|
Post by American Royal on Mar 17, 2009 9:43:47 GMT -5
If you ask me and probably quite a few other owners something has to be changed with the minor league system. With the minor league spending frozen (which I agree with) my teams minor league system grade will never get any better and the teams that have a good minor league system grade will never get worse. So the good teams will stay good and the bad teams will stay bad. I don’t know about too many other teams but I have seen too many of my players go thru my minor leagues and get worse and that will continue to happen if nothing changes. I have already seen a decline in Alan Trammell in one year in my minors. I might as well trade him now while his value is great before my minors ruin him. But that is no way to build a team if I can’t build players.
I suggest lowering the spending cap on minor leagues and going in and resetting the grades on everyone’s team.
If changes don’t happen the teams with the better minor league system grade will stay competitive and the teams with worser grades will stay bad
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 10:45:30 GMT -5
I suggest lowering the spending cap on minor leagues and going in and resetting the grades on everyone’s team. Resetting the grades on every team is an idea I have been thinking a lot about. Obviously something worth seriously thinking about. I have been thinking about how to put some balance back into TMBL, and that is the one thing I keep coming back to. Lowering the spending cap probably wouldn't help, though. Teams with enourmous amount of cash and high profits would simply put the money elsewhere, such as signing free agents to salaries only they can afford. But I think the timing for doing something about what you describe has never been better.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Mar 17, 2009 11:00:48 GMT -5
Maybe I'm wrong, but my take on the effect of farm system spending on farm system rating is this:
First, the amount of spending doesn't matter. It's only the rank of your teams spending vs everybody else's that matters. So if my team is in 5th rank in farm spending, it doesn't really matter whether it takes $5M to be in 5th place or $50M.
Second, and more germane to this discussion, is that it takes 4-5 years to see the full effect of any change in spending rank. So if my farm system is rated low because I didn't spend as much as others and then I change my spending to match what everybody else is spending, it'll take 5 years to catch up. The only way to speed that up would be to spend MORE than everybody else, but when we're all already at the limit, that can't happen. My team isn't doomed to forever have a low rating, but it won't change immediately either. So in our league, where almost everybody is spending the maximum amount, within five years everybody should have the same ratings.
I wouldn't think that the teams who have been spending at the max for several years and now have A+ ratings would take kindly to having the ratings reset.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 11:57:08 GMT -5
Maybe I'm wrong, but my take on the effect of farm system spending on farm system rating is this: First, the amount of spending doesn't matter. It's only the rank of your teams spending vs everybody else's that matters. So if my team is in 5th rank in farm spending, it doesn't really matter whether it takes $5M to be in 5th place or $50M. Exactly. It's the same with Scouting and Medical. Second, and more germane to this discussion, is that it takes 4-5 years to see the full effect of any change in spending rank. So if my farm system is rated low because I didn't spend as much as others and then I change my spending to match what everybody else is spending, it'll take 5 years to catch up. The only way to speed that up would be to spend MORE than everybody else, but when we're all already at the limit, that can't happen. My team isn't doomed to forever have a low rating, but it won't change immediately either. So in our league, where almost everybody is spending the maximum amount, within five years everybody should have the same ratings. It does take time. Five years is a hell of a lot of time for these teams. During that span, they realize their best prospects aren't progressing so most of them end up considering trading these players to other teams, often those with great farm systems in which the player will become even better, making those teams even stronger in the long term. So what we're currently looking at is a period of 5 years minimum during which all teams with a bad farm cannot hope developping good players through their system. Once their farm improves in 5 years, they can start the building all over... again. Some of these teams have been building for a long while already. I wouldn't think that the teams who have been spending at the max for several years and now have A+ ratings would take kindly to having the ratings reset. If it's done for the health of the league, I would hope they could come to agree with it. Being one of those owners myself, there is one thing I can see when I take a close look at the future of the NL: the Dodgers, Pirates, Phillies and Giants have been aren't going to get it done through the farm anytime soon. We have 2 choices: wait for the balance to come back naturally or operate a small intervention. In other words, let the gap between great and bad teams keep widening or do something before it's too late.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Mar 17, 2009 12:37:27 GMT -5
i think the grades should be reset...a little unfair to the teams that always spent a lot on farm, but thats life.
Also i think the cap for the farm should be set a little higher, not lower.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Mar 17, 2009 12:46:20 GMT -5
The problem I see when using commissioner privileges to "adjust" grades, it doesn't only effect the team in question. It alters many other teams simultaneously. I challenge someone to change the teams in the NL that have less than steller graded farm systems without it (the AI) effecting other teams negatively. Unless there is a way to have everyone spend the same amount and have the same grade I see no alternative than to let things play out as the game intended.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Mar 17, 2009 13:02:23 GMT -5
As an expansion owner I wanted to run some sims before drafting. I set my rankings just as Terry had said ( C ) and I set my spending to tie for first place. I put some of the best players from the draft on my team I was even careful not to put 2 of any of the same position in the same level R, A, AA, or AAA. I ran my first sim and I was stunned to find that my Farm system had gone back to a D+ before the end of the first year. Still I pushed on surely this had to change as I was spending number one money, wrong. It got worse it went to a D. I ran sim after sim and the players I put on my team kept getting worse. When your team goes to a D it takes even longer than five years to come back from. I understand that some people have been spending a lot on Farm and Medical for a long time. I also understand that some owners have chosen not to spend money at all. I don’t think we should just automatically put everyone at A+ but we should put them around a B.
I personally just want a fighting chance,
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Mar 17, 2009 13:11:30 GMT -5
To help teams in or could be in financial trouble we should keep the cap the same (13mill) or lower it.
I think resetting everyones farm to a B would help.
If things go as they are all my minor leaguers and all my future ones have no shot at the majors for at least another 10 drafts whille my team continues to suffer and lose money because i can't afford free agents.
Do I trade all my rookies and future DP's for players now and keep my minors empty? All that will do is help the other teams that have higher grades in the minors. That is no way to run a team nor a way I want to run a team.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Mar 17, 2009 13:21:25 GMT -5
In my other league, we reset (or alter) the teams needing to be altered every offseason. Perhaps we should eliminate the spending caps on farm and medical all together. Even if it turns out that a spending war breaks out - that might be good for overall league health. We've got owners (no offense Scott) posting "too much cash" in thier trade blocks. I know that everyone's quick reply will be that if we remove the caps then the big money teams will blow everyone away with their spending. And while that may be true, it will also begin to eat away at those huge cash reserves that some teams have. One thing is for sure, owners still have to be responsible for "managing" thier farm systems, regardless of the grade that each franchise is assigned by the game.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Mar 17, 2009 13:33:15 GMT -5
I think resetting everyones farm to a B would help. That's the problem......I don't think it can be done. Try it.
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Mar 17, 2009 13:39:48 GMT -5
As an expansion owner I wanted to run some sims before drafting. I set my rankings just as Terry had said ( C ) and I set my spending to tie for first place. I put some of the best players from the draft on my team I was even careful not to put 2 of any of the same position in the same level R, A, AA, or AAA. I ran my first sim and I was stunned to find that my Farm system had gone back to a D+ before the end of the first year. Still I pushed on surely this had to change as I was spending number one money, wrong. It got worse it went to a D. I ran sim after sim and the players I put on my team kept getting worse. When your team goes to a D it takes even longer than five years to come back from. I understand that some people have been spending a lot on Farm and Medical for a long time. I also understand that some owners have chosen not to spend money at all. I don’t think we should just automatically put everyone at A+ but we should put them around a B. I personally just want a fighting chance, Exactly. I have been spending top dollar on my farm for some time now, and I have done some sims nearly ten years ahead of time and my farm has never risen above a C-. I don't know if this is a problem with the game or what, but if my farm can't improve even if I'm spending top $$$ on it then why bother paying big money on it in the first place? There should at least be something done for the teams who have made a legitimate attempt to upgrade their farm over a substantial period of time, yet have not reaped the awards for it. What if Terry ups the grades on the farm by a letter grade for every five years of spending top dollar on it? I'm glad this was brought up. It has really been getting on my nerves recently when I've realized that no matter what I do, my farm is not going to get any better for the foreseeable future. I can understand why it might not reach an A+ level like the Braves or Reds, but for it to hardly improve at all over time despite my best efforts makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Mar 17, 2009 13:59:37 GMT -5
I just changed everyone to a+ with zero spending on Farm for the NL. When I change one to an A+, another team would drop and so on and so on. But, after playing things out everyone changed to A+, except Pittsburgh, they dropped to a C+ and then a C.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 14:12:33 GMT -5
Do I trade all my rookies and future DP's for players now and keep my minors empty? All that will do is help the other teams that have higher grades in the minors. That is no way to run a team nor a way I want to run a team. This is exactly the problem for all the teams in the same situation, but in fact it's worst than that. It doesn't concern only "those" teams, but the entire league. To be competitive, the Royals and the others with similar Farm need to trade rookies and draft picks. It might help them be competitive now, but by spreading their rookies and picks among teams with better Farm, it is the very future and balance of the league that will be affected. I don’t think we should just automatically put everyone at A+ but we should put them around a B. I would tend to agree. I have seen teams with a Farm around B or B+ get excellent development from their minor league players. It was the case in recent years with teams like the Boston Red Sox and Minnesota Twins. A couple of years ago, we decided to reset the Farm grade on 3 teams (CHW, DET, SF) that had been severely hurt by a series of careless owners (not the current ones!). It worked pretty damn well for CHW and DET, whose farm (reset to B, if I remember correctly, at the time) soon reached A- and A+. It didn't work as well for the Giants, but they weren't spending top dollars on the farm, so their grade gradually returned to C-. As for removing the caps and allowing a bidding war, that is no solution. I was already thinking about raising the cap, and perhaps doing it on Scouting and Medical too, but without a cap there is no way the teams not called Braves, Reds or Indians are going to accept not tying the top spenders. I just changed everyone to a+ with zero spending on Farm for the NL. When I change one to an A+, another team would drop and so on and so on. But, after playing things out everyone changed to A+, except Pittsburgh, they dropped to a C+ and then a C. These results greatly depend on how you change them. If you go in League Editor once and do the changes on all teams by scrolling from team to team, the results are not the same than if you go back in League Editor. I will test things different ways and compare the results.
|
|
|
Post by drew on Mar 17, 2009 14:34:23 GMT -5
I definitely am in favor of doing something regarding this issue. Anything done would probably help my current minor league system. My draft picks have essentially become trading pawns because no matter what I do in sims prospects don't develop very well. In 1977 for instance I will be playing 2 players that really could use another year in the minors but they will develop faster in the majors. I am trying to build my team to be competitive around 1980 but even at that point I will eventually get screwed because either 1) I have traded my prospects/DPs away or 2) I drafted players and they ended up being mediocre.
I think a change would in the best interest of the league not just because my system sucks but because there are a handful teams that are not going to compete for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 15:22:01 GMT -5
I think a change would in the best interest of the league not just because my system sucks but because there are a handful teams that are not going to compete for a long time. Not only are they going to be unable to compete for a long time, but some of them haven't been competing for a while, and their bad farm was one of the reasons for it. Paul C. is right about the fact that changing the grades on the teams eventually alters those of the other teams around. But here's something I just noticed in a sim ran after modifying all the teams with a Farm B- or worse to B+: On April 1, after finishing the modifications, 12 teams are at C+ or lower (C-, D+, etc...). But... I simmed watching only the Finances screen. The Farm grades of the teams that have long been spending (Braves, Reds, Indians, etc...) were improving, while their opposite (Giants, etc...) were getting worst. But... Around the end of August, suddenly a lot of teams wound up at A+. In fact, only PIT in the NL wasn't at A+ (being at C-) while 4 AL teams (CAL, KC, MIL, NYY) were at C-. Everyone else: A+. I can see why KC, MIL and NYY aren't improving much, as I think those haven't been top spenders in Farm for a long while. PIT has tied the leaders, but probably not that long ago. Only CAL mystifies me; from as far as I remember, they were spending, but maybe I don't remember it right. These stay the same through the 1977-78 offseason and remain the same until the end of the postseason, where all the A+ teams become A. The 4 teams at C- are still at that level, though. Then the A teams go back to A+ soon after the start of the 1979 season, at which point there is still no improvement on the 4 teams at C-. Still, I'd say this is better news than bad. I'll keep testing it, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Philthydelphia on Mar 17, 2009 16:03:51 GMT -5
I've been tied at #1 for a number of seasons - always my philosophy before - and usually try to stay out of FA as much as possible until I get something built - I guess that's part of the reason I don't seem to be getting much accomplished I have some good and mediocre minor league players, but none really seem to improve a whole lot - and many just steadily decline. What would be totally wrong with the free market system? It might make a few owners decide between Farm system and FA or a balance of both. The rankings could be reset for some - there is no reason teams that have been spending the max for the last five seasons shouldn't all be at the same farm system ranking by now. We either need to change the limits and/or reset; maybe a combination of both IMO. If we just reset rankings, it may be something that has to be done every season - and also tracked to see whom is spending (what ranking they are) for each season.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Mar 17, 2009 16:16:51 GMT -5
I agree this is a very important topic, so important that we should come to some type of resolution prior to the start of the season. Even if it means delaying it.
I also believe that we should be all in or all out of this. Everyone is the same or let things go the way they go without any interference. (and yes, this means removing the $13 million dollar limiT) I really don't like the idea of picking certain teams for improvement and not others. This leaves way to much to individual interpretation (the recent bailout of AIG comes to mind)
What if we, immediately set all teams farm spending to the same number.....$13,000,000....$5,000,000......$zero, whatever, it really shouldn't matter. Then changed everyone to A+. I do realize that everyone will jump around for a few sims, but most teams will go to gravitate towards A+ after a bit (I believe). Terry, may have to reset certain teams if they fall below a certain grade, say A- for example, before each sim is run. Eventually this should even out that aspect of the game. Teams that draft well, will will continue to draft well, though. Some owners will study more than others. But, I don't think the current system is working. We need all owners to have hope of contending or they'll just leave and that could be devastating.
On another note, I just want to say I do not like the new rule about not trading recently signed free agents. What if I sign someone and then don't contend, why shouldn't I be able to get something on the open market for someone signed during the off season??? I understand why we went this way, but I believe this solution is to wide scope and the individual problems should be dealt with as individuals. That's it on that, I've said my peace.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Mar 17, 2009 16:45:45 GMT -5
I can see why KC, MIL and NYY aren't improving much, as I think those haven't been top spenders in Farm for a long while. Actually, Milwaukee has been at the maximum since midway through the 1973 season, 3-1/2 years, after a couple of years of being in the middle of the pack. My farm rating got up to A- by the end of last season, which is about what I would expect. But now it has suddenly dropped to C+, which makes no sense at all. I'm normally a strong proponent of letting the market (and the game) take whatever course it wants, with a minimum of interference. But it certainly appears to me that the game has a bug that is screwing up the ratings.
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Mar 17, 2009 17:00:22 GMT -5
There has to be a change in my opinion. I spent a ton of time simming out prospects for this year's draft and hardly any turn out simply because of my minor league system while they blossom into stars for others. I don't think that's fair because I've been spending plenty of $$$ on my farm for some time and spend a lot of time trying to draft the right players.
A lot of owners such as myself are making a genuine attempt to catch up with some of the best teams, but it's just not possible when the game won't allow my team to improve in the minors no matter how much I spend on it.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Mar 17, 2009 17:25:16 GMT -5
It seems if teams are spending the same in Farm system but less in scouting in negatively impacts the farm system.....KC, Cal for example
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Mar 17, 2009 17:44:14 GMT -5
We've got owners (no offense Scott) posting "too much cash" in thier trade blocks. I know that everyone's quick reply will be that if we remove the caps then the big money teams will blow everyone away with their spending. And while that may be true, it will also begin to eat away at those huge cash reserves that some teams have. One thing is for sure, owners still have to be responsible for "managing" thier farm systems, regardless of the grade that each franchise is assigned by the game. None taken. And you are right, I could probably spend $30-35M on the farm a year and not have worry about my cash. I would still be making a profit of $20M+ a year. And that is while already operating at the maximum amount of cash at $150M. After this season, when I earn cash, it is just going to vanish into thin air. Ok, I am going to go back to reading the thread now...
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Mar 17, 2009 17:51:38 GMT -5
I have some good and mediocre minor league players, but none really seem to improve a whole lot - and many just steadily decline. This could also have to do with the players you drafted. Even in my system which is an A+, there will be a number of players in each draft that decline every single year. The majority, however, do improve over time.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Mar 17, 2009 18:04:27 GMT -5
Alright, I think I am caught up.
Even though my team will lose a big advantage over this, I tend to lean on the side of letting teams move back up to an A+ or a B or whatever. If it worked for the White Sox and Tigers, then why not move some more teams in the same fashion? I am not sure I agree with moving every single team to an A+, but if we worked it the same way we worked the situation with the Giants, Tigers, and White Sox a few years ago, I think it would be good overall.
As far as the spending caps....who knows. There is no right solution there. If you keep a spending cap, then you are going to have teams like mine operating at a maximum amount of cash ($150M) for eternity. If you get rid of the cap, you are going to have teams like mine willing to spend any amount of money anyone else bids because I have so much cash.
Maybe the solution is to move any team below a B to a B. After this occurs, you keep everyone at or above the B level that is spending the current cap of $13M. The rest of us can have the cap removed and spend away for the A+ grades. Is there really a huge difference between an A+ and a B? I doubt it.... This plan keeps everyone on at least the B level forever and you cannot go below it as long as you are spending the current cap of $13M. I think this could be reset at the beginning or end of each season. The plan also allows the rest of the teams to spend however much we feel like spending. BUT, the commish will have to make sure the spending is reasonble for a given team's situation. If I am spending $25M, the Giants cannot be spending $25M because they cannot possibly do that and still have any cash left.
That seems like the best of both worlds and should greatly improve the league competition from its current state. You are always going to have careless owners who just don't care. This is a bit of a "bailout" for them, but it does not guarentee anything as they still have to draft well which is not the easiest thing in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 18:13:08 GMT -5
I agree this is a very important topic, so important that we should come to some type of resolution prior to the start of the season. Even if it means delaying it.¸ I entirely agree. I should have started this discussion earlier, but better late than never. It probably wouldn't mean a long delay, possibly only one sim. But this is definitely extremely important aspect that can no longer be overlooked. But, I don't think the current system is working. We need all owners to have hope of contending or they'll just leave and that could be devastating. My thoughts, exactly.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Mar 17, 2009 18:22:57 GMT -5
OK, using the current file and changing all spending (Farm, medical and scouting) for each team to zero. By the end of the season all teams are rated identical.
If we do this and leave it this way, it seems to me it's a level playing field is now available for all regardless of an owners imcompetance or inexperience. We would have to raise the current salaries by enough to compensate for the more than half a billion dollars that were earmarked for these programs. Are economy will be changed forever as a result, but it works.
|
|