Posted by dedelman on 12/19/2020 12:49:00 PM (view original):
In general, coach hiring needs a total overhaul, not a quick fix. But here's a potential quickie with big impact: in the re-hire phase. allow coaches to be re-hired to any position on the coaching staff, as long as level and salary demands are met. The fact that you can't re-hire your AA bench coach with a 68 FI rating to a major league FI coach position is silly.

Agree with this. Also, you should be able to hire major league coaches to multi-year contracts. They do it in real life. How many real-life Walt Alstons are there, who manage the same team for two decades on single season contracts?

Drag and drop (or simple click like changing lineups/pitching staff) ranking of prospects for R5 and amateur draft rather than the pop out ranker that currently exists. Pain in the neck and borderline unusable on a phone.

Posted by friarboy on 12/20/2020 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Drag and drop (or simple click like changing lineups/pitching staff) ranking of prospects for R5 and amateur draft rather than the pop out ranker that currently exists. Pain in the neck and borderline unusable on a phone.

Absolutely!! Mentioned this earlier, surprised only two of us see this as a major improvement.

Posted by lvnwrth on 12/20/2020 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by friarboy on 12/20/2020 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Drag and drop (or simple click like changing lineups/pitching staff) ranking of prospects for R5 and amateur draft rather than the pop out ranker that currently exists. Pain in the neck and borderline unusable on a phone.

Absolutely!! Mentioned this earlier, surprised only two of us see this as a major improvement.

I haven't yet but I'm eventually going to accidentally move someone I want to move up by 10 to the top of my list and take a 4th round caliber player with my first rounder.

I can do that on my own with my scouts' projections let alone due to screwing up this asinine ranking tool.

Posted by friarboy on 12/20/2020 12:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by lvnwrth on 12/20/2020 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by friarboy on 12/20/2020 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Drag and drop (or simple click like changing lineups/pitching staff) ranking of prospects for R5 and amateur draft rather than the pop out ranker that currently exists. Pain in the neck and borderline unusable on a phone.

Absolutely!! Mentioned this earlier, surprised only two of us see this as a major improvement.

I haven't yet but I'm eventually going to accidentally move someone I want to move up by 10 to the top of my list and take a 4th round caliber player with my first rounder.

I can do that on my own with my scouts' projections let alone due to screwing up this asinine ranking tool.

I would add my name to the list of people that think this is a good idea

Posted by bruinsfan911 on 12/20/2020 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by friarboy on 12/20/2020 12:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by lvnwrth on 12/20/2020 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by friarboy on 12/20/2020 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Drag and drop (or simple click like changing lineups/pitching staff) ranking of prospects for R5 and amateur draft rather than the pop out ranker that currently exists. Pain in the neck and borderline unusable on a phone.

Absolutely!! Mentioned this earlier, surprised only two of us see this as a major improvement.

I haven't yet but I'm eventually going to accidentally move someone I want to move up by 10 to the top of my list and take a 4th round caliber player with my first rounder.

I can do that on my own with my scouts' projections let alone due to screwing up this asinine ranking tool.

I would add my name to the list of people that think this is a good idea

Depends on the scroll. If I find a guy past the 100 rank and I want to move him into the top 25, is the drag and drop going to take ages as well. If so, leave it the way it is.

+1 to pretty much everything here.

I'd love to see more ballpark flexibility, like being able to set your own +/- parameters so that say for example Santa Fe isn't always a super hitters park, or Seattle always a pitchers park. It would open up more interesting league play I think, and give users more control over their teams.

There is some stuff I want to add but I feel as though when you delve in further its not just a small tweak / quality of life.

I'll bring it up anyways because small is better then nothing but I think budget distribution in terms of scouting needs to be tweaked.

It would be nice if HS/College was a combined pool that you decide where it goes every year. So if you have 30 million in this combined pool one year you could have 20 HS / 10 college and then go 15/15 the next year or switch and go 20 college /10 HS the next season. I feel these should be separate from the international scouting budget. I want to say for now allowing the budgets to be moved by more then 4 million would be nice, but I don't think that is the right solution. Maybe for now have it so the budgets can be moved by 5 million rather then 4 so that its 4 seasons and not 5 to go from 20 million to 0 and vice versa?

Posted by bripat42 on 12/13/2020 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hypnotoad on 12/13/2020 11:57:00 AM (view original):
Two off the top of my head, both again with pitching:

1. Allow the usage of a Tandem 5
2. Allow the resetting of the starting pitching order at the All Star break (like you can between the end of the regular season and the playoffs).

^^^^This^^^^
Especially No. 1.

In regards to No. 2, I'd actually take it a step further, although I understand my request likely would be more difficult in terms of coding. We should be able to rearrange our starting rotations during the 4 hours between parts 1 and 2 of a cycle. For example, games get simmed during Part 1 of each cycle. Allowing us to adjust rotations between Part 1 and Part 2 gives us the ability to make adjustments if necessary (for a variety of reasons) and it still gives opponents a 4-hour lead time to see the scheduled starter.

Totally agree with number 2, especially in the playoffs. How the series is going determines who I want to start each game. That can't always be determined until the previous game has been played, by then, you're already locked in.

1. Please fix the career minor leaguers that want big league deals. Allow them to go down and ask for minor league deals after spring training. This will keep more quality minor leaguers in the game instead of sitting on FA or retiring.

2. Irrelevant IFA. Every season we get about 20 to 30 IFAs that are worthless that will go unsigned. Either eliminate or make a few more that are more usable. None have to be ML quality, although that would be great to have a couple more, having quality career minor leaguers is helpful too.

3. Multiple days to draft and re-organizing draft order. Love that idea.

4. More of a desire, than need. I'd like to see the percent of budget for future spending change, as it really cuts into in-season trades. The following season's budget allowance should not be 80 percent for all, but more like 100 percent for some. I understand that you don't want a franchise hamstrung by tons of future salary commitments, but it keeps guys from completing deals. Feels like there should be a sliding scale, but I recognize that could be difficult. Something like guys with 110+ payrolls have can only go to 80 percent for following season. 90-110 can go to 90 percent. 70-90 can go to 100 percent. 70 and below can actually go to 110 or 120 percent.

Posted by hockey1984 on 12/22/2020 8:25:00 AM (view original):
There is some stuff I want to add but I feel as though when you delve in further its not just a small tweak / quality of life.

I'll bring it up anyways because small is better then nothing but I think budget distribution in terms of scouting needs to be tweaked.

It would be nice if HS/College was a combined pool that you decide where it goes every year. So if you have 30 million in this combined pool one year you could have 20 HS / 10 college and then go 15/15 the next year or switch and go 20 college /10 HS the next season. I feel these should be separate from the international scouting budget. I want to say for now allowing the budgets to be moved by more then 4 million would be nice, but I don't think that is the right solution. Maybe for now have it so the budgets can be moved by 5 million rather then 4 so that its 4 seasons and not 5 to go from 20 million to 0 and vice versa?

I've always felt scouting budgeting should be like prospect budgeting, no restriction on your movement between seasons. It's ridiculous that if you want to change your focus it takes 4-5 seasons. In reality it's a plane trip redeploying your scouts..

Posted by CF13 on 12/22/2020 10:56:00 AM (view original):
1. Please fix the career minor leaguers that want big league deals. Allow them to go down and ask for minor league deals after spring training. This will keep more quality minor leaguers in the game instead of sitting on FA or retiring.

2. Irrelevant IFA. Every season we get about 20 to 30 IFAs that are worthless that will go unsigned. Either eliminate or make a few more that are more usable. None have to be ML quality, although that would be great to have a couple more, having quality career minor leaguers is helpful too.

3. Multiple days to draft and re-organizing draft order. Love that idea.

4. More of a desire, than need. I'd like to see the percent of budget for future spending change, as it really cuts into in-season trades. The following season's budget allowance should not be 80 percent for all, but more like 100 percent for some. I understand that you don't want a franchise hamstrung by tons of future salary commitments, but it keeps guys from completing deals. Feels like there should be a sliding scale, but I recognize that could be difficult. Something like guys with 110+ payrolls have can only go to 80 percent for following season. 90-110 can go to 90 percent. 70-90 can go to 100 percent. 70 and below can actually go to 110 or 120 percent.

# 2 should remain. These players should be signed to fill the minors. In good worlds there are none left.

Posted by jimt14120 on 12/22/2020 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hockey1984 on 12/22/2020 8:25:00 AM (view original):
There is some stuff I want to add but I feel as though when you delve in further its not just a small tweak / quality of life.

I'll bring it up anyways because small is better then nothing but I think budget distribution in terms of scouting needs to be tweaked.

It would be nice if HS/College was a combined pool that you decide where it goes every year. So if you have 30 million in this combined pool one year you could have 20 HS / 10 college and then go 15/15 the next year or switch and go 20 college /10 HS the next season. I feel these should be separate from the international scouting budget. I want to say for now allowing the budgets to be moved by more then 4 million would be nice, but I don't think that is the right solution. Maybe for now have it so the budgets can be moved by 5 million rather then 4 so that its 4 seasons and not 5 to go from 20 million to 0 and vice versa?

I've always felt scouting budgeting should be like prospect budgeting, no restriction on your movement between seasons. It's ridiculous that if you want to change your focus it takes 4-5 seasons. In reality it's a plane trip redeploying your scouts..

I'm so split down the middle on this. (Political response).

The player in me wants prospect budget to be free flowing. Move stuff from HS to College or to INT, go for it. It rewards people who know the game better and that budget better.

My own personal strategy would be to have my College scouting at 20 million when I pick 16th or higher in the draft to ensure I don't waste a pick, then I would switch over the HS for 17th or lower as it would be more likely to take a 'lottery ticket' with a better chance of paying off, then switching to full INT budget if I'm planning on spending money on free agents and giving away my first round pick to a type A guy.


The owner who wants new owners to invest in HBD and stick around can see it as being problematic. Mostly because what I just mentioned, new owners wouldn't know to move the money around and it could be a steep learning curve to get caught up. Having to keep 16 - 20 million in my College scouting just incase I have a bad season means I have less money to go elsewhere, evening the playing field.

Also I can kind of see it from a real life perspective. If I have had 20 million in college for years, my scouts know which school to go to, which players to look at, which games to watch. If I think switch over to international scouting they would have to figure out where teams play, which are the good teams overseas, what different techniques to look for. It could take a few years to get an accurate representation of talent.

After having said all of that I think the draft scouting needs a massive overhaul that can't be done with a small tweak. I'd love to see where prospects have letter or color grades similar to that which they have in hoops or gridiron (or so I'm told) or a range that the players ratings could fall under.

Posted by brianp87 on 12/22/2020 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CF13 on 12/22/2020 10:56:00 AM (view original):
1. Please fix the career minor leaguers that want big league deals. Allow them to go down and ask for minor league deals after spring training. This will keep more quality minor leaguers in the game instead of sitting on FA or retiring.

2. Irrelevant IFA. Every season we get about 20 to 30 IFAs that are worthless that will go unsigned. Either eliminate or make a few more that are more usable. None have to be ML quality, although that would be great to have a couple more, having quality career minor leaguers is helpful too.

3. Multiple days to draft and re-organizing draft order. Love that idea.

4. More of a desire, than need. I'd like to see the percent of budget for future spending change, as it really cuts into in-season trades. The following season's budget allowance should not be 80 percent for all, but more like 100 percent for some. I understand that you don't want a franchise hamstrung by tons of future salary commitments, but it keeps guys from completing deals. Feels like there should be a sliding scale, but I recognize that could be difficult. Something like guys with 110+ payrolls have can only go to 80 percent for following season. 90-110 can go to 90 percent. 70-90 can go to 100 percent. 70 and below can actually go to 110 or 120 percent.

# 2 should remain. These players should be signed to fill the minors. In good worlds there are none left.

I agree, but if they fix #1, then they become irrelevant.