My reasons for dropping:

"1. Its solitaire. Very few other managers actually play. One very active poster on this board noted that he plays at least 1 of his home games. That's only 20 better than unmanaged. I think that the charter members with many free or cheap teams delute the intensity. I appreciate those who like to draft-and-watch but there another game designed for that and therefore better at that. PB offers interactive play and if I don't get that I'll spend more time on my 2005 projections to better compete in that better draft-and-watch game."

I'm one of those who doesn't play all my home games. I do make roster changes every week, as well as many trades throughout the season. The computer does a good job of playing my games. I'm not big into sacrificing or bunting, and the computer manager is sometimes better than I am(i.e. forgetting to pull a pitcher for a PH in the 8th inning when behind-the computer never forgets to do that). Whether or not the computer plays home games or not shouldn't have any bearing on other owners though. The results will still be the same, plus there is no interation during the games. I think most charter members are as active as anyone when it comes to trades and roster changes.

"2. The sandbagging. More guys are actively trying to lose than are trying to win. Trying to build while trying to win is not possible. When I quit, I had a team with the best record and the lowest PB in the league. Meanwhile, the sandbaggers pick-up multiple prospects due to the drafting rules. It does not make for a good game. An unmanaged team can build but a well-managed team cannot."

Never have sandbagged. I have dumped older players and 1 year wonders for draft picks if I know I can't win in a year, but I put the best players on the field. Any team can rebuild through the draft. I see great guys go in the 2nd and 3rd round every year. Plus there is always a contender that is willing to trade a high pick for great reliever.

"3. The lack of time by the commish. There's a need for privately run leagues with their own constitution and commish. His decisions sometimes seem arbitrary, likely because he simply can't look at the situation."

Completely agree. The commish needs a partner or two to help run the leagues.

"4. The little quirks in the game that take away from its great sabremetric potential. The fielding ratings for example: they don't relate to other perceptions or statistical analyses. To some extent, we end-up playing with make-believe players rather than exploring the true value of real MLB players. PB becomes merely a board game."

Don't agree here. I play DMB also and PB stacks up very well vs. it. For fielding its arm rating, error pct., zone rating, and DP turned.

"5. The extraordinary cost. At one time PB did not seem expensive because there was not much to compare it too. Now, I compare two PB teams @ $20/month to other games and PB seems way to high. Star Wars Galaxy is @ $15 per month. Diablo or any other online game can be purshased for $45 and you get unlimited online play - with a much more varied game, a much richer environment and much much more interaction with other players."

I wouldn't call it an extraordinary cost, but I do think additional incentives should be out there for owners that take on multiple teams, as well as for owners that bring in new owners.

"If there at 23 other guys who would be interested in a true competitive league, I would like to approach Mike with a proposal for such a league with its own rules. Among the rules would have to be ones that allow the league to clense of inactive owners, and ones that did not reward sandbagging. The other problems would still have to be address. While not my biggest concern, the cost relative to other PC/on