It would be.   And I assume most would overbudget for coaches, sign crappy ones, fire them, hire slightly better, fire them, hire slightly better and so on. 

Posted by damag on 1/27/2015 3:11:00 PM (view original):

If this worked, wouldn't half the teams in every world fire multiple coaches all the time?  And where would the budget for it come from?

 

Why couldn't you get the prorated budget back? $5m hitting coach is fired at midseason, you have $2.5m now to hire a new hitting coach; chances of there being a better hitting coach available are slim, making it an undesirable option.

Oh, that makes the scenario I described even worse. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/27/2015 3:19:00 PM (view original):
Oh, that makes the scenario I described even worse. 

How so? You've obviously got something you want to say on the subject but are holding back.

Are you thinking everyone would budget $20m on coaching, hire a crappy coach and fire them as soon as possible to get most of that money back to hire a good coach and get the ratings bump?

No, I'm pretty sure I'm being very clear.

The scenario you describe creates a fantastic way to game the system.   By allowing you to get pro-rated money back, it creates an even greater opportunity at chaos.

Here's what I do(under your scenario):

I hire the worst coaches possible to start the season.
I fire them after game 1 and hire better ones.  
Since I'm getting pro-rated money back(and, I assume, paying pro-rated salaries), my funds are always there.
I fire these new guys after game 3-4.
Rinse, repeat until there are no better coaches. 

Boy, doesn't that sound like fun?

Simple: you can only fire and rehire 1 coach per season and can only do it after the haflway point of the season. It could happen the same day as the All-Star Game.

At each level?  A each position? 

Nope. Throughout your whole organization. Just the one.

Not worth the time to update.

Okay, then it is one coach at each level. Then is it worth it?

I'm not saying I want this implemented, I'm simply offering different angles and scenarios that would make it work and be potentially beneficial but not overbearing. Nobody else seems to have any ideas on how it could work, apparently.

No one "likes" coach hiring.   Some actually hate it. 

Adding more layers isn't going to make it better.  But it could make it worse.

Wouldn't it make more sense, in an attempt to curb organizations getting fisted by owner abandonment, to have Simmy hire the BEST available coach at each level, than the worst? A 31-rated AAA pitching coach will do my guys zero favors, but a 60-rated would be passable for a season.

Best after the worst already signed coach.    Don't reward owners for doing nothing.

Right, obviously they would end up being middle of the pack coaches. It's a tough line to draw because in my eyes it isn't rewarding an owner for doing nothing, moreso as it is not obliterating the organization for the next owner to come in.

No, not middle of the pack.   Worst than the worst SIGNED coach.

I don't spend a lot of time fretting over that 77 coach when I can easily sign a 74.   But, if I can offer jobs to no one and get a 75, what's the point of doing anything?