Coach Hiring Topic

gregsimon
Posts: 229 (0)
Hall of Famer
83 5 18
Prospect
Bear with me, as I know this is a topic discussed ad nauseum, however, as I understand it, the masses resented when a neglectful owner still got decent coaches.

So to quiet the herd, WiS solution was to make it where if you didn't sign a coach you got the bottom of the barrel.

This seems silly at best. Why wouldn't you still get the best of the leftovers? Are most owners really that petty, that they are much happier seeing a team with all 40 coaches?

Reason I bring this up is I recently took over an abandoned team that had just completed ST. The previous owner apparently laid down his 25 bucks and then never logged in again. So EVERY coach in my minors is in the 40s. Not only did the team "neglect" to resign any of its FAs, but now all of the prospects are probably going to decline, or at the very least will not improve.

How is this better for the world?
8/17/2012 2:19 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

It doesn't.     But you have a work/reward situation.    If an owner is diligent and gets a 53, should an owner who didn't bother to check in get a 51?

Personally, I don't care as I don't check anyone else's coaches.   But, if I'm doing the work, I would be annoyed by a negligent owner getting the same result.

8/17/2012 2:24 PM
gregsimon
Posts: 229 (0)
Hall of Famer
83 5 18
Prospect

Seems petty and not in the best interest of the world.

Its bad enough that an owner comes in takes a team, and not only does he abandon the team, but he ruins the prospects the previous owner had, so the next owner will be hard to come by imo.

I will not keep this team, but it seems like the "bottom of the barrell"  policy is harmful, when looking at the big picture.

8/17/2012 3:15 PM (edited)
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
8/17/2012 2:59 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Seems petty to you.  However, you got a free team and didn't have to do any work to get good coaches.   The owner that paid for his team and diligently checked in every half-cycle during coaching probably deserves better than you.    Wouldn't you agree?

8/17/2012 3:03 PM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
Nah, it is a dumb rule.

Cause his budget is also all 10s, meaning decline in all of his veterans this off season also. Just compounding the problem to ruin minor leaguers and veterans for one dumbass who abandoned his team.

I don't agree with give them the best of the rest, but assigning them the worst is just dumb.
8/17/2012 3:08 PM
gregsimon
Posts: 229 (0)
Hall of Famer
83 5 18
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 8/17/2012 2:59:00 PM (view original):
You must've been one of the petty owners who cried when someone didn't get a sh*tty enough coach.

Just pointing out how it is bad for the world in the long run. Like when people don't promote and good prospects retire. I already said I was just helping out this season so the BL roster would have more than 6 pitchers on it for opening day. could care less about the success of the team, but it seems like causing further damage to the team is not a great solution.
8/17/2012 3:15 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
You're either missing the point, or choosing to ignore it.

Owner A checks in every four hours during coach hiring, revises his outstanding offers, makes new offers, etc. for his minor league coaches.  He ends up hiring a 53 rated coach in Low A.

Owner B basically ignores coach hiring.  He ends up auto-hiring a 52 rated coach in Low A.

Owner A's dilligence ends up for naught as there is virtually no difference between his hire and B's hire.
 

Now, are ****** coaches good for the development of players?  Of course not.  But "rewarding" lazy or inattentive owners by giving them the same (or close to same) results as dilligent owners is dumbing down the game.  Which a lot of people are opposed to.


8/17/2012 3:31 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Truthfully, it's folly to imply that players are "ruined" by a season with a bad coach.     It's even more silly to pretend that you don't have options to move minor leaguers around to avoid leaving them with a bad coach.   The ONLY truly damaging coach is a poor FI.  If you get a 20 FI, you may as well trade all MIF/CF prospects for veterans.  So, even then, only certain players feel the effect.

8/17/2012 4:00 PM
willsauve
Posts: 2255 (0)
Hall of Famer
168 1 1 1 200
Prospect
I agree that it is probably bad for worlds as is.. If they would just adjust the whole process it would be much easier and less cumbersome to sign coaches and more people would invest the time. As is its my least favorite time  of the season
8/21/2012 4:28 PM
Coach Hiring Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.