I do find it odd that the FIs do re-sign some years for $750K and other years they go FA and get several mill

why don't they demand market level salaries (like HC/PC/BC) if they are going to return?

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/09/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 11/09/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/09/2009

We also had 5 FI(49-52 rating) go unsigned. Too bad they wouldn't sign on as RL/LoA/HiA bench coaches. That's how you replenish FI.

We had around 40 40-52 FI ratings go unsigned. If there was a way to get those guys available at other levels, you'd never see a problem with shortages.

You hit the nail on the head with that one. This has always been the real issue. With your Pitching, Bullpen, Hitting and Bench coaches you can develop them in the minor leagues so they replenish.

It would be nice to see a larger number of Fielding coaches from 55-65 and a few more from 66-75 to make it so you don't have the disparity in salaries. One year I may get an 85-90 to resign for 750K and the next I have to pay 2-3 mil for a guy who is around 75-80




Is this any different than players? Should it be?

Yes it should. Thanks for asking.

Frankly I would be happy if the amount and quality of fielding coaches were more in line with other coaches.

Either give us more decent fielding coaches (guys from 55-70) or reduce the amount of great hitting and pitching coaches (fewer guys from 70-95)

OK, I'll play along. Why should coach hiring be different than player signing?

I'll take a stab at answering that question MikeT23...

Coach hiring should be different than player signing because I can sign a player to multiple years, whereas I can only sign a coach to one year (more if he sticks around).

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/10/2009
OK, I'll play along. Why should coach hiring be different than player signing?

Ahh, but that's my point regarding the salaries of returning coaches. They seem to cluster around a certain paypoint that is significantly lower than market value.

It just seems that the FA player market is better thought out than the FA coaches market. If they would just use similar logic for RE-SIGNING existing coaches, it would be fine. For example, some returning coaches (say the top 20%) should consider themselves TypeA-level, and ask for more money. Have the next 20% ask for a little less, and so on with the bottom 20% asking for minimum.

Worst 20% at Coaching slot = $500K

Next 20% = $750K

Next 20% = $1M

Next 20% = $1.5M

Top 20% = $2M, this is the minimum that they will accept to re-sign

This way, there would be reasonable market forces on re-signing, and we wouldn't have 80-88 level FI coaches re-signing for $750K when the free agent coaches at the same level are signing for $3M on the open market.

NOBODY re-signs a deal for 25 cents on the available dollar.

Why complicate it? The market determines the value of players. The market determines the value of coaches. Some players resign for significantly less than they'd get on the open market. Some coaches resign for significantly less than they'd get on the open market. Some players overvalue themselves and don't get offers. Some coaches overvalue themselves and don't get offers.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/10/2009
Why complicate it? The market determines the value of players. The market determines the value of coaches. Some players resign for significantly less than they'd get on the open market. Some coaches resign for significantly less than they'd get on the open market. Some players overvalue themselves and don't get offers. Some coaches overvalue themselves and don't get offers.

Not 75% less. That's the problem.

Coaches DO NOT re-sign for less than they were paid the previous year. Maybe that should be the rule. Have ALL re-signing coaches ask for a 10-20% raise for the next year (maybe 20% for playoff teams, 10% for non-playoff teams) And this is only for coaches that are WILLING to re-sign.

This is something I proposed, oh, season one or two.

I proposed several things that I think would make coach hiring better but that's not the point.

The point is that coach hiring should somewhat mirror player signing. There's no reason to expect every team to get a quality FI because there's no reason to expect every team to get a quality closer. And if I get a quality FI for 1.5m, there's no reason to expect you to get a similar one for the same amount. Players don't work like that. Neither should coaches.

How can be you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?

Coach hiring SHOULD mirror player signing. The Free Agents with the highest ratings (75+ OVR) go to the open market, where they are handsomely compensated.

Right now, the coach re-signing is essentially a coin toss based on the "loyalty" setting. If it comes up heads, you get your coach back at a 75% discount; tails, and you have to spend an extra $2-4M for comparabale talent.

Or FA hit the open market and go unsigned.

Some FA resign with their teams. Some hit the open market. Looks like a heads/tails scenario.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/10/2009

OK, I'll play along. Why should coach hiring be different than player signing?

Well lets start with the fact that it already is completely different.

Here is the biggest one Major league players who are making top dollar do not offer to resign for the major league minimum top coaches do.

I really do not have a big problem with coach hiring.

I do think they should just stop creating new "fielding" coaches and instead they should create them as bench coaches in the low minors with a good fielding rating. Say in the high 30's to mid 40's. Then for some of them the fielding rating should increase a few points a year.

A few more guys like Mark Nixon who is my High A Bench coach right now. He started with a fielding rating of 44 in season 10 and now in season 14 has a 56 glove rating. He could be a ML FI right now im most worlds and I am sure that the first time he decides to not resign with me he will be.

Except it's not completely different.

The market determines the value of players. The market determines the value of coaches. Some players resign for significantly less than they'd get on the open market. Some coaches resign for significantly less than they'd get on the open market. Some players overvalue themselves and don't get offers. Some coaches overvalue themselves and don't get offers.

The point is that coach hiring should somewhat mirror player signing. There's no reason to expect every team to get a quality FI because there's no reason to expect every team to get a quality closer. And if I get a quality FI for 1.5m, there's no reason to expect you to get a similar one for the same amount. Players don't work like that. Neither should coaches.

Quote: Originally posted by crickett13 on 11/10/2009Either give us more decent fielding coaches (guys from 55-70) or reduce the amount of great hitting and pitching coaches (fewer guys from 70-95)

I'll go with (b). If you are going to force coach hiring, make it mean something. Having 32 coaches in the 80s is just stupid.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/10/2009
Except it's not completely different.

The market determines the value of players. The market determines the value of coaches. Some players resign for significantly less than they'd get on the open market. Some coaches resign for significantly less than they'd get on the open market. Some players overvalue themselves and don't get offers. Some coaches overvalue themselves and don't get offers.

The point is that coach hiring should somewhat mirror player signing. There's no reason to expect every team to get a quality FI because there's no reason to expect every team to get a quality closer. And if I get a quality FI for 1.5m, there's no reason to expect you to get a similar one for the same amount. Players don't work like that. Neither should coaches.

Except for the fact it is completely different. 1 similarity does not make it the same.

You sound like a woman who says I have that exact same blouse except mine has bigger buttons and yellow ones instead of white and the collar on mine is different and mine has longer sleeves but other than that and the fabric it's made of it is exactly the same yellow blouse. Well except mine is a lighter yellow.