NDL Forum

dakshdar wrote:

ajalves wrote:Coug traded his good guys - now he is a contender
Shel- same thing
detroit, south park - did it some too
omaha - did it and won a championship.

its what guys choose to do....you think we should be building through the draft and free agency only?

In general, the part I don't get is teams without a shot at a title giving up very good prospects for aging players that won't be able to contribute when that team is actually relevant.

In my opinion, don't look at trades by Niddler and Seeit, they lose track of who they traded and with whom...

Guys are smarter, no doubt. But I am with Dak in the sense that teams "give up" on prospects or seasons too early sometimes.

It's simply the nature of guys playing a simulation baseball game. A lot of people are impatient and don't want to wait 4-5 seasons (nearly 1 real year) to have a great team.

I don't blame a team that is sitting on at .500 right now for going out and getting an SP like G. Wan (yeah, cheap plug!) to try to push them into a playoff spot. I'd certainly do the same thing if my finances weren't going to be crippled.

ajalves wrote:

dakshdar wrote:

ajalves wrote:Coug traded his good guys - now he is a contender
Shel- same thing
detroit, south park - did it some too
omaha - did it and won a championship.

its what guys choose to do....you think we should be building through the draft and free agency only?

In general, the part I don't get is teams without a shot at a title giving up very good prospects for aging players that won't be able to contribute when that team is actually relevant.

maybe. I'll say from outside perception, you appear to be 180 degrees the other way. have you ever made a trade? Not a knock at all, just a thought

I'm absolutely too enamored with my players. I've made a few trades but often only when I have a large amount of depth at a position.

Anyway, I feel immersion is increased today.

dakshdar wrote:

ajalves wrote:

dakshdar wrote:

ajalves wrote:Coug traded his good guys - now he is a contender
Shel- same thing
detroit, south park - did it some too
omaha - did it and won a championship.

its what guys choose to do....you think we should be building through the draft and free agency only?

In general, the part I don't get is teams without a shot at a title giving up very good prospects for aging players that won't be able to contribute when that team is actually relevant.

maybe. I'll say from outside perception, you appear to be 180 degrees the other way. have you ever made a trade? Not a knock at all, just a thought

I'm absolutely too enamored with my players. I've made a few trades but often only when I have a large amount of depth at a position.

Anyway, I feel immersion is increased today.

And Coug...I am not sure what you even mean here...you upset that I do too many trades?

cougnix wrote:In my opinion, don't look at trades by Niddler and Seeit, they lose track of who they traded and with whom...

Everyone has their own opinions on how to run their team.
When I came into the league, I saw some free agents sitting out there that I thought could help my .500 team get better.
I signed a few of them to a little longer contracts and in the end, all it did was hurt my team.
I ended up not getting any better than .500 and had bigger contracts that in the last 2-3 seasons, my team ran in the negative financially because of it.

So there came a point when I said, screw it. Let me get financials under wraps.
So I traded away any good player I had, which wasn't many and I built what should be one hell of a starting rotation that should hit the ML level in a season or two from now.
So like Reign stated, at first, I was impatient. The game was new to me, I came in, saw a team at .500 ish and figured, we are only a few players away from maybe making it into the playoffs.

Then as time went by, I learned, a lot, and figured, ok, let's reboot our organization and start to build it the way we want it, from scratch.

Some guys, like myself, spend a ton of time reading forums, bugging the shit out of guys like Reign, Beefy, Ryan, etc. picking their brain and learning things about OOTP.
When the boards are slow during the offseason, doesn't bother me, I go out and read what I can elsewhere about the game and how to get better.

I have a plan in place from some things I read and that is what I am trying now.
So I don't fault guys for running their team how they see fit.

Lol, is there a sarcasm Smilie?

Niddler, you are NDL Commish, find a sarcasm smilie...

cougnix wrote:Don't kill nicks dreams dak, just let it go...

whats this have to do with me?

ajalves wrote:Coug traded his good guys - now he is a contender
Shel- same thing
detroit, south park - did it some too
omaha - did it and won a championship.

its what guys choose to do....you think we should be building through the draft and free agency only?

I don't think it's feasible to build thru the draft and free agency ONLY. Maybe I am wrong.

I didn't want to start my rebuild this year, was actually looking at either next year or the year after. That is kind of the reason I asked the question a couple of days ago. My main reason to start a rebuild is finances. I have lost money each year I believe. This year I was projected to be -30 million(ish). That would have put me right around zero. (of course this is if I am reading the financial report correctly)

Steve Bryant going down for his career helped me push to a rebuild also. He was a tone setter at the top of the lineup and I had absolutely nobody to replace him. Pretty hard to replace a guy who hit .379 and .354 his first two seasons.

Another reason for my rebuild is I have absolutely nobody in my minors as I traded away most for pieces here and there to stay a playoff team. It's actually what helped me win it all 2 years ago.

I am about 30% complete with my rebuild process now. One of the biggest pieces to be moved was Jim Cole and his $21m contract this year. Now if I can move Patton/Hernandez for the right prospects I will be back competing in the playoffs, and hopefully another improbable run at a title, within 3-5 years.

Ya know, in all of my years of playing this game (since OOTP 2007), I have never seen a pitcher with ratings like Thomas.

trendon wrote:Ya know, in all of my years of playing this game (since OOTP 2007), I have never seen a pitcher with ratings like Thomas.

had almost this exact conversation with someone last night....

dakshdar wrote:Why does it feel like this is the cycle of the league:

1. Marginal teams go "rebuild" and dump all their good players.
2. Those good players go to teams that are on the cusp of winning it all, while the team getting the good players gives up marginal talent.
3. Those teams then can win it all and dump the recently acquired players on marginal teams with no real shot of winning, getting all the "no-shot" team's best prospects back in return.
4. Some other good team comes along, fleeces the marginal team for the good player giving up scrubs (again).

I stand by two reasons for all of this:

1. We - as a group - do not have a solid grasp of how to handle our minors and it greatly affects the way we trade. I will even go as far as to say that the worst idea we (mainly, I) had was to allow for numerical ratings for overall and potential; and ones so high (20-80). It should be stars and the ratings should be dropped to a lesser scale (1-20, at worst). There is almost no fog of war here.

2. In my opinion, the ratings are not tied into stats enough. It should be heavily weighed with stats. This affects many aspects of the game, namely what Joe is talking about.

To be honest, if you put a gun to my head and asked me what immediate change I would do to improve this league, I would say (and I know this is drastic), "We go stats-only starting next season."

cougnix wrote:

dakshdar wrote:

ajalves wrote:Coug traded his good guys - now he is a contender
Shel- same thing
detroit, south park - did it some too
omaha - did it and won a championship.

its what guys choose to do....you think we should be building through the draft and free agency only?

In general, the part I don't get is teams without a shot at a title giving up very good prospects for aging players that won't be able to contribute when that team is actually relevant.

In my opinion, don't look at trades by Niddler and Seeit, they lose track of who they traded and with whom...

Not sure if you meant someone else, but I could tell you exactly where I got each player from what what role they have (or will have, or hopefully will have) on my roster/org. I honestly haven't done any "rebuilding" so to speak other than the past 2 years with the Hayden and Bourassa sellings when I knew my run was over. Before that it was all acquisitions based on trying to keep it (playoffs) going.

I do know what you mean though, we have some guys who make moves constantly. I dunno how they can keep them all straight when there's so many moving parts, but I do love trading, so I can see why they would do it a lot.

While I think going 'stats only' is a bad idea, I absolutely agree that what we have is too obvious. 1-20 with a better mix of stats/ability would be far more entertaining.

ReignOnU wrote:While I think going 'stats only' is a bad idea, I absolutely agree that what we have is too obvious. 1-20 with a better mix of stats/ability would be far more entertaining.

I do love/hate the random 29/30 or 40/41 kind of guy that pitches or hits like he's a 75/75. Makes you just sit there and go wtf?

I'm one of the more active traders, but I try to keep it focused. I'm usually not talking about trading my RF, 3B and SP all at the same time, which have different purposes and working multiple deals at once. I pick 1 (or multiple if they are related) that I really focus on and try to make that happen first, then move to the next.

ReignOnU wrote:While I think going 'stats only' is a bad idea, I absolutely agree that what we have is too obvious. 1-20 with a better mix of stats/ability would be far more entertaining.

At the very least, it would be the first step before going stats-only.

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:While I think going 'stats only' is a bad idea, I absolutely agree that what we have is too obvious. 1-20 with a better mix of stats/ability would be far more entertaining.

I do love/hate the random 29/30 or 40/41 kind of guy that pitches or hits like he's a 75/75. Makes you just sit there and go wtf?

Multiple answers to that... but not going to go into detail other than to say:
- Sample Size
- Some 40 rated guys are better than 60 rated guys

trendon wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:While I think going 'stats only' is a bad idea, I absolutely agree that what we have is too obvious. 1-20 with a better mix of stats/ability would be far more entertaining.

At the very least, it would be the first step before going stats-only.

Sounds intriguing. How do you deal with prospects? Seems like that would be where it's pretty tough, but ML guys with no ratings you could get by.

shel311 wrote:

trendon wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:While I think going 'stats only' is a bad idea, I absolutely agree that what we have is too obvious. 1-20 with a better mix of stats/ability would be far more entertaining.

At the very least, it would be the first step before going stats-only.

Sounds intriguing. How do you deal with prospects? Seems like that would be where it's pretty tough, but ML guys with no ratings you could get by.

Amateur? They have four years of school.

Minors? It would almost force us all to get better at minor league management.

trendon wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:While I think going 'stats only' is a bad idea, I absolutely agree that what we have is too obvious. 1-20 with a better mix of stats/ability would be far more entertaining.

At the very least, it would be the first step before going stats-only.

I think your scouting should play a role in the number. But I don't think the number should be pin point accurate. It's ok to me if the stats + scout can tell you that a player is a 8/10 guy (using 1-10) and the reality is that he's a 7 or a 9. My concern would be that stats only, combined with some slumping play would be very deceiving. I'd have to look at our mix now and what the options are to know exactly where I'd like to see it. But we're definitely thinking in the right direction.