tanking vs rebuilding

There is much debate on the forums regarding this topic. Though I find it funny how worked up some people get, it is a valid discussion. We all know that HE-WHO-KNOWS-ALL, thinks any form of rebuilding equals tanking. Personally I find that assertion totally ridiculous. Tanking to me is using non ML quality players, playing pitchers in the field and throwing fielders on the mound. If that were to happen in this world that owner would very much get the boot.

I do think, though, that recognising that your team isn't going to make the playoffs, and so trading assets for prospects that can help in future seasons only makes sense and is done around the world, in every sport, in every league. In HBD this, to me, indicates a commited owner who will return season after season. As the world commish, I would rather see that than someone coming in signing a bunch of FAs to over valued contracts, and trading prospects to win now. If that owner fails to win the WS, chances are he/she is going to bail, leaving a mess behind.

It has to be recognised that not all owners are the same. Not everyone has the time to spend hour upon hour micro-managing their minors, changing their settings each game.Some owners are succesful at the Yankees way of doing business, others prefer the Oakland A's way. I don't have a problem with either, the unfortunate part is that there is no guarantee (or even enforcable obligation) that an owner will re-up. I think the Yankees philosophy does more harm than the Devil Rays approach.

The notion of penalising teams that lose 100 games is even more damaging, could you imagine trying to find an owner (or keeping an owner) for a team that has had punitive restrictions placed on it, that give the team a decided disadvantage in the season ahead. This, to me, would absolutely kill leagues.

We are given 185 mil to spread over nine departments, some like to go balls out with a high ML payroll, others (myself included) are (at least attempting) to field competitive teams with as low a payroll as possible and being aggresive in acquiring future talent. There is no stipulated minimum payroll, nor should there be. For me, developing prospects is the most enjoyable aspect of the game, since I'm, so far, clueless playoff time.

I also think the mandating of loss maximums is lacking foresight. I'm in Gehrig world, after five seasons of developing talent, signing IFAs, and pretty good FAs, I'm still looking at 100 losses again. I hate losing. seriously hate it, so the frustration is growing. In many other worlds this team would be competitive, but Gehrig has a lot of long term owners who have also worked to improve their teams, so it seems the status quo is the norm season after season. But I will not go out and sign someone to a 20mil contract just so I lose 95 games instead of 100.

Anyhoo, I just thought I'd get on a soapbox. Carry on.