should the team be encouraged to bring them up? What if there are better players on the free agent market? What if the major league team is bad because the majority of players are rookies? Should you still be required to add a couple of veterans? How do you determine who should be starting in a fair, unbiased way? Who would be in charge of going around and checking rosters? How often? These are the kinds of questions we need to ask and answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jan 15, 2019 16:00:23 GMT -5
Choosing not to spend because you know you have no chance isn't tanking it's called rebuilding. We can keep going back and forth about who is right and wrong, but it's not going to get us anywhere. I agree with the Cardinals. It would be more productive if teams would list what is acceptable and what isn't, and the conversation can continue from there. What I gather is that being bad because you don't have the talent on your MLB roster is acceptable. Having starter caliber players on your roster and not playing any of them is not acceptable. That's fine. Now we're getting somewhere. But let's expand. What if there are better players at AAA? When should the team be encouraged to bring them up? What if there are better players on the free agent market? What if the major league team is bad because the majority of players are rookies? Should you still be required to add a couple of veterans? How do you determine who should be starting in a fair, unbiased way? Who would be in charge of going around and checking rosters? How often? These are the kinds of questions we need to ask and answer. I pretty much completely agree with you |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jan 15, 2019 16:01:25 GMT -5
I think it is as simple as play your best players and if something is obvious it's the "you know it when you see it" clause
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jan 15, 2019 16:02:21 GMT -5
I don't think a team should be forced to sign mediocre FA if the players they are using have at least a .600 ops
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jan 15, 2019 16:04:32 GMT -5
A 4/1/4 hitter who is a/f/a and 22 shouldn't be locked into my aaa if I'm rebuilding. Players like that have good pds with major league time all the time.
|
|
bigmark
General Manager
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,178
|
Post by bigmark on Jan 15, 2019 16:06:06 GMT -5
The major difference between the usual tanking and the one done here is the sitting of top talent and bringing up guys with 1 in runs against ... 3 in hits ... while the stars sit on the bench. Stool, break tanked big time playing a few guys like that... And a rule was made ... The league adjusted accordingly. But they never sat star players on purpose. I'll give them both that. You're a good guy Brian but unfortunately I don't agree with you on this instance... The method you chose to do this was very much in the wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by tadontask on Jan 15, 2019 16:08:02 GMT -5
I pretty much completely agree with you Well of course you do. I was basing what is acceptable/unacceptable on your posts as an example of the discussion we need to have. I think it is as simple as play your best players and if something is obvious it's the "you know it when you see it" clause But the "You know it when you see it" doesn't work. That's what I'm trying to say. Because some teams are going to see it a different way than other teams, and the result is this exact thread. We'd like things to be obvious, but they're not. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jan 15, 2019 16:10:27 GMT -5
I think the teams that "don't see it" in situations like this are being disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jan 15, 2019 16:13:57 GMT -5
Playing a guy like joel finch when you've got a bbb pitcher riding the bench is just a clear attempt to cheat.
|
|
|
|
Post by tadontask on Jan 15, 2019 16:22:39 GMT -5
I think the teams that "don't see it" in situations like this are being disingenuous. I just disagree with that method of problem solving. Look at your own situation as an example. You've been accused by some teams of cheating. Some call it tanking. Some call it rebuilding. Some are fine with it. Some teams have done the same thing. Etc. If you're relying on a system that requires 100% "Oh, I see it" agreement among a group of people greater than 2 (and sometimes that's too many), then the system is going to fail. Even in this thread. I'm sure you view Atlanta's roster management as "We all see this and it's completely obvious", and yet even then, there are others in the thread who disagree. |
|
