Posted by damag on 4/22/2021 10:35:00 AM (view original):
Y'all are talking about this like the solution to lopsided trades might be to police inexperienced owners.

First the caveat, as I've said before, is that you can't save owners from their own impulses. And I've seen a lot of owners - who you would assume to be experienced - act with the same lack of foresight that creates lopsided trades.

Harder said than done, devil's advocate and all, but wouldn't it be more equitable to police the experienced owners?

Oh wait, no one wants that.

I have come to the realization that it is likely best to just leave a World where there are multiple owners that are hunting to fleece other owners. Despite this realization, I still stand by my original opinion that if advanced scouting made the current ratings of players NOT in your organization fuzzy, it could solve a lot of this issue and also solve the scouting balance issue to where more owners may actually allocate money into the advanced scouting budget. I'm not naive, I understand how much this will affect trading and I get why some folks are totally against it. I just think it is a solution to two problems that creates another problem and that a net positive.

It is just sad and disappointing that in certain Worlds you are at a competitive disadvantage because you decide that you are going to try to follow the fair play guidelines and NOT consistently transact trades that "clearly benefit one team". Yet, the same owners have questionable lopsided trades nearly every season that clearly violate the fairplay guidelines.

I think it was brought up before... but I'll do it again as I just got burned by this, I'm annoyed, and I need to vent. If you put offers out to more than one coach for the same position (and all else being in your favor - no higher $$ offers from another owner) could we have it default to automatically give you the HIGHEST rated coach you've offered and not the LOWEST as was just done to me? Why oh why was I given the lowest rated of three fielding coaches leaving the other two sitting on their couches at home twiddling their thumbs. How dumb is that?

Posted by gorshar on 4/27/2021 12:54:00 AM (view original):
I think it was brought up before... but I'll do it again as I just got burned by this, I'm annoyed, and I need to vent. If you put offers out to more than one coach for the same position (and all else being in your favor - no higher $$ offers from another owner) could we have it default to automatically give you the HIGHEST rated coach you've offered and not the LOWEST as was just done to me? Why oh why was I given the lowest rated of three fielding coaches leaving the other two sitting on their couches at home twiddling their thumbs. How dumb is that?

Agreed. Or, at least give us the opportunity to rank them.

Posted by bripat42 on 4/27/2021 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tlowster on 4/22/2021 5:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by damag on 4/22/2021 10:35:00 AM (view original):
Y'all are talking about this like the solution to lopsided trades might be to police inexperienced owners.

First the caveat, as I've said before, is that you can't save owners from their own impulses. And I've seen a lot of owners - who you would assume to be experienced - act with the same lack of foresight that creates lopsided trades.

Harder said than done, devil's advocate and all, but wouldn't it be more equitable to police the experienced owners?

Oh wait, no one wants that.

I have come to the realization that it is likely best to just leave a World where there are multiple owners that are hunting to fleece other owners. Despite this realization, I still stand by my original opinion that if advanced scouting made the current ratings of players NOT in your organization fuzzy, it could solve a lot of this issue and also solve the scouting balance issue to where more owners may actually allocate money into the advanced scouting budget. I'm not naive, I understand how much this will affect trading and I get why some folks are totally against it. I just think it is a solution to two problems that creates another problem and that a net positive.

It is just sad and disappointing that in certain Worlds you are at a competitive disadvantage because you decide that you are going to try to follow the fair play guidelines and NOT consistently transact trades that "clearly benefit one team". Yet, the same owners have questionable lopsided trades nearly every season that clearly violate the fairplay guidelines.

I hate to sound like a snob, but this is why I have zero interest in playing in worlds with inexperienced or incompetent owners. Worlds full of owners who know what they're doing naturally deter predatory owners from sticking around. I've seen multiple owners with piles of World Series trophies from garbage worlds join a world like Cooperstown, then leave within a season or two -- presumably because their predatory tactics got them nowhere, and they didn't know how to build a franchise any other way.

I agree, but a World like Cooperstown or Moonlight Graham is as delicate as its commissioner and members. A commish leaves here, a few long time members leave and all of a sudden exceptions to rules start happening and the World becomes a shell of its former self. I hope these Worlds continue to stick around and continue to follow their rules because I enjoy the lack of drama in these Worlds.

Although policing is best done by enforcing private World rules, it would be nice if Admin could do something clever to help deter obvious one sided trades. I know I've said this before, but there is a certain practicality to implementing something that makes current ratings of players under a certain age (I.e maybe any player before his fifth year pro) on another person's team fuzzy. If you don't pay advanced scouts, you should not know exactly where that player is in his development.

Also, if the goal of Admin is to help grow the game, there will be a lot more new players joining in the next few years. This gives predatory owners more opportunity to transact these type of predatory trades. Trading is the most contentious part of the game. Whether it's getting fleeced or encouraging new owners not to trade in their first few seasons, it can easily cause drama and make a World start to hemorrhage owners.

Trade history shows the World's history of all trades transacted. It would be nice if vetoed trades also showed up on this page.

I know it has been suggested before but bumping it up if possible. We really do need the ability to set player playing time priorities for the Minor Leagues, we should also be able to tell sparky that we want him to keep our desired type of rotation setup.

How about making draftees who are “Looking to be drafted in the first five rounds” sign right away if they are drafted in the first five rounds as they hoped?

Posted by friarboy on 5/5/2021 5:41:00 PM (view original):
How about making draftees who are “Looking to be drafted in the first five rounds” sign right away if they are drafted in the first five rounds as they hoped?

+1

put an offer out to a guy during the 04/30 pm1 cycle, it is now the 05/05 pm2 cycle and he is still deciding. That's 16 game cycles and 32 overall cycles. That's a half of a full development cycle as he ponders the universe. The lost development time is critical.

I know this is a minor thing but I’m really annoyed by the “privacy” thing in the bottom right corner. It’s very intrusive on mobile. Couldn’t it just be in the footer?

I really hate in free agency when you lose a guy without getting a chance to counter on the last day. I led for 2 guys basically entire free agent period and boom out of nowhere they sign with someone else. 50 million dollars down the drain

Apologies if this has already been mentioned in one of the 26 previous pages.

Greater long term contract flexibility would be nice. I'm thinking especially of those teams that have a bunch of money left over after the IFA period has ended. Currently that money goes to waste. But if you could sign players to LT deals and use leftover funds in the current year as bonus money for a contract that begins in the following year that would soften the blow of missing out on an IFA.

I would love to see this happen. Yes, bonus money should come from the season you sign the extension in.

That’s a really great idea

Posted by brianplath on 5/10/2021 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Apologies if this has already been mentioned in one of the 26 previous pages.

Greater long term contract flexibility would be nice. I'm thinking especially of those teams that have a bunch of money left over after the IFA period has ended. Currently that money goes to waste. But if you could sign players to LT deals and use leftover funds in the current year as bonus money for a contract that begins in the following year that would soften the blow of missing out on an IFA.

+1

Just pointing out that if you budget 20M for prospects and are left with 15 at seasons end and are then allowed to spend that 15M on next season's contract extensions, you are playing with 200M that next season.