• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Talent Issues 2020 Edition
#25
(07-05-2011, 05:05 PM)mattynokes Wrote:
(07-05-2011, 04:31 PM)mike Wrote: The teams that have all the higher rated guys will be the teams that have the best chance of having the drops if we lower the talent levels. It could delay other teams as well but the teams that will be affected most are the ones who already have most of the top talent. Getting to choose some of the guys that go down isn't really fair imo, especially the 90's going to the 80's. Taking a guy who could have been an agent guy down to a guy you can easily extend. Agent guys have a better chance at hitting the open market which help spread around the talent. Also there will be ways to abuse this without anyone even thinking you are abusing it. I know that may sound sinical but if the chance is there people will do it even if its subconcious on their part.

This.

Besides the talent I would've had to give up, it's one of the reasons I went after Chitty over Gagnon. Going from the low 90s to the high 80s you'll essentially drop an .850 OPS guy to .825. I'd take the lesser OPS considering I'll save an easy $5M on salary. I don't see how dropping low 80s that aren't worth their rating does any good for fixing the talent issues. If anything we'd be removing a dud, for a prospect that might become something, which is improving the talent pool.


I personally think there are 2 different issues that people are having. DJ does not like how many 90 and 80 rated players we have in the file. I also think others have an issue with where and how the talent is distrubted in the file.

Well the issue that DJ is addressing is that we now have too many 90's and 80's players in the file. So we need to lower some 90's to 80's and lower some 80's to 70's. The thought is we do this on our own accord, then adjust the % to what we have done and that will not have a negative random effect on prospects or the core of teams. The more players that are volunteered by teams will mean less random players it will effect in the file. So teams rebuilding will not have prospects delayed/killed off and teams on the cusp of competing will have a better chance to do so.

I think Matt and Mike are under the impression that if this is done randomly without players being named that the game will automatically pick Chicago, Toronto, Florida, Houston, New York, etc etc... It will effect those teams but it also will effect the players on KC, Atlanta, Colorado, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Tigers, etc etc. In my opinion, if we do this completely randomly. The random drops should balance itself out throughout the league and it will effect the teams more that do not have the depth. This will create a longer window for the teams at the top because they will have the depth to be able to sustain it.

I see what you are saying about the 90's rated players going to 80's now will not have to negotate with an agent. We could use a special circumstance with this change and the players that are 90 that are going to high 80's ratings, still will have to go through the agent system (until they reach past their 6 years played or after their next contract expires), so this effort to clean up the file will not be used in a fashion to navigate around the system in place. Considering I have 3 players I am willing to drop rating on to upper 80's this would effect me the most.
Cubs GM 2010-2021
2017 & 2019 World Champions
LAA GM 2022-2035
2028, 2029, 2032 and 2034 World Champions
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Users browsing this thread: 119 Guest(s)



Messages In This Thread
Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by dejota - 07-04-2011, 09:26 AM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by dejota - 07-04-2011, 09:37 AM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by 'PR' - 07-04-2011, 01:08 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by Drubbman - 07-04-2011, 10:41 AM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by HansLanda - 07-04-2011, 12:35 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by Peter - 07-04-2011, 02:28 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by dejota - 07-04-2011, 02:54 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by Cdawg - 07-04-2011, 03:54 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by hokeyrules - 07-04-2011, 03:06 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by rockybull - 07-04-2011, 03:17 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by dejota - 07-04-2011, 03:28 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by GoIrish - 07-04-2011, 03:33 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by mattynokes - 07-04-2011, 03:44 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by AndyP - 07-04-2011, 04:10 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by dejota - 07-04-2011, 04:28 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by AndyP - 07-04-2011, 04:34 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by dejota - 07-04-2011, 04:52 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by AndyP - 07-04-2011, 05:04 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by mike - 07-05-2011, 02:28 AM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by GoIrish - 07-05-2011, 04:08 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by mike - 07-05-2011, 04:31 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by rockybull - 07-05-2011, 04:56 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by mattynokes - 07-05-2011, 05:05 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by GoIrish - 07-05-2011, 05:34 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by mattynokes - 07-05-2011, 07:04 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by dejota - 07-05-2011, 07:27 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by Cdawg - 07-05-2011, 08:17 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by rockybull - 07-05-2011, 08:56 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by mike - 07-05-2011, 11:59 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by mike - 07-06-2011, 02:46 AM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by dejota - 07-06-2011, 04:11 AM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by Hummingbird - 07-06-2011, 03:25 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by Peter - 07-06-2011, 05:40 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by GoIrish - 07-06-2011, 06:38 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by Jordan - 07-07-2011, 01:19 AM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by Drubbman - 07-06-2011, 05:53 PM
RE: Talent Issues 2020 Edition - by dejota - 07-06-2011, 08:32 PM

Forum Jump: