IBC

Should any GM deliberately try to lose games for any reason, the ExCo has the discretion to bar that GM from the next draft.
A second offense will result in the GM being removed from the IBC.

This is my particular proposal. I think barring GM's from the draft is the extreme end of the penalty scale and would only be applicable if we decided it was clearly an attempt to lose on purpose. Anything less clear would involve a lesser penalty at the ExCo's discretion. However, I think having that extreme penalty as being the public face will act as a strong deterrent.

Any thoughts?

RedSox wrote:Should any GM deliberately try to lose games for any reason, the ExCo has the discretion to bar that GM from the next draft.
A second offense will result in the GM being removed from the IBC.

I agree with this ... my only semi-problem with this is we don't define tanking except to indicate it is "any GM deliberately try to lose games for any reason ..." Some GM(s) may complain that we don't really indicate how the ExCo will know that someone has "deliberately tried to lose". Perhaps we should provide a few examples of what might lead the ExCo to review allegations of tanking. Or perhaps we just go with this statement and indicate in response if asked that the ExCo will know when we see it and allegations will be on a case-by-case basis.

Examples are a pattern of not pitching good pitchers when they are healthy; a pattern of playing position players out of position; a pattern of having pitchers not named Owings DHing ... etc.

I agree.
One thing that also concerns me is the potential abuse of the DL penalty system. What better way to tank than to play your players when you shouldn't so that they have to miss even more time?

I like the direction that you guys are going here. I think that the sorts of penalties are good and that the sorts of violations Jim mentioned are appropriate. And like Bren mentioned, the DL thing is important to make a part of this. Would be very easy to abuse that.

On the penalties, my first suggestion is that I don't see why we need to kick them out of the league necessarily, just keep banning them from drafts, since that's the only thing to be gained by tanking. I don't think that the "or else we're going to boot you from the league" has to be included for people to know that we're serious about something. Obviously if someone is repeatedly breaking rules intentionally they'll be kicked out.

Also, I think that it might be in line to grant everyone one official warning before they are removed from a draft. And not one per year or anything, one ever. Like in the instances of Jake and Brett Z this season, those were some pretty messed up lineups. I think that Brett was tanking, not sure about Jake, but in either case, we keep an eye out, as does the league, and when someone first notices something like those guys had, they get an official warning. If they don't fix it immediately and halt that kind of thing for good, they're out of the next draft.

Otherwise I'm a little fearful that someone really could not intentionally have something that looks clearly wrong, get banned from a draft, and create a bad situation. This way, if we've already officially warned someone, they have no real ground to stand on. Obviously, that makes doing our best to watch out for tanking an important factor, but I think it's worth it.

Agreed with the above post.

I as well.

We should definitely more clearly defined tanking, possibly creating some examples so it's clear what is and what isn't.

For instance - Z's ridiculous lineup of having his best players not rolling is obviously tanking.

Brett P.'s situation of having a bullpen full of potential prospects with lousy current year projections rather than a bullpen of veteran's who project decently but have no future is not.

This way there are some guidelines which makes it all clearer when doling out penalties.

bump?

I think we're all in agreement.

problem is with Z's case, i'd say a warning is all that can be issued since he's dealt his first round pick already which would be the main punishment that we'd use, no?

Is a warning even necessary? The announcement about the penalties is, in and of itself, a warning.

Sounds fine to me then

RedSox wrote:Is a warning even necessary? The announcement about the penalties is, in and of itself, a warning.

I brought up the warning, not sure if I was the first one, but the idea that everyone gets one warning is so that no one should feel abused when they receive this extremely harsh penalty. We don't need to go through what we did with JP and Nils after you imposed their penalty. It is much worse to penalize then negotiate the penalty than to provide one warning.

With a warning no one can question the penalty because they will have been made aware that they were one step away from being penalized.

If you penalize someone without warning for what seems like it's on purpose but could be an accident, you open yourself up to the sorts of upheaval we've had in the past.

As I said earlier, the key to being able to warn people is that we - and the GMs - are vigilant in checking lineups periodically so that we catch things quickly. If we see what Zalaski or Levine did this season quickly (again, regardless of whether it was on purpose), we can warn them before any real damage is done, and they are from that point on in danger of losing their picks if they don't take care in their lineup.

Also, we don't have to worry about a Zalaski trading his picks and therefore having no penalty, because we don't allow pick trading until after the season, right? And while some guys don't care about the draft, they do care about the return that they can get for their picks.

Also, we don't have to inform the league that they get one warning. It can be our internal policy.

I disagree, the rule itself is a warning. Nobody should EVER need a warning or a reminder to not try to lose games.
Honestly,i think that back when Z was making his questionable decisions about his roster, if we'd applied a penalty and said to the league this is what it looks like is being done, this is the penalty... I don't think there would have been much of a complaint (outside of Z of course).

RedSox wrote:I disagree, the rule itself is a warning. Nobody should EVER need a warning or a reminder to not try to lose games.
Honestly,i think that back when Z was making his questionable decisions about his roster, if we'd applied a penalty and said to the league this is what it looks like is being done, this is the penalty... I don't think there would have been much of a complaint (outside of Z of course).

Nothing personal but that's part of the reason you have a track record of blow ups in this league.

No offense but coddling people on rules as you're suggesting just allows them to get away with more. It doesn't take a deep thinker to know that what Z did was wrong and he should have been punished for it.

RedSox wrote:No offense but coddling people on rules as you're suggesting just allows them to get away with more. It doesn't take a deep thinker to know that what Z did was wrong and he should have been punished for it.

Well there is certainly a fine line to be walked, yeah. However, if you choose such a harsh penalty, and the penalty that I think we all agree is the one we want to use is quite harsh, I think that you have to be a bit more juicious in your doling it out. And Brett would have gone ape shit insane if we'd stripped him of all of his picks for what he did without any warning whatsoever.

I definitely agree that it seemed pretty clear that what he did was wrong, and I wouldn't have a problem, in a vacuum, with an action like that getting a penalty without warning. It's just that ours is severe, and I'd like to not corner ourselves into a really bad situation.

In Brett's case I wouldn't have advocated that particular penalty (well, maybe at first ). Probably just stripping his first round pick.