Changing coach hiring Topic

firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
So I noticed they have put out a new survey for HBD related to coach hiring. Any thoughts so far?
5/17/2010 11:22 AM
taz21
Posts: 470 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 93
Prospect
I wish they would have offerred a choice to the effect of allowing us to offer our returning coaches a position other than the one they've requested, ie your AAA BC wants to return, your AA BC wants a promotion to AAA, why cant your AAA BC be offerred the ML job before he hits the market like he would in real life?
5/17/2010 11:27 AM
mitchrapp
Posts: 807 (0)
Hall of Famer
106 20 14 109
Prospect
They have that already. During rehire.
5/17/2010 11:30 AM
schedule1
Posts: 83 (0)
Hall of Famer
109 1 96
Prospect
where's the survey?
5/17/2010 11:37 AM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
Your locker room, in the area where it shows credits, rewards points, etc
5/17/2010 11:39 AM
jceffali
Posts: 65 (0)
Hall of Famer
6 6 215
Rookie
I've never had a big problem with the current coach hiring system. That said, I like the idea of eliminating individual coaches and instead allocating the coaching budget by level or role. The individual coaches don't add much fun to the game. The change would simplify things a lot.
5/17/2010 11:41 AM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
I chose the second option, I think it was. Making a coach hiring budget relative to what other owners are budgeting at least adds some strategy to the game. This is similar to monitoring how your world budgets for IFAs and acting accordingly.

From a realism point of view, coaches at different levels would share information and coaching practices, I would think. Having set coaching practices for a system seems to makes sense.
5/17/2010 11:47 AM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
I think its all being geared towards "what is easiest." Lots of complaining about the current system and it would make budgeting for coaches relevant again. Instead of people putting like $8M in coaching budget and signing minimums, they will have to commit more and it would directly affect on-field production
5/17/2010 11:48 AM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
Option 3 -
Remove individual coaches and instead use the Coaching budget item to drive all coaching effects. This would be similar to how the Medical and Training budget work but would incorporate relativity ($15M would mean someting different from one season to the next based on how other franchises budget). This would eliminate the ability to transfer money to/from coaching.
5/17/2010 11:50 AM
sergei91
Posts: 5950 (0)
Hall of Famer
13 2 2 275 115
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By nfet on 5/17/2010I chose the second option, I think it was. Making a coach hiring budget relative to what other owners are budgeting at least adds some strategy to the game. This is similar to monitoring how your world budgets for IFAs and acting accordingly.

From a realism point of view, coaches at different levels would share information and coaching practices, I would think. Having set coaching practices for a system seems to makes sense.


ditto
5/17/2010 11:51 AM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
The current system is clearly broken ... for MLB coaches other then fielding, there is way more supply of coaches than demand ... so you wait until the end and get the best of the rest on the cheap .. or you get lazy and grab the best AAA coach for the MLB minimum and add to the oversupply next season

fielding coach is stupid for another reason, but at least there is some strategy there ... either you try to get a loyalty guy to ride on the cheap for a few years, throw crazy money at the half dozen capable coaches, or punt the role

there is no risk/reward for all but fielding, and too much risk/reward for fielding

I don't think they know how to "fix" the current system, so might as well dumb it down to budgeting by role
5/17/2010 12:01 PM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
Yeah I think thats it right there. They can't figure out how to get it to work the way they want and this is an option that might help
5/17/2010 12:17 PM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by sergei91 on 5/17/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By nfet on 5/17/2010I chose the second option, I think it was. Making a coach hiring budget relative to what other owners are budgeting at least adds some strategy to the game. This is similar to monitoring how your world budgets for IFAs and acting accordingly.

From a realism point of view, coaches at different levels would share information and coaching practices, I would think. Having set coaching practices for a system seems to makes sense. ditto


It's #3, I posted it verbatim
5/17/2010 12:18 PM
soxfan121
Posts: 82 (0)
Hall of Famer
61
Prospect
Can anyone name a coach on their current team?

I hope one of the "remove individual coaches" options wins.
5/17/2010 12:20 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Dumbing it down seems to be the best option. Of those options, this one seems to be the best:

Remove individual coaches and instead break apart the Coaching budget item by level. Each level budget would then drive all coaching effects. There would be a minimum and maxium budget for each level with a total minimum (across all levels) of $7M and a total max of $30M. The effect of the budget would also be relative to the other 31 franchises in the world. This would eliminate the ability to transfer money to/from coaching.
5/17/2010 12:22 PM
1|2|3...7 Next ▸
Changing coach hiring Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.