It's a fine line, trying to both keep the competition keen and allowing for weak teams to rebuild.

I agree with your statement that winning every game should be encouraged. I also feel that stability, meaning not having to replace managers every year, is equally important. For all to have fun, weak teams need to have the resources to rebuild.

I don't feel keeping top players on the farm when they have plenty of usage left is ethical. I don't feel making poor managerial decisions purposely is, either.

In real time, there is actually a lot less "dumping or tanking" than in trad leagues I've played in, where the ratings are known for both the present season and next year. Dump Eric Davis in real time, you might lose a good player for 2000. You just don't know.

As for the drafts, I feel the weaker teams MUST have the advantage. The question becomes HOW MUCH advantage. I was picking #13 this month, yet got my #1 choice, C Roberto Hernandez. I can, however, see that if the same 3-4 teams get all the fresh rookie types monthly, it might be a bit too much. My idea would be to allow teams who PASS one month to move ahead of those who make picks. That way a .500 club might get a top pick, and that one "prize" who comes eligible won't always go to the same club.

Otherwise, I think the better managers (or luckier, whatever) should just quit whining and play. I know my club was decimated this year with injuries (Kendall, Young, Burnitz, and a slew of pitchers went down) and with it my PB value. Still, I'm in the wild card chase, barely, and having a great time trying to balance my rebuilding with trying to win.

Let me know what you all think of my idea about the draft. Thanks, Eddie