You're opinion on players

[Padreman]

With the 20/80 system

I'm sure you will agree with me I have no players in my major league team whose ratings are 20--29

But how do you feel about players whose ratings are 30-39? Do you guys have a monger team? I'm assuming if you do what bench players? Or guys 40-49 bench or starting lineup?

[malor]

Are you referring to overall or potential?

I routinely have players 20-49 in OVR on my team. Especially when their POT is very high.

As for carrying regular players with OVR 30-49, it depends on too many things and will be specific for each league/setup. Money/budgets, roster spots available, winning team, losing team, rebuilding team, taking over a new team from the AI, original MLB roster at start of year, how many players/teams in your leagues, etc.

But Yes, depending on the situation, I don't see how it is possible to not carry any/all players rating available in the game. In fact when I've noticed in the past that my roster is getting top heavy, I've lost interest in my teams because it indicates I'm doing too well against the AI.

Malor

[Padreman]

I wil need to lower my standard some then. I made in a house rule never to have anybody under 50 for both current and potential In the starting lineup and between 40 and 49 for bench. However in realizing this is getting very difficult to do and expensive

[malor]

Having a starting lineup meet your criteria is usually doable. However, the backups don't need to be of starter quality. They need to be cheap, replaceable and able to play many positions to rest the starters. Of course the backup could also be the future starter working his way into the lineup. But he will be working for minimum wage keeping costs down.

You will go broke trying to pay for a HOF lineup every season.

Don't be afraid to dump a player when the cost become to high. It happens all the time in RL, so why not in game.

Try to do a good job drafting and when trading always look for that one more player to include that is better than someone else in your system. Always look to replace bad players with higher rated players. It may not always work out, but you only need a few new prospects each year to become MLB quality to keep replacing players you lose. At the end of a season, start of FA, start of pre-season and start of regular season, analyze the FA list for ML players that are better then what is in your system and sign them. Cut the lower rated players.

It will take time and patience, but eventually your entire organization will improve dramatically. Of course, when you start winning, your draft picks will become lower quality, but that is the price you pay for winning.

Malor

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Padreman

I wil need to lower my standard some then. I made in a house rule never to have anybody under 50 for both current and potential In the starting lineup and between 40 and 49 for bench. However in realizing this is getting very difficult to do and expensive

tough do do...a 50 in MLB is a solid everyday player....there are obviously lots of below average starters in the MLB...especially for lower payroll teams.

[Syd Thrift]

I guess this is one of the reasons why I find 20-80 ratings in and of themselves to be limiting. The real questions you've got to ask yourself of each and every player on your roster is: is this guy adding something to my club? Is he the best person available to me for this slot? Is there anything I can do to improve this?

If you're running, say, a team in the early 1970s, you might field a 9 or even an 8 man pitching staff (a 4 man rotation + a 4 man bullpen is doable if you've got the right personnel) and so you may just have a slot open for a designated pinch-runner. Who cares if that guy's OVR is 20/80 if he's got 75/80 speed and baserunning? Or maybe you want to carry a catcher who is a weak hitter with a great arm that you trot out against faster teams in the league and otherwise kind of hide on the bench? Or, hell, a career AAAA player who is only adequate as a utility player but who is content with his role on the team and is listed as one of your team leaders? Chemistry might not have a huge impact on the actual ratings of the game but it does keep players from getting angry and wanting to leave via free agency or what have you.

Conversely, if you've got 3 league average hitters who are all solid CFs as your starting OFers, that also means that you've got 2 league average hitters in your corner OF slots and there's only so much extra you're going to get from all that defense. Maybe you want to trade for a guy who is worth slightly less on the 20-80 scale but actually hits for the position. Or, hey, maybe you think that philosophy is wrong and you think you're saving more runs in the field than you're missing at the plate. That's up to you and that's not necessarily going to come out in the ratings alone.

[Padreman]

Good input fellas. So it will make sense that some players maybe in that 40-45 range Depending on their team might go from a starter in one team to a bench player in the other and thats their role. Makes sense

[NoOne]

if you have a 20-30 guy batting 3-4-5 you probably aren't going to the playoffs very often in a modern stats-like environment. but, they can serve non-rbi-raking roles very well. so, a leadoff or 9th batter can be more than competent with a low overall.

---- stop reading, if you don't care about the first sentence of the next paragraph ----

there are ways to afford amazing teams every year. you really can expect a playoff-quality team every year with any market size. winning the ws often is more a function of playoff tree levels than other factors, but exreme talent can trump that too - you'd need a 130+ win team with health. that's all :P that can't be done consistently without being the dodgers' or yankees' market sizes.

excellent financial managment can provide an amazing advantage over all of your opponents. you can definitely afford numerous hof or at least all-star quality guys on just about any budget. money = 'more' wins, but only if managed properly.

all, or most, decisions/trades should be about 3-5 years down the road (and not just one option for a future need in many cases). smart stopgaps could be needed, but mostly self-inflicted problems, if so. if you are making a lot of decisions based on this year, you defintiely won't be able to afford what i suggest. also, without a good team to start, this takes a bit to get the ball rolling. a few good FA signings over a couple years can hasten this ramp-up, but you should expect to trade those guys within 1-2 years of use no matter the contract length. a small market may required 3-5 years of investment before this works in perpetuity for that limited budget space. after that initial ramp-up, it can be maintained, easily.

always trade at beginning of offseason. more teams have cap space = more trade opportunities = better deals for you. if you needed one more piece and it is july, you should have done so 9-10months previously at a cheaper price with a wider selection of choices available. never sacrifice the future for a july trade... if it fits and not disruptive, sure. injuries wil be the only reason to even think about it.

know the dynamics of your financial situation -> how many heavy contracts can your revenue afford? figure this based on average extension that is a 'deal' as opposed to max value demand. divide the portion of budget dedicated to this by that value = # of heavy contracts you can afford. you'll need 20-30+M for the non-core portion of the team, spend the rest on the "core". maybe a bit more with a small market, since your "core" is a bit smaller in #. a portion of your core should be cheap arb years as dictated by how much you can spend on payroll.

you have 5 years of cheap arbitration. relative to a playoff roster you can only use 4sp and likely only use 3-4rp in nearly all playoff games (ie not blown out early in the game). ~5-6 excellent batters that fit their role in the linupe will equal an 800+RS offense every year with typical health..

That's a 95-105 win team, with health with the smallest of budgets. that's a good shot at winning a WS every year, historically speaking. a larger market should expect ~110-120+wins as a goal each year, health withstanding.

so the core of a quality playoff team is ~10+ players (~15 with big market, an RP = less than 1 by $-value, so 10 is used and why ou may think i can't add properly - it's realtive to a heavy contract value for position/SP for ease in the next step). take how many heavy contracts your revenue in winning years can afford and divide that number by "5" (cheap arb years window of time) - the rest of the core needs to be 'cheaper' arb contracts... it's probably less than "2" players per year and very likely closer to "1" that you have to cycle in order to maintain your costs. ie you need 1-2 new players on arb contracts promoted each year... sometimes less, sometimes more, but over ANY 5-10 year window you better average ~1-2 or you will have problems.

when you trade these guys you get quality prospects because they are still in their prime and in high-demand in trades, or if it's an extended player near the end of that contract with a 31-32+age decide between potential trade return and a compensation pick - which provides more value? the prospects you get back should be targeted for what you need 3-5 years from now or high trade value asset as an intermediary step, if that trade partner cannot provide what you need. you can trade that intermediary much more easily with a $0 mil contract not holding you back. --since you've been doing this from year 1 until forever, it is a snake eating it's own tail and today's needs were met 3-5 years previously.

this makes planning much more maleable to the bumps in the road as opposed to meeting demands at the moment of need. plus, it's easy to have a ton of arbitration eligible players on your team instead of heavy contracts or even mildly expensive 5-10M stopgaps. you can alwys make sure to get or keep the multi-positional guys with speed for your bench -- 3 year cycle there if you want them at 550k/year.

the constant trading of 27-32 year olds plus drafting best available provides enough ammunition to get ~2 studs a year, easily. stagger ages and contracts and arbitration years appropriately and you can afford a top3 offense and ERA every year.

with a "10+" market size and you should have the top offense by RS and and ERA every single year that doesn't have a catastrophic amount of injuries to overcome.

this will get you to the playoffs every single year*. how deep your playoffs are will determine how often you win the WS, more so than most other factors except a 130+win team. ie do you have to win 2 series or 3 series? that's a HUGE difference that will affect the % of WS that most teams can expect to win, even if you are the best team each year in playoffs. the deeper a playoff run needs to be, the more likely the best team will not make it to the WS. (this holds true for a 130+ win team too, but much less dramatic effect as even a 120win capable team. the %-success is too high for the 130win team to win any 7-game series compared to those just a ~10 wins below)

the ratio of arb and heavy contracts will inevitably ebb and flow, but when i sort my Front Office - Salary tab by age it has a distinct shape relative to contract lenghts that are visible with a ton of arb years at bottom, and you never see too many of "1" age at the top.

if you have an excess amount of arbitration contracts as part of your core, that's great for a short period of tiem and you can augment that with expensive FA in those years or an additional extension etc etc, but it's a situation that demands attention and preperation to avoid a future problems. if you don't stagger getting rid of them or extending them properly you'll have a bulk of older players that you'll have to repalce and far too many in 1-2 years that you can handle.

It's a blessing initially, but without proper management it becomes a huge burden for a small market team to overcome. some will need to be traded even while cheap or even early into a cheap extension. avoiding the latter is better, usually, because we can't predict whom will take the deals and who will not.

it's not about the best player at each position, but rather it's about having the best that fits for that window of time.. still likely it's a top 3-5 guy at any position that's part of your "core."

i play with a larger market so i cna keep a few guys their entire career.. if i played with a small budget team i would not do so and still have similar success, albeit it less success in total. money =wins.. if managed optimally, more money equals more wins every single time by the odds.

if you think timing of contracts is difficult, don't... longer than needed is 100% okay and even prefered to some extent... you should have no intention of keeping them for the entire term and 2+ years left of a quality player returns more than just a 1 year rental. the length merely must be long enough to guarantee development and avoid using an expensive stopgap FA. a caveat is too lng into an aged and likely decrepit player at teh end.. that will hurt a trade and you should be able to avoid that too, easily. don't sign people to "35+" or you better be happy with a compensation pick. by 32+ trading them gets tougher and doesn't feed the future as well..

figure an ever changing core of 12-15ish players over 7-10 years and don't hold onto anyone even if it's a slight downgrade for the younger, cheaper version.. it's not just about that choices it's about the players you get in return that will be used later too... it adds up to a greater whole over time even when you sometimes downgrade a position in ony particular year. toughest thing to learn is to let go and understand the benefits it brings, not just that year, but the next 10.

[malor]

NoONe,

Well said. That is how I manage my teams. You summed it up better than I did.

As indicated, a GM needs to not only be managing for the now, you really need to be managing for the next few years with every move you make. Every decision has an impact on the future.

Malor