Isn't it enough of a project to fill out MinL teams some seasons?

What's gained by adding this restriction?

Makes minor leagues more closely resemble the real deal - and not packed with 35 year olds.  It really shouldn't be difficult.

Posted by opie100 on 10/20/2010 7:16:00 AM (view original):
Makes minor leagues more closely resemble the real deal - and not packed with 35 year olds.  It really shouldn't be difficult.

Not all worlds are like this. It's a more common occurrence in worlds where owners allow minor leaguers to retire instead of promoting or releasing them at the end of the year. I do both (either promote or release nearly everyone who might otherwise retire), and I typically have fewer than eight retirements per season. But it's a chore, I'll admit.

I wonder if there's some way WiS could make this easier or at least more apparent? Like put a symbol, a la Rule 5, next to the names of all minor leaguers who could retire after the season if they aren't promoted or released. These could show up once the ML regular season ended.

Since minor league wins/losses really don't matter, I don't understand what you're hoping to accomplish.   What difference does it make if a 35 year old is playing for a LoA club?

I'd say "Worry about your minors.   If you don't want 5 year pros in HiA, don't put/keep them there."

Posted by opie100 on 10/20/2010 7:16:00 AM (view original):
Makes minor leagues more closely resemble the real deal - and not packed with 35 year olds.  It really shouldn't be difficult.

at the risk of being the guy who notes what might have been intentional hyperbole, I challenge the statement that the low minors are "packed with 35 year olds"

I'd much rather have owners who care enough about their minors to assign older FAs to low levels (with at least $55k salaries I assume) than the guys that run 20 man rosters full of 0(0) pitchers out there

In a perfect world all the the owners would care about the minors and we could think about curbing the use of "ringers" if it was an issue, but implementing this suggesstion would actually hurt the minors because it would take away one more tool caring owners use to band-aid their minors ... I know I forget to check the minors from time time and pitching fatigue gets away from me ... I often "fix" the problem by taking an extra inactive arm or two from AAA and sending them down to correct the issue ... they are better than the tryout pitchers because they won't get shelled (adding to a fatigue problem)

also, if I end up without a capable SS or CF at a minors level due for whatever reason, I will demote an extra body from AAA or sign a scrap heap guy, rather than play an "age appropriate" player out of position

Yeah, this really just seems like a window dressing fix that doesn't help game play and may actually hurt it.

The idea is to better replicate reality.  I agree that we don't want to make it difficult to avoid the (0) issue, but it really shouldn't be. 

Rookie: Rookie ball should be for rookies (or second year players at most).  You should never have (0) issues at that level since you can have 30 active players.  So now we're just talking about LoA and HiA. 

LoA: Between the draft, IFA, and the open casting call, you should be able to come up with 5 SP stamina guys that aren't 30+ years old.  And if you still need one or two, you can have them.  Look at your rosters: how many LoA guys have more than four years as pros?  I bet not much more than 2.  That can't be difficult.

HiA: Gets admittedly more difficult.  Maybe allow three players over five years exp.  Maybe allow them on the roster, just not active at the same time.

AA/AAA: Not impacted.

Things improved: closer to reality, less incentive to grab a bunch of older free agents at playoff time, more incentive to develop younger players.  Also, fewer younger pitchers getting shelled from a former BL player playing at LoA again, which is dumb.

Things to manage: pay more attention to drafting stamina pitchers and perhaps better fielders.  

Minor league results don't matter.   Are you upset because someone sent a 35 y/o to his LoA team in order to beat you in the LoA WS?

Tell that to the minor league guys - they have feelings too.

Actually there is some impact because of player development in the playoffs.  I presume this is marginal though.  This is primarily about realism.

While I would like to see everybody in every one of my worlds pay attention to their minors, it's extremely difficult to get anybody to do "what's right" if there's not going to be any tangible benefit.

Similar to the discussion last week about cash rewards for winning the minor league World Series . . . there needs to be some sort of motivation with some sort of perceivable reward for properly maintaining your minor league rosters. But it has to be something that is done in such a way that it will not encourage owners to divert talent and/or other resources from their major league level.

In over 4 years that HBD has been around, nobody's really come up with a good solution.

I actually thought I did with regards to DITR.

In short, DITR could only come from winning teams.   DITR would come from the league leaders.   DITR would be age/experience specific for each level.  DITR would be significant upgrades. 

Of course, this would create it's own issues.   The AAA-caliber player in LoA would be amongst the league leaders and obviously take a DITR spot away(although he would not get the DITR).    He would also lead his teams to wins which might put a team on the losing side thus negating their DITR opportunities.  But, in my mind, such is life.

There are already a few things in place in an attempt to mirror reality.  If a guy stays in the low minors too long, he retires.  If you demote him, he takes a ratings hit (to reflect his ticked-off-ness from moving down).