This is a somewhat radical idea, and admittedly one that I haven't put hours of thought into, and probably would not happen anytime soon (if ever) because I think it would require a significant amount of coding, testing and integration to the game, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyways for discussion.

What if we could hire managers?

Today, almost all of the "manager type" decisions for our team are controlled by the options on the "Managerial Settings" page.  Things like sacrifice bunts, hit and run, base running and stealing aggressiveness, pinch hitting, pinch running, etc.

What if we could hire managers to do all these things for us?  Managers would have their own sets of ratings on how they would manage these options, along with other subtle factors such as "clubhouse chemistry" (think Joe Torre's Yankee years as opposed to the current Bobby Valentine Boston experience).  Maybe clubhouse chemistry would play off of some combinations of players patience/temper/makeup ratings . . . some players might perform better for some managers than others based on how well they mesh.

Managers might also be able to have ratings that determine how they handle their pitching staffs (think Dusty Baker vs. Jim Leland), how they handle defensive replacements, in-game rest, etc.  Maybe some ratings that determine how well they work with younger rosters vs. older rosters.  Stuff like that.

In real-life MLB, managers and their styles play such an important role that many of them are as well known and respected as the players . . . Sparky Anderson, Tommy Lasorda, Jim Leland, Tony LaRussa, Joe Madden, etc.  Some are interesting in other ways . . . Bobby Valentine, Ozzie Guillen, Billy Martin, etc.  This is something that's missing from HBD.

Wouldn't the ability to compete for and hire managers for our teams, with each manager having his own style and good points / bad points, etc., be an interesting addition to the game?

I'm thinking that, much like players, they could be hired under multi-year contracts, but could also be fired at any time during their contracts (including in-season).  They would be owed the remainder of their contracts unless signed by another team.

This would probably also require another budget category for manager salaries that would need to be worked into the game somehow.

Thoughts, comments, suggestions, etc.?

Yeah, I'll pass.

People hate coach hiring because the value of coaches is not understood very well, and their impact is very hard to measure.  Other than the fielding coach, probably not too many people spend a lot of time really caring about who and what they get for coaches.

My thought and hope is that a manager would be a more tangible thing . . . by reviewing boxscores, you should be able to see the impact of his ratings on what goes on in the game.  If you have a team roster that's more geared towards strong pitching and defense, and manufacturing runs, then you would want/need to hire a manager that is good with managing low-scoring games (adept at handling a pitching staff and playing a smallball offense).

Interesting idea, but it would be hard to simulate. I'd rather see WIS improve existing aspects of the game.  And I'd vote to get rid of coach hiring and make it a budget item like scouting.  I like the idea of investing in coaching, but the current process and algorithm sucks.

Couldn't you just change how coaches are used now?  Instead of just development, let them play the role of manager too?

My idea is to simplify things by just hiring a manager that comes with his coaching style and has coaches with different abilities. Also their could be a manager pool to be able to hire and fire coaches on yearly basis. with each manager coming with his own coaches this should eliminate all the coach hiring . you could hire one manager for one salary.