NDL Forum

Since we strive for realism across the league as much as we can, I wanted to ask everyone their thoughts on coaches throughout the league.

In the past we have said let guys fill as they want and either to utilize them or not.
Should it be a requirement that all teams have coaches at all levels like it would across the real game?

I for one have no coaches in my minor leagues and haven't seen a reason to do so but also for me it was a cost cutting measure for me to catch up on budget. Right or wrong, we haven't discussed an official rule on it.

Just something I thought of as I got deeper into the league details and refining processes moving forward.

Just for discussion. Thanks for the feedback.

If we can get rid of them entirely, that would be preferable.

I've said it before, I doubt anyone can name more than a very small handful of their entire staff, or even their ML staff. Meaning, we don't really care about them as a whole IMO.

I vote yes, especially at the major league level.. i know the minors are tough to keep up with all the time, I'm guilty of letting some of those slide myself

I don't have a preference. Up for whatever.

Not sure why it would be a requirement. I'd prefer if the poll was whether to do away with them entirely

shel311 wrote:Not sure why it would be a requirement. I'd prefer if the poll was whether to do away with them entirely

If we have coaches, you have to have them. Very unrealistic not to.

The should we have them debate is certainly something else. However, not sure what that would do to our finances... Seems like a bit of a danger to open up that box

is there a way to just have coaches for our ML team?

Seeitsaveit13 wrote:

shel311 wrote:Not sure why it would be a requirement. I'd prefer if the poll was whether to do away with them entirely

If we have coaches, you have to have them. Very unrealistic not to.

The should we have them debate is certainly something else. However, not sure what that would do to our finances... Seems like a bit of a danger to open up that box

Yes and no to financials. We could squash them and adjust the financials on the fly, which might lead to some inflation in the first few seasons. Or depending on how much effort 1 of the commishes want to put into it, we could analyze the impact over a few seasons and adjust the financials on day 1 to be more accurate.

My only concern would be how the managers are handled when doing a conversion.

The more I think about it, the more I think it should just be a requirement to have every spot filled... if there is going to be any change made at all. At least we have the option to sign a super cheap scrub in rookie ball then immediately promote him up to AAA. (I can live with how it is today)

ReignOnU wrote:The more I think about it, the more I think it should just be a requirement to have every spot filled... if there is going to be any change made at all.

This is what I was aiming at.

Making it a requirement makes it a consistent, realistic structure throughout our league and guys aren't taking advantage of the financial loophole of not hiring coaches (guilty).

Cnasty wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:The more I think about it, the more I think it should just be a requirement to have every spot filled... if there is going to be any change made at all.

This is what I was aiming at.

Making it a requirement makes it a consistent, realistic structure throughout our league and guys aren't taking advantage of the financial loophole of not hiring coaches (guilty).

That's assuming no one gets bitter about the loophole that I just explained to get a low cost staff in place.

Low cast staff is better than no cost staff in my eyes. It is up to you if you want to hire Bobby Valentine versus Joe Maddon

Cnasty wrote:Low cast staff is better than no cost staff in my eyes. It is up to you if you want to hire Bobby Valentine versus Joe Maddon

I'm going with Ozzie Guillen

Turrible!

We're taking something we really don't seem to care about or spend much time on(as a whole) and making it to where we spend more time on it but still won't care about it.

I know I'm speaking in generalities but you get the idea. I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain the majority of us can't name more than 3-5 coaches in the entire league and I'm not sure how much time we're spending over coaches careers and ratings like we do with players before we sign them.

Seems like it's basically a chore. Let's get started on the coaches vs no coaches debate!!!

shel311 wrote:Seems like it's basically a chore. Let's get started on the coaches vs no coaches debate!!!

The vote of the group would disagree with you.

Cnasty wrote:

shel311 wrote:Seems like it's basically a chore. Let's get started on the coaches vs no coaches debate!!!

The vote of the group would disagree with you.

I'm with you Shel. I can care less about my minor league coaches. I've had coaches and I've gone without coaches in some positions and haven't noticed a difference.

I'll never be convinced that guys, as a whole, actually care about coaches.

Feels like we're doing it to be sim/realistic but that just seems silly to me all things considered.

To further clarify, I just don't see the value coaches add to the league. Seems like the work we put in to sign coaches doesn't outweigh the value added to the league. Doesn't seem to add fun and adds zero immersion during seasons as we never discuss great coaches, past or present.

I know I'm in the minority, it's just one of those things that never made any sense to me for our league.

shel311 wrote:Feels like we're doing it to be sim/realistic but that just seems silly to me all things considered.

That is one reason, the other being a financial impact as well.

I understand what you are stating and I agreed with you as I never had coaches and I was broke.

I see some financial and realistic benefit to it across the league so instead of changing it I wanted to see how everyone felt on the topic and so far a lot are in favor of realism but only 11 have voted so we will see.

Compare it to our playoff process. We deviate from the sim or real life way of doing it because it adds fun and immersion to the league.

If coaches were a super awesome thing we talked about and debated the greats and we knew the names of more than 1 current coach(I know zero), then I'd be all for it. But we don't.

I'd assume, as Reign said above, we could work around the financial aspect.

it just doesn't add any immersion to the league, unless we're talking about getting rid of them or not, so I don't see the appeal of keeping them.

Thanks for your vote and feedback on the topic.