Now that the only coach worth bidding on market will be flooded, it's time to scrap the whole thing and start over.

Very simple. One coach at each level. No hiring. Just pick one.

Above average: All of your players will develop fully based on his ability, experience, playing time, etc., etc. 3m

Average: Most of your players will develop fully based on his ability, experience, playing time, etc., etc. 2m

Below average : Some of your players will develop fully based on his ability, experience, playing time, etc., etc. 1m



Everyone will get the exact level of coaching they expect. Coach hiring, which no one likes, will be simple. You'll spend 6m-18m on coaching. And, what I perceive the biggest "problem" with coaching, anonymity, will disappear. The recent addition of the HOF has driven home this point. No one can name their coaches from their winning seasons. But you remember the guy who had a career year.

sounds like a secondary training budget.

Sounds like what people want.

Sigh. Once again you just aren't getting it. They aren't flooding the leagues with 90 rated fielding coaches (which would be stupid). They are simply generating more fielding coaches -- not necessarily better ones.

You did make one point (accidentally). Fielding coaches are the only coaches worth bidding on. I propose that a few more low end fielding coaches get generated. Then map that process to the other coaching positions. If you are willing to spend 20 mill on coaches, then you should see a difference in player progression. As it stands now, there isn't a significant difference in the coaching of the teams that spend the most vs. the teams that spoend the least.

I'm actually getting it completely. Look at hitting/pitching coaches. Why bid on them now? You're getting an 80+. It wasn't always like that. Fielding coaches will become the same way. It won't be next season or in 2011. But it will happen. Why not just change the whole thing and make it that way now? Save some time.

There's also a lack of understanding of what your major-league non-fielding coaches actually do -- or what value there is to spending a lot for them.

That leads to complaints about how owner A spent $9M on major-league coaches, and didn't see any great performance improvement.

The biggest problem is everyone wants "good" coaching. So do I. But, unlike most, when I don't get the coaching I want, I adjust how I do things next time. Hiring a coach is no different than signing a player. If I want a player, I bid on him. If I want to use him as a SS, because he has SS ratings, I can't complain if my rival signs him and plays him at 3B. I lost out on the bidding process. Maybe I get stuck with my schlub AAA SS with a 77 glove. Them's the breaks.

Who cares, adjust to the new supply and demand for coaches. Budget less money for coaching (since there is less utility value to be gained now) and put more into other areas.

Wouldn't it just be easier to put a check box on the "Management Console" page:

Do you want great coaches: Y/N?

I (gulp) agree with MikeT on this one. Anything that adds more transparency to what coaching means and how to get better coaches is a good thing.

People who take the time to post "who cares" usually care. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother.

Quote: Originally posted by schuyler101 on 2/10/2010Who cares, adjust to the new supply and demand for coaches. Budget less money for coaching (since there is less utility value to be gained now) and put more into other areas.

This is what most people are doing already. Why have it as a budget category when spending more doesn't really result in better coaches? At least with the other categories, you know you will get something for that extra million.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 2/10/2010I'm actually getting it completely.   Look at hitting/pitching coaches.   Why bid on them now?  You're getting an 80+.   It wasn't always like that.   Fielding coaches will become the same way.   It won't be next season or in 2011.  But it will happen.   Why not just change the whole thing and make it that way now?  Save some time.

The problem now with pitching and hitting coaches is that they have an indefinite amount of time to develop in the minor leagues (restricted only by age and demands), thereby getting up to a rating of 75+ by the time they reach the ML - whereas Fielding guys can only develop in the role as a ML fielding coach and people are less willing to take a hit (definition vague) to develop a low rated coach.

What if you lowered the development rate of coaches and made more of them retire by the time they were 50?

Wrong. Coaches hired as bench coaches develop their fielding coach skills. But you probably don't know that because you've only worried about what's directly in front of you. And that's your perceived lack of "acceptable" FI.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/10/2010Wrong. Coaches hired as bench coaches develop their fielding coach skills. But you probably don't know that because you've only worried about what's directly in front of you. And that's your perceived lack of "acceptable" FI

DING! DING! DING!