-"Unlock" potential, changing it from a fixed, scout-based system to a more dynamic, coaching-based system
-Merit-based progression system based on age, production, playing level, and coaching (collaboratively, rather than in any order of priority)
-Create a feedback loop where Coaching IQ influenced Potential, and where team success influenced Coaching attributes
-Unlock fixed coaching attributes of patience, discipline, and loyalty. Have those attributes actually mean something. Create achievement triggers, for example where voluntary promotion = +3 loyalty, a coach leaving for free agency and getting re-hired by original team = loyalty +5, winning a minor league championship = +1 extra IQ and +3 extra patience and discipline and loyalty, etc; coach leaving for free agency and signing somewhere else = -5 loyalty, etc
-career minor leaguers who spend more years in a team's farm system should graduate to coaching with stronger starting attributes including patience discipline and especially loyalty
-Higher starting attributes including IQ would then mature into stronger Major league coaches, which would then allow you to manufacture stronger major league players.
-DITR is an incredibly useful concept, but overhaul DITR to allow each team to randomly get 2 Big ones midseason (1 hitter + 1 pitcher), but allow for a much slower Attribute trickle mid-season that would affect a number of other players ---
-Utilize the "monthly" minor league reports to target each level's high achievers with small boosts to Potential OVR
-end of season awards (across all levels) would create small boosts to current attributes
-If a player is "over-levelled", aka if the #1 overall pick 65 current OVR and 95 potential OVR plays in Rookie ball with a hitting coach who is 55 IQ, the coach is not capable of improving him and the player's development stalls. Thus, the player would need to play at the appropriate level at all times. If the 65 current 95 potential plays in AA with a coach whose IQ is 72, the player's current would improve up to 72 but nothing would happen to Potential, maybe it could even go downwards because he's stalling. Once player gets to 72 ovr, he could play in AAA with IQ of 78, he would get better up to 78 ovr and would stall again, and when he gets to ML with coach of IQ 88 he would get better up to 88 ovr.
-This "upward trajectory" system would pass each level's highest achievers to the next level. Younger players would benefit the most because they would reach each level sooner and would reach the majors sooner, therefore would be exposed to the best coaches sooner and longer. Minor league veterans would contribute to team success, therefore elevating the production of surrounding players and would help others' projections, but would not get any better on their own.
-Minor league playoffs should contribute more positively to player development. The minors should actually mean something, being competitive at all levels should mean something, understanding proper roster composition should mean something, spending adequate payroll resources on minors should mean something, etc etc
-The value of having home-grown coaches reach 99 IQ is that literally any player on your organization's depth chart could reach Current OVR 99 as long as they merited it based on age, production, awards, etc. This would lead to greater owner loyalty, and it would also generate more bidding wars for coaches and would make the process much more relevant to the game than it currently is. Coaching is massively under-powered relative to scouting because of Fixed Potential
-It makes no sense that scouting includes potential values (that are wildly inaccurate, to boot) but not current values. Scouting should be currents only, and budgets should affect Volume of prospects and Volume of attributes. Lower scouting budgets would have "??"s to mask certain attributes. For example, with a 10 budget maybe you get shown half of the attributes, maybe you get to see dur but not stam or vice versa, dominant split but not weaker split (vR for RHP not but vL for RHP) or vice versa, etc. Maybe with a 20 budget you get everything and then it's up to the user to rank the prospects based on perceived potential
-Lower IFA age to 16 and lower their current ranges to the 20s and 30s. This would encourage longer player development in rookie ball, etc, but tied in with the change to unlocking potential and linking it coaching, any of these random players could have the possibility of achieving their way to ML success. This also creates an environment where you do not have to just check your inbox twice a day for the Monster IFAs, but instead it would reward users who invest time day-after-day season-after-season with the ability to spend 50k on a prospect and develop him to success. This would lead to greater owner loyalty
-Allow for in-season development of physical, "training-based" attributes and allow for off-season development of skill, "coaching-based" attributes
-Allow for "Medical drip", in other words if a team does 20 medical, guys with 50 health who don't get injured for awhile should received attribute drip to Inj rating but also to relevant physical attributes such as arm strength, batting power, arm velocity, etc
-AAAA boost. During rollover in a season where a player ages from 26 to 27 and potential goes away, instead of having potential match current, allow for current to match potential. In other words, the veteran minor leaguer who is 60 current OVR and 70 potential OVR rolls over at 70 Current OVR, a viable minimum salary major leaguer. Each team would get 1 or 2 in a merit-based fashion, career minor league stats should mean something.
-REMOVE THE DIAMOND FROM THE PLAYER PROFILE so that you are the only team who knows who your own DITRs are.
-High ADV should be able to identify other teams' DITRs and AAAA in a way that would help you poach talent in trades, free agency, and R5
-Conversely, low ADV should involve false positives, where you could trade for a dud who has not gotten DITR or draft a R5 who has been misevaluated
-More DITRs and more AAAAs would lead to an environment where each team had more viable players than their 40-man rosters could handle. This overflow would make the Rule 5 draft actually relevant, it would make 6 year free agents more relevant, etc.
-As others have stated, merge all payroll budgets (player, coaching, prospect) into one
3/8/2017 3:13 PM (edited)