Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange
In earlier times, independent leagues were called outlaw leagues since they were outside the rules and regulations of organized baseball, that is, the agreements which existed between MLB and the NA.
|
Not to pick nits in an otherwise fine post, but not all independent leagues were outlaw leagues. "Outlaw" specifically referred to leagues which did not respect the contracts of other leagues, especially National Agreement leagues. There have existed many professional leagues which were independent but not outlaw, insofar as they did not attempt to lure players to jump existing contracts.
This has not always been a two-way street, however. In the 19th century, you'll often read in contemporary sources about leagues applying for "National protection," i.e., joining the National Agreement. The choice of terminology is telling, since National Agreement leagues felt no qualms in raiding non-NA leagues for players.
I generally concur with LGO's vision, though I disagree with him when he wrote previously that OOTP needs a financial system overhaul. OOTP needs a financial system, period. Salaries and club balance sheets right now are based on a very ad-hoc system, which severely limits the flexibility of the game. LGO's vision is ambitious and would require a significant up-front development investment. However, often starting with a clear vision of what the system should look like in the end winds up leading to simplifications in the software engineering, and it is possible that even those of you primarily interested in modern MLB-like models might be surprised when the financials start making more sense after such an overhaul. There've been many times I have rewritten major parts of programs once I had a clearer vision of what the overall structure should be, and wound up with a program that was both much smaller and more powerful. I don't know whether the same would occur in this case, but it's a distinct possibility.