|
Post by zlebk72 on Jan 16, 2007 16:03:05 GMT -5
I'm only a GM and this is not an official poll....but, I'm making this simple. please choose one. Comments would help. Stand behind your opinion(s).
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Jan 16, 2007 16:03:47 GMT -5
I voted for Rands plan. My first selfless act of '07! come on '08.....
|
|
|
Post by reds on Jan 16, 2007 17:04:33 GMT -5
I would rather we piece together all of the arguments for and against expansion, make sure everyone reads it, then have one big master vote. I feel like owners are just thinking "No I dont want to lose players" and hitting no. If everyone reads all of the benefits of expansion and then still is against it, then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 16, 2007 17:58:14 GMT -5
I'm only a GM and this is not an official poll.... It's in the polls section, how much more official do you want to get? Nobody has ever needed my permission, blessing, or any other type of approval to post a poll or express an opinion about anything. I would rather we piece together all of the arguments for and against expansion, make sure everyone reads it, then have one big master vote. I feel like owners are just thinking "No I dont want to lose players" and hitting no. If everyone reads all of the benefits of expansion and then still is against it, then so be it. I don't know how to accomplish the " make sure everyone reads it" part, but the rest sounds right to me.
|
|
|
Post by bostongm on Jan 16, 2007 21:30:25 GMT -5
voted no- dont like the very few being protected.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 16, 2007 22:14:45 GMT -5
You must be kidding!!! 21 protected players out of a maximum 45 players, that is 46.67%. Your current roster has 40 players; 21 protected players out of 40 total is 52.5%, more than half. You call that VERY FEW?!?
Back in 1961, your roster size was 47 players; you were allowed to protect 25 of them, for 53.2%. Is that what is so dramatic to you?
Some other teams had very large rosters. KC, for example, had 68 players on its November 1st roster. Protecting 25 of them meant "only" 37.3% of his players were protected. Still, it was way sufficient as he was allowed to cover the core of his team, the very core that is now ready to take over the league.
Furthermore, it's not because a player isn't protected that he will be claimed by expansion teams. We had a limit the first time and I'm not sure about this time, but surely, something would probably have been put in place. In 1961, guys like Bob Turley, Frank Sullivan and Barry Latman weren't protected and were not even claimed. Turley is still your ace, Latman is still on your team and Sullivan played with your team until the 1964 season at the end of which you released him and he still sleeps in free agency as of the current sim.
So, really, you think having the right to protect 21 players is just A FEW?!? Not enough by how many? 5? 10? 24?!
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Jan 16, 2007 23:33:45 GMT -5
What is per Rands plan? ?
|
|
|
Post by bostongm on Jan 17, 2007 7:15:40 GMT -5
yes, but out of this 21, 10 are auto on rookies
my teams not a bunch of rookies anymore.
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Jan 17, 2007 7:45:08 GMT -5
(1) simple comment is that expansion probably means more divisions....more teams in the play-offs. How can that not be a good thing?
rand made perhaps the most valid point yesterday.....for all the teams that consider themselves "approaching greatness", this is a bonus for you. It will dilute talent so that you become more enabled to win.(not to mention improved fan loyalty, which drives profit!!)
The CWS who are perhaps the leagues greatest franchise are all for expansion...who has more to lose than them? The same can be said for CLEV, LAD, LAA....all these guys have been top dogs in this league for years....yet, they are ready to lose VERY GOOD players for the overall health of the league as well as competitiveness...not just potentially good guys. I'm talking legit stars will move.
I would add that Cinnci is one of those teams climbing into serious contention...yet, his comments are all for what is best for the league....expansion.
One thing I have noticed (some data) is that teams (owners) who tend to play rooks before peak are more open-minded to expansion than those who tend to keep guys in the minors until fully peaked.
I almost forgot...kudos to Minny on his support of the proposed expansion. Guys look at his pitching staff. He stands to lose some of those guys...yet is an adamantly ready to expand.
I feel a ground swell that seems to be swinging in support of expansion. I have seen some really "deep thinking" and applaud the way this discussion had avoided becoming adversarial. Nice job guys!...on both sides of the issue.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 17, 2007 11:17:59 GMT -5
What is per Rands plan? ? Jesus wept yes, but out of this 21, 10 are auto on rookies my teams not a bunch of rookies anymore. Your team doesn't win much anymore either, as I think you've probably noticed. You have one of around eight teams that would get better by having the other teams lose some of the talent they keep beating you with.
|
|
|
Post by bostongm on Jan 18, 2007 7:16:53 GMT -5
im not good anymore because all the rookies I did have are now in the majors so there season won't be very good considering they are rookies. next year the last batch of rookies i have are coming in. and in about 3 to 4 years they will all have enough experience to finally start to play to their potential, but by that time expansion would hit and take them all away and leave me with nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 18, 2007 12:44:16 GMT -5
Have you read anything we've said? How can expansion take them all away and leave you with nothing?
|
|
|
Post by bostongm on Jan 18, 2007 22:08:01 GMT -5
ok, leave me with 5 pitchers and 7 or 8 hitters + 6 crappy pitchers and a crappy hitter or 2. and all those good guys left will probably want 20mil + contracts so I wouldn't be able to keep them long anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 19, 2007 1:52:35 GMT -5
Impossible. This adds to 5+8+6+2 = 21 players; BBM engine cannot drop a roster under 25.
You really seem to think your team will be robbed with the expansion draft...
|
|
|
Post by stros on Jan 20, 2007 3:55:45 GMT -5
fine, lets expand, although i still say this game sucks
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 20, 2007 10:56:32 GMT -5
fine, lets expand, although i still say this game sucks Switching versions without doing a re-start would change the players so much that owners would go crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Jan 20, 2007 11:01:57 GMT -5
Maybe it sucks, but it sucks less than any other game out there.
Personally, I like BBM 2K7 better, but trying to change versions without a restart is a mess, as anyone who has been through that can attest.
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Jan 20, 2007 12:10:53 GMT -5
Personally, I like BBM 2K7 better, but trying to change versions without a restart is a mess, as anyone who has been through that can attest. I've been messing with 07 alot lately and love some of the expanded stats fields as well as the lefty/right dealio. It packs some very cool improvements.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 20, 2007 13:17:16 GMT -5
But it does have many negative things as well. I tried the free version and wasn't very impressed.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 20, 2007 13:26:01 GMT -5
I tried the free version and wasn't very impressed. I tried it too. Damn near laughed my ass off
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Jan 20, 2007 13:41:49 GMT -5
I tried the free version and wasn't very impressed. I tried it too. Damn near laughed my ass off I'm wondering if there is a difference between the trial version and sold version?
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 21, 2007 11:55:25 GMT -5
I'm wondering if there is a difference between the trial version and sold version? A few things are disabled; load/save game and commissioner mode if I remember right. Been a while since I tried it. The biggest gripes I have are that: There are no improvements in the performance algorithms, it's still astoundingly random. They've continued to build on, and add, cotton candy features, almost turning a supposed simulation game into a fantasy role playing game. The interface has become as cumbersome as Out Of The Park, Pure Sim, and Diamond Mind, but BBM is still nowhere near the sim quality of any of those games. Strategies still have to be applied to the entire team; you can't have some runners steal or try for extra bases more, or set your A+ endurance ace to pitch through trouble with high pitch counts, without setting the whole team to do it. There are no more strategies than we had as of 2k2, and the game has always lacked in that area. Rookie development is even worse than what we have, it's still very random but the guys are entering the game with high school or college level skills. They've had years to refine and add strategies, and flatten out the player performance curve. But that's hard to do, so they added happiness, personalities, biographies, multiple levels of fake farm teams that still don't play each other, and a lot of other useless fluff instead. This is the part I found to be funny, as in funny/pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 21, 2007 16:09:25 GMT -5
In the trial version I used, I was able to save a game and load it later on. I was a little surprised that this worked. I was able to use commish mode as well.
The interface is amazingly ridiculous. I wasn't able to see all my team's players down in the minors because the lineup page was way too big (and my screen is just huge!!!) and if there was something to help me scroll up and down, it wasn't appearing on screen. Talk about stupid stuff: here's one major downside right there!
Sure, there is a lot of small improvements that make the game a little more fun. But there is a lot of stuff that just make it feel like it's some kind of combination of baseball and sudoku!!!
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 21, 2007 17:00:51 GMT -5
The interface is amazingly ridiculous. I wasn't able to see all my team's players down in the minors because the lineup page was way too big (and my screen is just huge!!!) Size doesn't matter ;D No, seriously. It doesn't matter how big the monitor is, you need to be in at least 1024 x 768 resolution to get that whole window. Maybe even 1280 x 1024. It should be scalable of course, but....
|
|
|
Post by stros on Jan 21, 2007 18:30:54 GMT -5
yah i agree with that, individual strategies and maybe a "manager" feature or something would be cool
|
|