Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/16/2010

So, you'd take "mail boy" over CEO if "mail boy" paid more? [Not for $1/yr more, no. I didn't say based only on money. But you wouldn't have to pay me 1000% more. 15% would likely do it for me.]

A lot of people look at their next career move when taking jobs. "Mail boy" at 250k is unemployable at his next job because, well, he's used to sorting mail for 50k a week. [Give me a job sorting mail for $50k a week and I'll be living in the Bahamas in 18 months.]To apply it to coaching, I'm forced to believe AA coach is viewed as more "ML-ready" than a LoA guy.[I'm pretty sure, in RL, they do a more detailed coaching search than that. I certainly do in this online game.] And, if LoA guy turns down the AA job because of money, he's viewed as the guy who doesn't care about the job, he cares about the money.[I can't imagine that "They offered me 500% more money" wouldn't be a sufficient excuse to avoid the mercenary label in any job interview situation. Or 100% more. Or 50% more. Would you judge someone, who has real life responsibilities, maybe a wife and kids, for quitting a more prestigious job for a less presigious job and a 100% pay raise?] I think most coaches want to move to the "next level". [Of course, all things being equal, they would. But the game uses a model that basically says they will first take the highest prestige job they are offered, and then money will be the tiebreaker only. Do you really believe this is a common decission making model in RL, as opposed to a model that discounts the monetary value of lower prestige positions by an appropriate percentage, yet still strongly considers the monetary value of the offer?]

Futhermore, you're basing your coaching values on what you believe to be true. It's possible that you're wrong. [Yes, it is. It's a theory I'm proposing to the community, not anything I claimed to be a fact.]

Quote: Originally Posted By shobob on 2/16/2010
Bench coaches helping the manager run the ML team equals more prestige? A fielding instructor's duties affect the whole franchise, from top to bottom, and into the future. It just seems like the FI's job is more important, hence more value/prestige. I don't like the fact that admin caved to the complainers and provided more FIs. I would have liked it better if they made it so that if a guy gets offered both a BC and a FI position, he'd just go for the money. There are some dickwads (who have posted in this thread no less) who feel that the BC position is useless, so they hire FIs to their BC position at 600K, while other owners are stuck paying 2 mil for a 50s FI. That just doesn't seem right to me, considering the far-reaching implications of having a bad FI. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that everyone should have an 80s FI, but it just seems stupid to see some 80s and 90s rated FIs getting paid 600K to be a BC, when they could be making 2-3 mil as a FI



Yes. Being 2nd in command carries more prestige than being something lower than 2nd in command.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/16/2010

I won't quote all that but I'll answer the pertinent parts.

Yes, if I were hiring someone for a job with responsibilities attached, I'd view him differently for taking a higher paying, lower responsibility job from his previous employer.

I think coaches, just like players, move up the ladder in baseball. Unless you can name the last LoA coach to get a BL managing job, I'll continue to believe this.

Yes, I believe most people would take the higher level/more prestigious job in the real world. Of course, we're never going to see a team offer a FI crazy money in the real world.

Right, because this is a fake market. In RL, your ML coaches have a much larger role in the success of the team than in HBD. In HBD the relative value of the positions is different than in RL. Thus, real people facing an HBD-like market would act differently than real people in the RL market actually do.

Also, we're not talking about more money for less prestige. We're talking about an order of magnitude more money for a little less prestige. The more I think about it, the more I think you're right. If I were hiring for a responsible position, I would look at someone who took a 500% raise to take a somewhat less prestigious position differently than someone who turned that offer down. I would assume that the person who turned it down was mentally unballanced and certainly not want to associate with that person.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/16/2010
Well, if you were in a position to hire people, you'd know that some people handle responsibility better than others while some look for the money. Those who look for the money are more likely to say, when presented with what seems to be an insurmountable hurdle, "Screw this. They don't pay me enough."



*edit



Again, show me a mercenary, a guy who will go to the highest bidder, period, and I'll agree with you. But show me a person who can't ballance salary and prestige in choosing a job, and I'll show you a person who lacks ballance in many parts of their life. We're not talking about "taking a worse job for more money." We're talking about "taking a worse job for a sh*tload more money." Most people can understand that those 2 things are different, and one is not neccessarily a slippery slope to the other. Stop using the example of the guy who cares only about the money. That's explicitly not what we're talking about.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/16/2010
Well, in HBD terms, we are. I think we agree, in HBD, that BC is the most desired job. What you want is a coach, who we must assume aspires to one day have the most desired job, to take more money for a less prestigious position.

I don't think that happens(excluding Willie Randolph and everyone the Buffalo Bills contacted) in the real world.