I typically start any prospect that I believe has legitimate ML potential in Low A (or High A). Those in Rookie Leage generally all have serious flaws, and most would never even make AA.

My rationale is that Low A will have better coaching, and I am rarely in a position where I have so many good players at that level that I cannot allow the 4-5 draft picks to get significant playing time.

Is there any benefit to starting prospects in Rookie League. One possiblity is that my strategy often ends up in prospects repeating a level (usually AA or AAA). However, it does not appear to me that development is stunted by repeating levels.

Looks like you answered your own question. If you don't utilize rookie league, it isn't worth much.

you could be missing out on a promotions bump by not starting some of your younger players at Rookie ball then promoting them to Low A before their 1st season is over.

Quote: Originally Posted By dgtrache on 10/21/2009
I typically start any prospect that I believe has legitimate ML potential in Low A (or High A). Those in Rookie Leage generally all have serious flaws, and most would never even make AA.

My rationale is that Low A will have better coaching, and I am rarely in a position where I have so many good players at that level that I cannot allow the 4-5 draft picks to get significant playing time.

Is there any benefit to starting prospects in Rookie League. One possiblity is that my strategy often ends up in prospects repeating a level (usually AA or AAA). However, it does not appear to me that development is stunted by repeating levels.

No. But why would you have a prospect repeat a level? Any prospect worth anything should be ready for AAA after three seasons... and if stays there for a little over a full season, no big deal. As for the downside of repeating levels, I think certain players will suffer, depending on age and yellow ratings. But I doubt it's terribly significant.

Quote: Originally Posted By jsturgis5866 on 10/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By dgtrache on 10/21/2009

I typically start any prospect that I believe has legitimate ML potential in Low A (or High A). Those in Rookie Leage generally all have serious flaws, and most would never even make AA.

My rationale is that Low A will have better coaching, and I am rarely in a position where I have so many good players at that level that I cannot allow the 4-5 draft picks to get significant playing time.

Is there any benefit to starting prospects in Rookie League. One possiblity is that my strategy often ends up in prospects repeating a level (usually AA or AAA). However, it does not appear to me that development is stunted by repeating levels.

No. But why would you have a prospect repeat a level? Any prospect worth anything should be ready for AAA after three seasons... and if stays there for a little over a full season, no big deal. As for the downside of repeating levels, I think certain players will suffer, depending on age and yellow ratings. But I doubt it's terribly significant

I generally agree. Usually it is at AAA that the player spends more than one full season. However, due to service time management or overcrowding at a particular position it is sometimes AA.

Maybe you have better coaches at RL. It happens. Gives you one more level.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 10/21/2009Maybe you have better coaches at RL.  It happens.  Gives you one more level. 

Yeah, that might happen sometimes, but not too often for owners who don't do the auto-assigning thing for coaches. Even so, an IFA signed before the draft should go straight to Low A, imo, instead of wasting time not getting PT in RL.

I seldom sign RL coaches(unless they have a high FI rating) because the assigned coaches are ALWAYS better than what's available. Frequently, the assigned coaches will be better than my returning Loa/HiA guys.

Quote: Originally posted by goldenboy00 on 10/21/2009you could be missing out on a promotions bump by not starting some of your younger players at Rookie ball then promoting them to Low A before their 1st season is over.

promotions don't cause ratings increases. Ratings increases happen as a result of playing time and coaching. When you promote a player and you see an increase in ratings, it's just a "report"...the increase happens whether you promote or not.

Quote: Originally posted by blanch13 on 10/21/2009

Quote: Originally posted by goldenboy00 on 10/21/2009you could be missing out on a promotions bump by not starting some of your younger players at Rookie ball then promoting them to Low A before their 1st season is over.

promotions don't cause ratings increases. Ratings increases happen as a result of playing time and coaching. When you promote a player and you see an increase in ratings, it's just a "report"...the increase happens whether you promote or not.

Shhhhhh, blanch... if you tell EVERYBODY we won't get to laugh at people who talk about promotion bumps.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 10/21/2009I seldom sign RL coaches(unless they have a high FI rating) because the assigned coaches are ALWAYS better than what's available. Frequently, the assigned coaches will be better than my returning Loa/HiA guys.

Thank you for pointing this out. I had thought the assigned coaches might be better.

They aren't *always* better, but usually. Still, it's only another way to *game* the system, so you have to have a cheating mentality to make use of it.

Quote: Originally Posted By jsturgis5866 on 10/21/2009They aren't *always* better, but usually. Still, it's only another way to *game* the system, so you have to have a cheating mentality to make use of it

The system is a "game."

Duh. If you don't know what "game" means as a verb, look it up.

I disagree, obviously, with the "cheating mentality" comment.

I've probably sent more tickets than anyone about assigned coaches. All with suggestions on how it can be fixed. If WifS isn't going to address an obvious flaw in the system, why should the person saying "Fix this. Here's how" hurt his team in the interest of whatever the hell you want to call "non-cheating"?