One could argue that the demotion penalty does not mirror reality (in and of itself).

One could argue that a player with a bad attitude isn't going to take a demotion well.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/20/2010 10:46:00 AM (view original):
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.

I'm not sure I even like your DITR idea (although it's intriguing), but one way around the unintended consequence you cited is to restrict DITR eligibility to players who are at the proper level (which would roughly mirror the guidelines opie cited in the original post).

Even that wouldn't prevent teams from loading their low levels with better quality and preventing some teams from qualifying under the winning record guideline.    At the end of the day, since DITR would only apply to "good" players, I'm not sure removing a few here and there would be a bad thing.

opie, one other reason for the demotion hit.    It helps prevent HBD owners from using their 40 man like a 25 man roster.  If you could freely demote/promote with no consequences, we would do it.   BL teams might call a minor leaguer up to start a game of a doubleheader but they don't bounce guys up and down all season.  We would.  Or, at the very least, I would.   Durability and stamina would no longer be a concern.

I'm not arguing against the demotion penalty for the purposes of this game at all.  It's really just an indirect artificial means to encourage realistic behavior.

I am arguing that HBD minor league roster experience requirements should attempt to mirror reality.

It would be easier if the draft stretched into infinity and 72nd round picks would sign for a $3,500 bonus.

Otherwise, your suggestion will simply end with teams have 4 position players at LoA.

Posted by opie100 on 10/20/2010 1:54:00 PM (view original):
I'm not arguing against the demotion penalty for the purposes of this game at all.  It's really just an indirect artificial means to encourage realistic behavior.

I am arguing that HBD minor league roster experience requirements should attempt to mirror reality.

It's a cosmetic reality that really offers nothing to the game, and would complicate an aspect of the game that often gets neglected as is.

Realism for realisn's sake isn't always the way to go.

Honestly, it sounds like low level hockey rules(which I think have changed).     Our team used to only be able to bring back so many players from the previous year due to some rule.   But I think they changed it due to revenue reasons.    Fans got to "know" the players and didn't care a whole lot when they were forced out of town.   

Posted by AlCheez on 10/20/2010 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by opie100 on 10/20/2010 1:54:00 PM (view original):
I'm not arguing against the demotion penalty for the purposes of this game at all.  It's really just an indirect artificial means to encourage realistic behavior.

I am arguing that HBD minor league roster experience requirements should attempt to mirror reality.

It's a cosmetic reality that really offers nothing to the game, and would complicate an aspect of the game that often gets neglected as is.

Realism for realisn's sake isn't always the way to go.

Then why was the HBD "steroid era" ended?  Why not have 100 HR seasons?

I can't believe that making Rookie ball be for rookies would be difficult for anyone.  In fact, it would make things less complicated by making owners either sign draft their draft picks or at least pickup inexpensive IFAs to fill out experience-appropriate rosters (at the lower levels).  Promote from Rookie to LoA, LoA to HiA.  Sprinkle in a couple vets.  You're done.  Pretty simple.  Certainly makes more sense than drafting players you never sign, or that you dump after one year to replace with a bunch of 33 year olds.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/20/2010 2:49:00 PM (view original):
It would be easier if the draft stretched into infinity and 72nd round picks would sign for a $3,500 bonus.

Otherwise, your suggestion will simply end with teams have 4 position players at LoA.

Haha, I was 16th round pick and only got $3500.

The solution, if you really want it, is painfully obvious.

The 35 yr old being demoted to rookie ball insta-retires. On the spot.

That could help - presuming you were still responsible for his contract that season and it was the last year of it.