Which is my point. Why would WIS create a very unrealistic situation to punish coaches who do not care?

If you don't care, there's nothing they can do to make you care. However, every owner does not share the same sentiment. I, for one, always have extra players on my minor league roster. Why? Because I do not want a pitcher playing RF, even if he's a training camp pitcher, and being 0(0) for the next 60 games. So the potential situation makes me have full rosters.

If you cared would you not make sure you had position players on your roster regardless of the punishment of 0 (0) pitchers?

If I cared I would not want my pitchers hitting. Or my LF playing Catcher.

If this is a punishment I see it doing nothing but accomplishing a unrealistic situation. The more unrealistic a game is the less appealing it becomes to the average player.

In real life when teams are given the option of a DH why do they choose to have someone bat for the pitcher ?

This really isn't a point to debate. Once WifS allows everyone to fill rosters with training camp pitchers as position players, 20 rounds of the draft will be irrelevant.

I already save my prospect money by not signing pitchers who can't make the bigs. Once you allow me to sign TC pitchers and play them, at 100%, as position players, I'll stop signing position players who have no shot at the bigs.

Don't think I'd be the only one.

"WifS does not want owners playing pitchers as position players. Plain and simple."

Your reasoning is still stupid.

What's to stop anyone from throwing training camp pitchers at positions regardless of whether they're useless or not the rest of the season? There's absolutely no punishment to the owner other than a terrible position player when doing that.

If WIS didn't want pitchers to play at positions, they wouldn't program the game to allow it. Fact is they created a situation and don't feel the need to fix it, they've got bigger fish to fry.

You can admit you're wrong you know. It's not hard, I've done it.

"Once you allow me to sign TC pitchers and play them, at 100%, as position players, I'll stop signing position players who have no shot at the bigs.
Don't think I'd be the only one."

A) What's the difference if your pitcher is 100% or 0%? They'll likely be just as effective either way.

B) Nobody suggested pitchers remain at 100% despite playing at a position.

I think 20 rounds of the draft is pretty much already irrelevant.

"A) What's the difference if your pitcher is 100% or 0%? They'll likely be just as effective either way."

I assume you meant they will be just as effective as a hitter whether they are 100% or 0%..

Jesus.

Injuries are far more likely at 0%. Injured players can't play. So you're forced to sign more. At some point, the cost is a problem. And WifS will force you to play the games by signing players if you don't.

plague, I tend to agree. But WifS isn't on board with shortening the draft. In fact, I floated the idea in the forums and no one seems to be on board.

Let's see you play 8 TC pitchers at positions, you go ahead and let us know how many injuries occur, how good/bad they hit/field at 0% and then report back to us. Until then, you're just arguing for argument's sake, as usual.

Read the above statement I made and get back to us with your conclusions, until then we don't really care what you have to say on this matter.

Apparently you have a hard time reading.

Bump for reinstatement.

What, you don't like someone controlling the conversation in this thread like you do in your threads?