Posted by burnsy483 on 9/13/2011 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Or, take "Live" off the Standings page.

Posted by tjefferson on 9/13/2011 10:55:00 AM (view original):
Some game mechanics that just aren't right:

- I'd eliminate the entire coach hiring process and make coaching a simple financial $0-20 million budgeting item like training and medical. Does anyone actually like this part of the game? It's tedious and doesn't really add much.
- If coaches are going to exist, we need way more freaking fielding coaches.
- Expose out of options players to waivers. It's ridiculous that I can trap a bottom of the roster guy in my system for his entire career.
- Make contract expectations for MILB/low end free agents realistic. Opting for MLB free agency kills a lot of guys' careers, and in turn weakens the high minors a lot. This is especially true for left-spectrum players that typically have higher overall ratings. A guy who has been a mid-level AAA player for a few years shouldn't go to free agency demanding $4m per and demand a MLB contract through the entire season.
- Unsigned draft picks should return to the draft pool at the appropriate time.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/13/2011 8:46:00 AM (view original):
Having a namesake player does sound like geeky fun.   Of course, opening that can of worms would lead people to name their guys Jack Off, Doit Inthebutt, etc, etc. 

Posted by tecwrg on 9/13/2011 9:15:00 AM (view original):
I'll summarrize my suggestions from the "Suggestions" forum:

1)  A new roster transaction to toggle between active and inactive, rather than have to do them in separate transaction.  Click here for more info.

2)  Add a line-item in the player's transaction history to note that the player received a DITR bump.  Click here for more info.

3)  During coach hiring, when searching for available coaches for a particular level, I'd like to see everybody who is looking for a position not only at that level but also below that level.  Click here for more info.

4)  Since we can only get Type D picks for unsigned draftees from rounds 1, 2 and 3, we should be able to separate our risk levels for the first three rounds as opposed to rounds 4 and 5.  Click here for more info.

5)  it would be nice to be able to search for particular posts in World Chat, either by filtering on a specific user, or being able to specify a specific start date/time.  Click here for more info.

6)  Get rid of the $4 credits for last place finishes, and replace them with performanced-based credits.  Click here for more info.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/13/2011 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tjefferson on 9/13/2011 10:55:00 AM (view original):
Some game mechanics that just aren't right:

- I'd eliminate the entire coach hiring process and make coaching a simple financial $0-20 million budgeting item like training and medical. Does anyone actually like this part of the game? It's tedious and doesn't really add much.
- If coaches are going to exist, we need way more freaking fielding coaches.
- Expose out of options players to waivers. It's ridiculous that I can trap a bottom of the roster guy in my system for his entire career.
- Make contract expectations for MILB/low end free agents realistic. Opting for MLB free agency kills a lot of guys' careers, and in turn weakens the high minors a lot. This is especially true for left-spectrum players that typically have higher overall ratings. A guy who has been a mid-level AAA player for a few years shouldn't go to free agency demanding $4m per and demand a MLB contract through the entire season.
- Unsigned draft picks should return to the draft pool at the appropriate time.

The fielding coach suggestion has already been discussed.  If everybody has an 85+ rated FC, then the value of FC's is diminished.  So more coaches is not a fix.

What really needs to be done is that at coach rehire time, FC's should not be willing to settle for $750k.  They should be asking for a contract that is somewhat commensurate with their value on the open market.

In fact, I would suggest that all coaches that want to be rehired should have some sort of raise (I'd suggest 10%) from the previous season as their rehire salary.  Even with a promotion.

Posted by tjefferson on 9/13/2011 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/13/2011 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tjefferson on 9/13/2011 10:55:00 AM (view original):
Some game mechanics that just aren't right:

- I'd eliminate the entire coach hiring process and make coaching a simple financial $0-20 million budgeting item like training and medical. Does anyone actually like this part of the game? It's tedious and doesn't really add much.
- If coaches are going to exist, we need way more freaking fielding coaches.
- Expose out of options players to waivers. It's ridiculous that I can trap a bottom of the roster guy in my system for his entire career.
- Make contract expectations for MILB/low end free agents realistic. Opting for MLB free agency kills a lot of guys' careers, and in turn weakens the high minors a lot. This is especially true for left-spectrum players that typically have higher overall ratings. A guy who has been a mid-level AAA player for a few years shouldn't go to free agency demanding $4m per and demand a MLB contract through the entire season.
- Unsigned draft picks should return to the draft pool at the appropriate time.

The fielding coach suggestion has already been discussed.  If everybody has an 85+ rated FC, then the value of FC's is diminished.  So more coaches is not a fix.

What really needs to be done is that at coach rehire time, FC's should not be willing to settle for $750k.  They should be asking for a contract that is somewhat commensurate with their value on the open market.

In fact, I would suggest that all coaches that want to be rehired should have some sort of raise (I'd suggest 10%) from the previous season as their rehire salary.  Even with a promotion.

I am currently in two worlds that have eight fielding coaches above 80 in the two worlds combined, and one of them only has a handful in the 70s as well. There's a ton of pitching and hitting coaches in the 80s, essentially enough that any team paying attention has one. Why should 2/3 of the league be playing with High-A/AA quality coaches in the majors?

Posted by travisg on 9/13/2011 11:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/13/2011 8:46:00 AM (view original):
Having a namesake player does sound like geeky fun.   Of course, opening that can of worms would lead people to name their guys Jack Off, Doit Inthebutt, etc, etc. 

Wouldn't it be Dewitt Inthebutt? I like this idea in theory, but through which means would those namesake players be added to our rosters? Would they just appear? How good would they be? How old?

Posted by tjefferson on 9/13/2011 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/13/2011 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tjefferson on 9/13/2011 10:55:00 AM (view original):
Some game mechanics that just aren't right:

- I'd eliminate the entire coach hiring process and make coaching a simple financial $0-20 million budgeting item like training and medical. Does anyone actually like this part of the game? It's tedious and doesn't really add much.
- If coaches are going to exist, we need way more freaking fielding coaches.
- Expose out of options players to waivers. It's ridiculous that I can trap a bottom of the roster guy in my system for his entire career.
- Make contract expectations for MILB/low end free agents realistic. Opting for MLB free agency kills a lot of guys' careers, and in turn weakens the high minors a lot. This is especially true for left-spectrum players that typically have higher overall ratings. A guy who has been a mid-level AAA player for a few years shouldn't go to free agency demanding $4m per and demand a MLB contract through the entire season.
- Unsigned draft picks should return to the draft pool at the appropriate time.

The fielding coach suggestion has already been discussed.  If everybody has an 85+ rated FC, then the value of FC's is diminished.  So more coaches is not a fix.

What really needs to be done is that at coach rehire time, FC's should not be willing to settle for $750k.  They should be asking for a contract that is somewhat commensurate with their value on the open market.

In fact, I would suggest that all coaches that want to be rehired should have some sort of raise (I'd suggest 10%) from the previous season as their rehire salary.  Even with a promotion.

I am currently in two worlds that have eight fielding coaches above 80 in the two worlds combined, and one of them only has a handful in the 70s as well. There's a ton of pitching and hitting coaches in the 80s, essentially enough that any team paying attention has one. Why should 2/3 of the league be playing with High-A/AA quality coaches in the majors?

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/13/2011 11:30:00 AM (view original):
I'll never understand why owners think it's fine to have players of varying skill levels but that it's just crazy when coaches do.

Well, the fact of the matter is that the HC/PC is broken not the FI.    Having 57 coaches with 80+ core ratings invalidates coaches.   Which is why I budget 6m for coaching when my FI will re-sign.  The 32nd best PC is almost as good as the 2nd best.   You can't say that with players or FI.