Manager/Coach Free Agency

[cephasjames]

I really don't think that's what it's called in real life, but I'm thinking about how the game now will have a coach work out his X-year contract and then he goes back into the "fre agent" pot. Shouldn't we be able to offer contract exstentions and the like to managers/coaches/scouts/what-have-you? With incentives? Options years? Banana splits?

[f.montoya]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

I really don't think that's what it's called in real life, but I'm thinking about how the game now will have a coach work out his X-year contract and then he goes back into the "fre agent" pot. Shouldn't we be able to offer contract exstentions and the like to managers/coaches/scouts/what-have-you? With incentives? Options years? Banana splits?

This would work as long as your coach/scout's skills deteriorate with age or at least show some inconsistency that would make your investment somewhat of a risk rather than an attempt to hoard the best scouts/coaches for their natural life-span.

But that wouldn't be realistic, I think.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by f.montoya

This would work as long as your coach/scout's skills deteriorate with age or at least show some inconsistency that would make your investment somewhat of a risk rather than an attempt to hoard the best scouts/coaches for their natural life-span.

But that wouldn't be realistic, I think.

Very good point. I hadn't even thought of that.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

I really don't think that's what it's called in real life, but I'm thinking about how the game now will have a coach work out his X-year contract and then he goes back into the "fre agent" pot. Shouldn't we be able to offer contract exstentions and the like to managers/coaches/scouts/what-have-you? With incentives? Options years? Banana splits?

i think only managers get multi-year contracts. The others (coaches and scouts) work year to year. At the end of the year, the team decides if they want them back for another season. And usually, the coach will comeback.

i'm hoping the game will handle it similarly. The current team should get first shot at their coaches.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by f.montoya

This would work as long as your coach/scout's skills deteriorate with age or at least show some inconsistency that would make your investment somewhat of a risk rather than an attempt to hoard the best scouts/coaches for their natural life-span.

But that wouldn't be realistic, I think.

Hopefully, OOTP handles this in a manner where this is not a problem. If done correctly:

1. Managers/coach/scouts should not guarantee teams victories or success. They still need the players to play. And even the best managers/coaches shouldn't be able to turn a 1 or 2 star talent player into an MVP or Cy Young.

2. Changing teams mean the role/strength of a coach may have to differ. That would force teams to change some coaches sometimes. For instance, if your coach can handle veterans; but now you have a lot of young players on the roster. Or your team had good fielders in the past, but now several players need to work on fielding.

3. There should not be a shortage of good coaches/scouts/managers. Especially, if some retired players are added to the coach pool every year.

A few suggestions along these lines though:

1. These guys are gonna' have to retire sometimes.

2. There should be a mechanism in place where another team can hire a coach on a staff. i don't think you could do it the way MLB does it. Where you have to ask permission to talk, blah, blah. That would take too much time, too many sims. And it would require having some backlash to the refusing team programmed in. i say do it the way the NFL does it. If a team wants a coach from another team. You have to:

a) Offer him a higher position - That just gives the team the right to negotiate with the coach. The coach still is under contract with his current team and has the right to refuse a contract from the offering team.

b) Offer the coach's an acceptable salary.

The heirarchy is simple enough:

Major League Manager
Major League Bench Coach
Major League Pitching/Hitting Coach
Minor League Manager
Minor League Bench Coach
Minor League Pitching/Hitting Coach

Same thing with scouts. You have:

Head Scout
Scout

So if the Athletics are stockpiling scouts. You can always go to one and offer him your Head Scout position. If the Braves are stockpiling coaching "geniuses" at the minor league level, offer one of them a job with your big league club.

3. Also, put in a mechanism where the fans place blame on the manager/coaching staff if the team isn't doing well. If the team isn't playing up to expectations. If they fail to match their pyth. record. We get an email saying that the fans are disatisfied and the fan interest level has dropped.

[f.montoya]

I guess the magnitude of the new game and it's possibilities hasn't yet sunk in enough for me to "unlearn" the functions and limitations of the current game.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by f.montoya

I guess the magnitude of the new game and it's possibilities hasn't yet sunk in enough for me to "unlearn" the functions and limitations of the current game.

I here that's a pretty common ailment right now.

[DiMaggio5CF]

I agree that good coaches should be swept away to manage other teams on occasion.

I would also like to have the option to let the manager I hire then hire his own coaches, which happens often in baseball.

And like someone else said, a good manager shouldn't automatically result in a winning team.

Managers should just have ratings on how often they use stuff, such as pinch hitters, pinch runners, def replacements, LOOGYs, sac bunt, stolen base attempts, etc. And their prowess should mostly be the result of being the right fit with the team they manage. However, each manager should also have a rating for "willingness to adapt" and the guys with a higher rating are more likely to try to tailor their gameplan to the players they have, whereas guys with low ratings are more likely to try to force the players into the sytem.

The manager should have ratings like the ones I mentioned above, whereas hitting and pitching coaches should have specific ratings (like ability to develop rookies, ability to get veterans out of slumps, ability to prevent slumps, ability to unlock hidden potential meaning bringing around a guy with great ratings but horrible numbers, and possibly slight ability to prevent injury for pitching coaches), and base coaches should have ratings based on whether they're conservative or reckless, their ability to see the play unfolding (basicly good instincts on when to send and when to hold) and willingness to conform to the "baseball rules" (even if you think you can probably make it, you're not going to send a runner home with nobody out when holding him would bring up your cleanup guy with the bases loaded).

A good third base coach should arguably be the most important guy on the field because he's going to make those "Send the runner? Y/N" decisions that we always make.

Also, all managers and all coaches should have ratings in every area. That way, you can hire former managers as pitching coaches, former bench coaches as managers, former hitting coaches as base coaches, etc. and coaches aren't stuck in one line of work forever and ever. Obviously, each coach would be best at one thing, but he should be at least able to move around as long as he has skills that teams want.

[andymac]

I don't think that there is necessarily going to be an end-all way to tell who is a "good" manager or whatever in the new version. A big differential point for most of them is going to be philosophies. Managers are going to have ratings on how much they like to hit & run, use loogy's, stick with starting pitchers, etc. It is going to be more a process of GM's (who apparently will also have similar ratings) trying to find a match for them. At least this is how I hope it will work.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by f.montoya

I guess the magnitude of the new game and it's possibilities hasn't yet sunk in enough for me to "unlearn" the functions and limitations of the current game.

Fidel, how can you possibly blame yourself for that?

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by andymac

I don't think that there is necessarily going to be an end-all way to tell who is a "good" manager or whatever in the new version. A big differential point for most of them is going to be philosophies. Managers are going to have ratings on how much they like to hit & run, use loogy's, stick with starting pitchers, etc. It is going to be more a process of GM's (who apparently will also have similar ratings) trying to find a match for them. At least this is how I hope it will work.

Imagine a GM hiring a "good" manager that doesn't end up gelling with how the GM wants things, and then hiring coaches that just don't mesh with the manager - a bad GM kills a good manager

Good point andymac.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Imagine a GM hiring a "good" manager that doesn't end up gelling with how the GM wants things, and then hiring coaches that just don't mesh with the manager - a bad GM kills a good manager

Good point andymac.

Exactly, Lou Pinella is a pretty good manager, but he wasn't able to do much in Tampa Bay with a AAA pitching staff. I can't think of any managers that could have taken over the Yankees the last 10 years and not at least had them in contention every single year with the players they have had. I mean, look at how many times Dusty Baker has managed to make the playoffs.

[mgsports]

Coaches and Personal have the same length contracts as Managers and GM'S!

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by DiMaggio5CF

I agree that good coaches should be swept away to manage other teams on occasion.

I would also like to have the option to let the manager I hire then hire his own coaches, which happens often in baseball.

And like someone else said, a good manager shouldn't automatically result in a winning team.

Managers should just have ratings on how often they use stuff, such as pinch hitters, pinch runners, def replacements, LOOGYs, sac bunt, stolen base attempts, etc. And their prowess should mostly be the result of being the right fit with the team they manage. However, each manager should also have a rating for "willingness to adapt" and the guys with a higher rating are more likely to try to tailor their gameplan to the players they have, whereas guys with low ratings are more likely to try to force the players into the sytem.

The manager should have ratings like the ones I mentioned above, whereas hitting and pitching coaches should have specific ratings (like ability to develop rookies, ability to get veterans out of slumps, ability to prevent slumps, ability to unlock hidden potential meaning bringing around a guy with great ratings but horrible numbers, and possibly slight ability to prevent injury for pitching coaches), and base coaches should have ratings based on whether they're conservative or reckless, their ability to see the play unfolding (basicly good instincts on when to send and when to hold) and willingness to conform to the "baseball rules" (even if you think you can probably make it, you're not going to send a runner home with nobody out when holding him would bring up your cleanup guy with the bases loaded).

A good third base coach should arguably be the most important guy on the field because he's going to make those "Send the runner? Y/N" decisions that we always make.

Also, all managers and all coaches should have ratings in every area. That way, you can hire former managers as pitching coaches, former bench coaches as managers, former hitting coaches as base coaches, etc. and coaches aren't stuck in one line of work forever and ever. Obviously, each coach would be best at one thing, but he should be at least able to move around as long as he has skills that teams want.

Good stuff in here, DiMaggio.

According to blogs and screenshots a lot of what you're talking about should be in OOTP2k6.

However, i hadn't heard about there being 1st & 3rd base coaches. i'd like to see them; as well as the bullpen coach. But only for the major league teams.

i wouldn't give coaches a rating for coaching the bases on a basis of how good or bad they are. i would rate them from very aggressive to very conservative. IMHO the badness or goodness of a third base coach is gained through reputation based on team's record, team's record in close games and how often players get thrown out at home.

These additional coaches wouldn't aid in development. i would think you could use them as fielding coaches. But i don't know how each team works IRL. In Houston, Jose Cruz (1st base coach) works with the outfielders on their defense.

[Astros33Resurrected]

Originally Posted by DiMaggio5CF

I agree that good coaches should be swept away to manage other teams on occasion.

I would also like to have the option to let the manager I hire then hire his own coaches, which happens often in baseball.

And like someone else said, a good manager shouldn't automatically result in a winning team.

Managers should just have ratings on how often they use stuff, such as pinch hitters, pinch runners, def replacements, LOOGYs, sac bunt, stolen base attempts, etc. And their prowess should mostly be the result of being the right fit with the team they manage. However, each manager should also have a rating for "willingness to adapt" and the guys with a higher rating are more likely to try to tailor their gameplan to the players they have, whereas guys with low ratings are more likely to try to force the players into the sytem.

The manager should have ratings like the ones I mentioned above, whereas hitting and pitching coaches should have specific ratings (like ability to develop rookies, ability to get veterans out of slumps, ability to prevent slumps, ability to unlock hidden potential meaning bringing around a guy with great ratings but horrible numbers, and possibly slight ability to prevent injury for pitching coaches), and base coaches should have ratings based on whether they're conservative or reckless, their ability to see the play unfolding (basicly good instincts on when to send and when to hold) and willingness to conform to the "baseball rules" (even if you think you can probably make it, you're not going to send a runner home with nobody out when holding him would bring up your cleanup guy with the bases loaded).

A good third base coach should arguably be the most important guy on the field because he's going to make those "Send the runner? Y/N" decisions that we always make.

Also, all managers and all coaches should have ratings in every area. That way, you can hire former managers as pitching coaches, former bench coaches as managers, former hitting coaches as base coaches, etc. and coaches aren't stuck in one line of work forever and ever. Obviously, each coach would be best at one thing, but he should be at least able to move around as long as he has skills that teams want.

good ideas.