All Forums > Hardball Dynasty Baseball > Suggestions > Turn off Minimum Roster Size Prior to the Season
9/14/2012 2:04 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/14/2012 1:53:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be important to you.  Everyone has their own "important" when playing games.   But I'm almost certain that 99.7% of the users playing HBD aren't fretting over their Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Teddy Culver being at the right level to take advantage of his unique, yet limited, talents.
Mike, it's about having the right players with the right players at the right level. If you have a good pitching coach at Hi A and bad one at Lo A you may want to move your prospects to that level and you probably want to have a roster around them that includes catchers with solid PC and perhaps even a good defense. So, while the 8th year shlub that can't hit at the Lo A level isn't a concern the fact that he has a very good glove/range might make him someone you'd want to have at a different level. 

A fair number of owners also look at a prospects minor league stats when considering value (of course not to the same degree as a BLer). But, if I want a certain player to do well I may put them at a level where the ballpark is going to work better for them than one that would negatively effect their performance.

You don't care...I get it. The change I'm suggesting wouldn't have any effect on you one way or the other. 
9/14/2012 2:05 PM
Posted by kschoenberg on 9/14/2012 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by AlCheez on 9/14/2012 1:55:00 PM (view original):
And I wasn't suggesting promoting from rookie to aaa, I was saying handle promotions from the bottom up. You can that as long as you aren't removing a player from a roster that won't meet minimums after the move,
Al, when you do it from the bottom up you then start to hit the roster caps.

Obviously it's not impossible with the current system, but what you end up with is either doing basically single player transactions one at a time or having a huge list of pending moves which then makes it difficult to figure out just who is really on a roster in the GM screen because the player might already be involved in another move. 
There's definitely a middle ground there between the extremes.

And I'm with you on the need for a better way of doing. I just don't think waiving the roster limits is a good idea if you don't have a good wwy to enforce compliance when they start.
9/14/2012 2:10 PM
Al, I don't think it's a great idea...I think it's a workaround that really can't cause any more harm that is already possible...mostly, I suggested it as a possibility because it may not take much effort on WIS's part to do it. Making suggestions that require significant development are a waste of time.

So, we're down to hoping for things like Activate/Deactivate taking 3 clicks rather than 4.
9/14/2012 2:17 PM
Posted by kschoenberg on 9/14/2012 2:10:00 PM (view original):
Al, I don't think it's a great idea...I think it's a workaround that really can't cause any more harm that is already possible...mostly, I suggested it as a possibility because it may not take much effort on WIS's part to do it. Making suggestions that require significant development are a waste of time.

So, we're down to hoping for things like Activate/Deactivate taking 3 clicks rather than 4.

But it can - these limits were imposed in the first place because without them there was a rash of instances of people (intentionally or otherwise) not having enough guys on  minor league teams to even sim the games.  If you temporarily waive them for the period in which everyone is making all of their moves, without a good way to force them into compliance when they come back, you're basically going back to the same situation.  Certainly people could get "stuck" in a situation like that now if they have a lot of retirements/minor league FA, but it's much more difficult, and you certainly can't do it intentionally.

9/14/2012 2:20 PM
I declare VICTORY!!!!

Redline this one too.   If you can't take criticism of your self-serving suggestions that will create more problems than they solve, don't post them. 
9/14/2012 2:21 PM
Al, what if the roster minimum wasn't in effect as long as the player was promoted or demoted from a team and not waived/released? So, if the total number of players in the organization didn't change the move would be allowed?

9/14/2012 2:23 PM
Players aren't paid the same at every level.  Having 30 in rookie ball and 5 in LoA is not the same thing.  An owner against the cap just can't promote 20 RL players.
9/14/2012 2:27 PM
Mike, I don't care about the criticism...especially from you. You are stating that your goal is not to add to this forum or to discuss the suggestions but to aggravate others and, I guess, to potentially discourage people making suggestions. I believe that to be something that WiS should stop.

I wouldn't post here if I cared at all about the criticism. Some of the other comments like Al's while critical actually add to the discussion and might benefit the game. You, on the other hand could care less and are only posting to entertain yourself and, in your own mind, belittle others.

If you really bothered me I would just block you...rather I'm hoping others won't be deterred from making suggestions that improve the game. A lot of folks might not do that knowing they'll face a flow of negativity and basically worthless and borderline off-topic posts from you.

As I said...WIS may not do anything about it...but that really says more about their care for this forum and what value it might have than any value you bring.




9/14/2012 2:29 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/14/2012 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Players aren't paid the same at every level.  Having 30 in rookie ball and 5 in LoA is not the same thing.  An owner against the cap just can't promote 20 RL players.
And the roster minimum affects that how? If I don't have the money to make a move its going to  be negated by the system because of budget concerns not because I've left too few players at the RL level. 
9/14/2012 2:31 PM
I'm not the only one telling you that your idea stinks out loud.    Does that count for anything?

But here's a thought:   Level salary minimums that are set aside.   I'm quite sure it would be a ***** to program and would certainly hurt more than it would help(sort of like your suggestions).    But, if you don't have 3.1m available for minor league signings, you can't make moves.    That's 20 players at each level making the minimum for that level.
9/14/2012 2:32 PM
Posted by kschoenberg on 9/14/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/14/2012 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Players aren't paid the same at every level.  Having 30 in rookie ball and 5 in LoA is not the same thing.  An owner against the cap just can't promote 20 RL players.
And the roster minimum affects that how? If I don't have the money to make a move its going to  be negated by the system because of budget concerns not because I've left too few players at the RL level. 
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MAKE ANY MOVES AT ALL UNTIL YOU FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET 20 IN LOA!!!!

WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
9/14/2012 2:32 PM
Posted by kschoenberg on 9/14/2012 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Al, what if the roster minimum wasn't in effect as long as the player was promoted or demoted from a team and not waived/released? So, if the total number of players in the organization didn't change the move would be allowed?

Still wouldn't stop someone from emptying out a level if they wanted to.  Depending on how you manage your minors, minor league FA and retirements can easily leave you with few enough players in the organization at the start of the season to leave a level empty.

It would probably have to be something like filling up teams that aren't at the minimum by the deadline with try-out camp players so there's no actual cost savings in doing it and there would be no real incentive to not field a team at all at a level.  But then you have to deal with what happens when you go to do that with someone who is already against the cap.
9/14/2012 2:36 PM
For someone who claims to care deeply about his minors, you have no regard at all for what will happen with some of the other 31 teams?
9/14/2012 2:38 PM
I'd also like to add that I contribute more to these forums in a day than you have since you signed up.    If I seems a bit harsh when suggestions are made, it's because they're not well-thought out.  If that encourages owners to say "Wait, is this really a good idea and am i wording it properly?", I think I've done HBD a service by being harsh. 
9/14/2012 2:42 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/14/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kschoenberg on 9/14/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/14/2012 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Players aren't paid the same at every level.  Having 30 in rookie ball and 5 in LoA is not the same thing.  An owner against the cap just can't promote 20 RL players.
And the roster minimum affects that how? If I don't have the money to make a move its going to  be negated by the system because of budget concerns not because I've left too few players at the RL level. 
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MAKE ANY MOVES AT ALL UNTIL YOU FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET 20 IN LOA!!!!

WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
I don't think that's true - you just can't move someone off the Low A roster unless it will still have 20.  That's why I talk about promoting from the bottom up.
of 6
All Forums > Hardball Dynasty Baseball > Suggestions > Turn off Minimum Roster Size Prior to the Season

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.