Posted by new on 11/12/2010 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/12/2010 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by new on 11/12/2010 1:34:00 PM (view original):

The difference is: I only care about winning at the big league level.  My minors are for development only.  Signing supplementals, second round picks, mid priced Ints...ect.  does not further this interest so I wont do it (unless I want to be in a world that demands it).    Promotions are nice but are only necessary for future big leaguers. 

So what's your problem again?   Nothing about this update will change what you care about.  Why are you even commenting?

Because some do care and I enjoy this game and want others to like it so it can thrive

If you want others to enjoy the game, take care of your minors.   If you think that it only affects your team, you are wrong.  I don't need my SS prospect coming to the plate 25 times in a four game series.  That's 100% more of a chance of injury to MY guys.    What used to take 15 minutes in one day in the pre-season,  will now take about the same amount of time but spread out over a few days.   But you only care if the world demands it.    Laziness is the only reason to completely disregard your minors.

Laziness, and saving the extra $200K to throw at an FA.

He's got 9 championships, so he knows how to win. I would just implement min roster size like they do for rookie league teams, and force sign players if the roster size is not maintained.

Then you'd get the extra half hour out of those owners.

Posted by The__Kid on 11/12/2010 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by new on 11/12/2010 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/12/2010 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by new on 11/12/2010 1:34:00 PM (view original):

The difference is: I only care about winning at the big league level.  My minors are for development only.  Signing supplementals, second round picks, mid priced Ints...ect.  does not further this interest so I wont do it (unless I want to be in a world that demands it).    Promotions are nice but are only necessary for future big leaguers. 

So what's your problem again?   Nothing about this update will change what you care about.  Why are you even commenting?

Because some do care and I enjoy this game and want others to like it so it can thrive

If you want others to enjoy the game, take care of your minors.   If you think that it only affects your team, you are wrong.  I don't need my SS prospect coming to the plate 25 times in a four game series.  That's 100% more of a chance of injury to MY guys.    What used to take 15 minutes in one day in the pre-season,  will now take about the same amount of time but spread out over a few days.   But you only care if the world demands it.    Laziness is the only reason to completely disregard your minors.

I never liked the argument of "my guys are playing longer, they're more likely to get hurt." Why not just not play them at all then? No chance of getting hurt.

That said, when you play enough 25-2 games, my prospects will get tired earlier in the season, so I have to pay a little more attention to that than I normally would.

Posted by deathinahole on 11/12/2010 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Laziness, and saving the extra $200K to throw at an FA.

He's got 9 championships, so he knows how to win. I would just implement min roster size like they do for rookie league teams, and force sign players if the roster size is not maintained.

Then you'd get the extra half hour out of those owners.

+1 - min rosters

Posted by jwesty5 on 11/12/2010 8:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by csherwood on 11/11/2010 5:36:00 PM (view original):
see othe HBD Update thread for the discussion on this, so far it looks like the overwhleming majority of people are opposed to it.

Not so sure that thats a correct statement.  If you look through the update thread there are around 10 people that state an opinion and it might be 60- 40 against.  Hardly overwhelming.  It just doesn't seem like it's that big a deal to me.

I have yet to see one person present a good reason for this change. Some people may not be opposed to it because its not a big deal, but if you are going to fix something, it should be broken first.

Whether you "like" the argument or not, if my prospect gets hurt because someone else is too lazy to stock enough minor leaguers, I'm justified in being annoyed by that.

What I mean is, every time your prospect gets an at-bat, they get better.  So if my prospect gets 7 at bats instead of 5, they develop more because of it.  If you're concerned about injuries, why don't you just limit them to 200 ABs for the year?  Less chance of them getting hurt.

Posted by csherwood on 11/12/2010 3:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jwesty5 on 11/12/2010 8:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by csherwood on 11/11/2010 5:36:00 PM (view original):
see othe HBD Update thread for the discussion on this, so far it looks like the overwhleming majority of people are opposed to it.

Not so sure that thats a correct statement.  If you look through the update thread there are around 10 people that state an opinion and it might be 60- 40 against.  Hardly overwhelming.  It just doesn't seem like it's that big a deal to me.

I have yet to see one person present a good reason for this change. Some people may not be opposed to it because its not a big deal, but if you are going to fix something, it should be broken first.

There is that side of it 9did anyone really complain about it?), but I see the logic in changing it.

-Minor league FA process is now down to one interaction instead of 2 (which is really the win I like)
-Those that want to keep their own minor leaguers have the upper hand. Same offer has the current franchise having the upper hand.
-Negative effect to franchises losing the players is near nil to those that take care of their minor league system. If you don't, you didn't care anyway.

Posted by joshkvt on 11/12/2010 3:58:00 PM (view original):
Whether you "like" the argument or not, if my prospect gets hurt because someone else is too lazy to stock enough minor leaguers, I'm justified in being annoyed by that.

How does he get hurt because of that?

Posted by csherwood on 11/12/2010 3:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jwesty5 on 11/12/2010 8:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by csherwood on 11/11/2010 5:36:00 PM (view original):
see othe HBD Update thread for the discussion on this, so far it looks like the overwhleming majority of people are opposed to it.

Not so sure that thats a correct statement.  If you look through the update thread there are around 10 people that state an opinion and it might be 60- 40 against.  Hardly overwhelming.  It just doesn't seem like it's that big a deal to me.

I have yet to see one person present a good reason for this change. Some people may not be opposed to it because its not a big deal, but if you are going to fix something, it should be broken first.

This might be the "best" argument against it.  I don't care one way or the other.  Not sure why anyone would.   To me, this is akin to saying "Rookie League will be cut by 3 games."  Who the F should care?

Wait a sec? Rookie league was cut by 3 games? Gawdamn!!!!!!!!

Posted by new on 11/12/2010 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 11/12/2010 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Right.

"I F the minors. Now, with this update, I'll continue to F the minors".

And the update does nothing to change people that F the minors, so the comment that it will force people to take care of them...it won't.

If it makes it harder, less will make the effort.  Your right that you cant force people to care.  But you can frustrate them enough to stop caring. 

The harder you make it on someone the more likely they will quit the game. Every body has their limitations to what they consider too time consuming, and for that reason you want to minimize every possible time consuming act.

Every owner is going to protect future major leaguers.

The 6 year free agents that are potential major leaguers will almost surely be asking for a major league contract which means I won't be resigning them for my minor league teams.

Anyone who does sign a 6 year free agent and does not put them on the 40 man roster will leave that player available for the rule 5 draft.

In my opinion this change is not need and it will increase play time at a time that some owners already consider time consuming. One person can argue that the time addition is minimal, but I would argue would this change more likely contribute to someone playing the game or quitting the game and I would say quit before play.

P.S. I am not trying to say people will quit enmasse because of this change, I am just saying this change will increase the odds before they will decrease the odds. This change has no purpose except to increase time needed to play the game.

I am starting to come around. 

If my franchise will get the player when offering a similar deal to other franchises, then I can just go to the guys that I want to keep and offer them MiLB contracts + STI.  And I'll get them as long as no one offers major league deals.  If someone offers them a MLB deal, then fine, see ya.

It'll also give me a chance to possibly grab other people's 6 year FAs when they forget/don't bother to re-up them.  It's a bit more work but as long as the loyalty logic functions, then it should be OK.

How does the loyalty thing work though?  If I signed a few 6 year FAs this year, will they be more apt to re-sign next year, or does the loyalty take 5 years to kick in?

Explain to me how it's more time consuming.

Current; Resign ML FAs. Resign minor league FAs. Sign ML FAs. Sign minor league FAs.
Future; Resign ML FAs. Sign ML FAs. Sign minor league FAs.

Agree with "who asked for this?", but point to where it's more time consuming.

Why do you think they'll ask for BL contracts?

6 year free agents weren't good enough to put on the 40 before rollover.  Why would you protect them in the R5?

I don't think it will make one bit of difference as to whether someone stays or quits.   Have you used basic roster moves?  WAAAAAAY more likely to convince someone to quit.