Mt. Rushmore of Tanking Solutions

Hey Y’all. I would like to state first off what I mean by tanking when I use the word tanking in this blog. It means not having any actual MLB players in your lineup and taking a 0 for the week on purpose. If you have 1 or more players that are playing in a week, I do not consider that a full tank. Though I do feel like teams should enter in their better lineup every week and you’ll see later in this article, Sherriff Rob also is very passionate about teams not giving 110%.

All of these solutions will be commented on by our League Lawyer and San Diego Padre's Owner, Dave Handley to ensure we are getting the best advice on whether some of these solutions work and which solutions should we throw in the trash.

4) Do not punish for tanking, it's none of your god damn business!

• So I have to start with this as this is how we treat tanking now. You get a 0 and you move onto the next week. I think of this as a good idea because if there comes a time when my team sucks and I need to get a better draft pick, getting a 0 doesn’t seem like the worst idea. Unless you’re in that situation, you don’t know how exactly you will strategize your next move to make your team better (or worse). If we are really owners of this team, the front office of the league shouldn’t have a say in how we run our team or who we start. White Sox owner, Ryan Dillon states, "I paid to play. How I play is up to me." This is a shot at anyone trying to change the rules and maybe a shot at co-owner Kyle Dillon. Sounds like Ryan says it's my team and I will run it like I please, but that's an article for a different day.

League Lawyer: “Straight tanking needs to be addressed.”

Lawyer Rating: 0 Gavels out of 10

3) Fining teams for getting a 0 point week with no MLB players active in lineup.

• I do like this idea very much and it might be my vote if this does come to a poll. It all depends on how much money you get fined and how strictly. Some smart ass teams might put a full lineup out and get a 0 and think that they aren’t tanking, but in reality they put a lineup in of all minor leaguers and no MLB guys. I think the rule should be if you have 0 MLB active players in your lineup for a week, you are fined $5. It is not a lot, but it adds up if you tank for a full year. I think if you play 1 active MLB player, that would be allowed. I can just imagine that White Sox vs. Angels and it is Hector Santiago versus Tyler Glasnow and that is the whole lineup and winner/loser take all. I’m sure some team will try to find an awful player that barely plays, but good for them if they find the perfect sucky guy.

League Lawyer: “I worry about opening up the league opening itself up to liability to those teams that have long-term plans centered around tanking. The rule would effectively pull the rug out from under them. They’d have a very legitimate claim for being harmed and targeted by this rule change. I’d be more in favor of a non-monetary solution if we are looking at a short-term solution, and then aphrasing in a fine system with terms on more notice and the ability to plan for this rule. In terms of policy and product output for the league, It’s a no brainer for the league.”

Lawyer rating: 6.9 Gavels out of 10 (nice)

2) Losing draft picks for a getting a 0 point week with no MLB players active in lineup

• This is a very rough draft of how it could work, but the main concept would be something like this:

3 - Zero point weeks with no MLB players - Lose a 7th round draft pick

5 - Zero point weeks with no MLB players - Lose a 5th round draft pick

7 - Zero point weeks with no MLB players - Lose a 3rd round draft pick

And so on. If you choose to tank, the future of your team will be affected. This is a non-monetary penalty to stop teams from tanking. Some teams might be still willing to lose a draft pick in order to get that #1 pick and it will be interesting to see how teams will strategize with a rule like this in place.

League Lawyer: “Not bad, it incentives the teams who are rebuilding to still put out a somewhat palatable product for the fans. Though it does work in a weird way to take away picks from the teams that need them the most...so with that being said, it is a pretty strong incentive to get some points. It would be easy to work around by putting out 1 or 2 players who could pick up anything positive in terms of points and cure that risk.”

Lawyer Rating: 7.1 Gavels out of 10

1. Sheriff Rob presents “Tank Tax” Coming February 28th

• Rob did not spill all the marbles, but to put it lightly, Sheriff Rob is fed with all of these teams not putting their best team forward. My point of this article was for teams to at least put out 1 MLB starter, which makes 2 teams that are both trying to lose, a little more competitive. Rob wants the full cake and wants every team to give it their all.

League Lawyer: “Strong name pretty much what we’ve come to expect from the Sheriff from Cincy. I’ll reserve rating until I know more about the nuts and bolts. Can’t attach a high rating to a flawed product

Lawyer Rating: Unknown Gavels out of 10.

Let's give everyone's opinion on this matter so on March 3rd, we can vote to make this league even better than it is now!

Final Lawyer rating

1) Lose draft picks - 7.1 Gavels

2) Fine Money - 6.9 Gavels

3) No Change - 0 Gavels

4) "Tank Tax" - Unknown Gavels