2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Discuss the Brewster Baseball Association here!
Spiccoli
Ex-GM
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:24 pm
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by Spiccoli » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:37 am

agrudez wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:48 am
That said, I am glad that the IFA class sucks from a macro perspective. My memory might be foggy, but I remember there being a ton of guys last time around that would've been top 5-ish picks in the draft and that's not a healthy dichotomy for the league (basically giving the good/rich teams an equivalent means to stock up as bad/poor teams). I just wish it started being healthier for the league as a whole NEXT season, so that I could go Scrooge McDuck one last time, first. :)
I signed three IFA guys last season... they promptly become garbage shortly after.

Maybe the scouting is just better this year... lol
Scott Piccoli GM Twin Cities

Spiccoli
Ex-GM
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:24 pm
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by Spiccoli » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:40 am

I think this was mentioned before... but the UMEBA draft class is a little disturbing.. yikes.

And for some reason, they're 99% Australian. I guess all the good athletes play cricket over there.
Scott Piccoli GM Twin Cities

Fat Nige
Ex-GM
Posts: 3982
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire, ENGLAND
Has thanked: 586 times
Been thanked: 456 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by Fat Nige » Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:54 pm

Lane wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:47 am
Fat Nige wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:19 am
I think I'm well and truly screwed next year, my hopes was having such a young team they would develop and get better. This annual re scout has 98% of my 40-man lumping, mostly contract/stuff, a lot by two points and the final 2% or even less maybe staying the same. not ONE player has actually got better, not one. I'd have been happy with a few points extra here and there but I get nothing and an already shabby team getting considerably worse. Players struggling with 6 contact will love their new 4 contact rating for next year
Nige, as we've talked about, no one's actual ratings changed, just the displayed ratings. No one's players got any worse despite everyone seeing similar ratings changes to what you're describing.
I’m not talking about the ratings change we did, I’m talking about the annual OSA update that always appears on the players page every year. Any perceived downgrade caused by the ratings would have already been shown but this is their annual OSA update which shows them all as going down even further. Does anybody else’s show a point or more often two points down on every player?
Nigel Laverick
(former GM of El Paso Chilis #WeWereShitty) ,
Now GM Riyadh Red Crescents #WeBeNotSoNewNow #WeAreJustAsShitty


Riyadh GM since May 2046

JL Manager of the Year 2000 (Baltimore Monarchs)
Nothing since


An MBBA GM since 1995 (off & on)

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by RonCo » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:09 pm

GoldenOne wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:02 am
agrudez wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:56 am
GoldenOne wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:47 am
But it says "organization." We may want to make a wording change to avoid further confusion.
The Brewster is an "organization", too. Just look at pro service - he's got 7 years.
Yes, there are many organizations. However, if you read the entire sentence, it is clear it is talking about the major league organization that the player is a part of.

"The league uses guidelines inherent in OOTP to determine Rule 5 eligibility. As a general rule, players eligible for selection in the Rule 5 draft are players who are not on their Major League organization’s 40-man roster and:
- were signed at age 19 or older and have been in the organization for four years; or
- were signed at age 18 or younger and have been in the organization for five year."

If it truly means within The Brewster, then the wording should be changed to reflect that specificity. For example - were signed at age 19 or older and have at least four years of Prefessional Service time.

I'm not going to cry about it but just pointing out a place for possible confusion.
OOTP has always done Rule 5 just a little bit weird...but the main point that applies here is that these rules apply to players signed as draft picks and IFA/scouting finds. A Player signed as a true minor league free agent is no longer managed under these rules ... for example, look at YS9's R-league. We had two guys who were 18 (or whatever) eligible because we did not draft them or IFA/Scout them, instead we signed them as minor league free agents.

In other words, once a team releases a player--ever--that player will ALWAYS be eligible for Rule 5 until you put him on the 40-man roster.

I believe this is actually correct, assuming you use the MLB as your basis.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by RonCo » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:18 pm

Fat Nige wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:54 pm
I’m not talking about the ratings change we did, I’m talking about the annual OSA update that always appears on the players page every year. Any perceived downgrade caused by the ratings would have already been shown but this is their annual OSA update which shows them all as going down even further. Does anybody else’s show a point or more often two points down on every player?
Sorry to beat on a dead dog here, but I'm fairly sure that the super-bad development we've been seeing for several seasons right now is directly ties to the bloatware we have in talent entering the league through the draft (and to a lesser extent IFA/Scouting). Thre is no such thing as a free lunch. Though it's not perfect, the game does what it can to manage rating drift. So when we're drafting 10-15 rounds deep and still getting guys we think can play a role in the majors (because that makes for fun drafts), you know with nearly 100% certainty that the development engine is going to start tearing into players...because the game cannot live well if every team in the league is yielding 10-15 players into the big leagues from every draft class.

Doing some simplifications....if you do some thinking on career lengths and number of teams, you can see the league needs to yield 2-3 players per team every year from the minors. Maybe 3-4 if you churn quickly. Maybe 5-6 if you include guys who get a cup of coffee...but really, those guys aren't major leaguers. So if we're drafting 10-15 players per team per year who have ratings to play, the development engine needs to tear down 8-13 of them...
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

agrudez
Ex-GM
Posts: 7681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:30 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by agrudez » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:36 pm

RonCo wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:18 pm
So if we're drafting 10-15 players per team per year who have ratings to play, the development engine needs to tear down 8-13 of them...
You're forgetting scout finds, IFAs and random bumpers, too - all of which will take even more of those development "slots" from the draftees as well.

I know people don't like seeing prospects flame out and such, but OOTP's development engine might be my favorite part of the game. Just cast a wide net and don't get too attached to a single player. Demand 2-3 prospects back of equivalent potential for every 1 MLer you sell. Always keep your minors well stocked with AAAA potential types and care just as much about their well being as the ones with an obvious ML track because you never know who might get some unexpected bumps. Etc. It's not the same as knowing that every 80 potential prospect you draft is going to bloom into a beautiful flower as long as you water it, but it's just as fun even if different.
League Director: Kyle “agrudez” Stever*
*Also serves as chief muckraker
-Ron, 2025 media guide

Image

Fat Nige
Ex-GM
Posts: 3982
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire, ENGLAND
Has thanked: 586 times
Been thanked: 456 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by Fat Nige » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:43 pm

So in other words, what you’re saying is that if my game plan is to develop players I’m a dead duck as the top teams have too much talent? It’s my 40-man roster taking the hit though not my draftees, I haven’t dared to look at them yet
Nigel Laverick
(former GM of El Paso Chilis #WeWereShitty) ,
Now GM Riyadh Red Crescents #WeBeNotSoNewNow #WeAreJustAsShitty


Riyadh GM since May 2046

JL Manager of the Year 2000 (Baltimore Monarchs)
Nothing since


An MBBA GM since 1995 (off & on)

GoldenOne
Ex-GM
Posts: 3317
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:36 pm
Location: South Riding, VA
Has thanked: 728 times
Been thanked: 485 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by GoldenOne » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:53 pm

RonCo wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:09 pm
GoldenOne wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:02 am
agrudez wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:56 am


The Brewster is an "organization", too. Just look at pro service - he's got 7 years.
Yes, there are many organizations. However, if you read the entire sentence, it is clear it is talking about the major league organization that the player is a part of.

"The league uses guidelines inherent in OOTP to determine Rule 5 eligibility. As a general rule, players eligible for selection in the Rule 5 draft are players who are not on their Major League organization’s 40-man roster and:
- were signed at age 19 or older and have been in the organization for four years; or
- were signed at age 18 or younger and have been in the organization for five year."

If it truly means within The Brewster, then the wording should be changed to reflect that specificity. For example - were signed at age 19 or older and have at least four years of Prefessional Service time.

I'm not going to cry about it but just pointing out a place for possible confusion.
OOTP has always done Rule 5 just a little bit weird...but the main point that applies here is that these rules apply to players signed as draft picks and IFA/scouting finds. A Player signed as a true minor league free agent is no longer managed under these rules ... for example, look at YS9's R-league. We had two guys who were 18 (or whatever) eligible because we did not draft them or IFA/Scout them, instead we signed them as minor league free agents.

In other words, once a team releases a player--ever--that player will ALWAYS be eligible for Rule 5 until you put him on the 40-man roster.

I believe this is actually correct, assuming you use the MLB as your basis.
Thanks Ron. This makes sense.
Brett "The Brain" Golden
GM: Nashville Goats 2034-2039 (The Plan® was working when I left!)
GM: Charlotte Cougars 2040-2052
GM: Rocky Mountain Oysters 2053-2057
2056 BBA Champions!

"Tonight, we take over the world!"
-- The Brain

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by RonCo » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:59 pm

agrudez wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:36 pm
RonCo wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:18 pm
So if we're drafting 10-15 players per team per year who have ratings to play, the development engine needs to tear down 8-13 of them...
You're forgetting scout finds, IFAs and random bumpers, too - all of which will take even more of those development "slots" from the draftees as well.

I know people don't like seeing prospects flame out and such, but OOTP's development engine might be my favorite part of the game. Just cast a wide net and don't get too attached to a single player. Demand 2-3 prospects back of equivalent potential for every 1 MLer you sell. Always keep your minors well stocked with AAAA potential types and care just as much about their well being as the ones with an obvious ML track because you never know who might get some unexpected bumps. Etc. It's not the same as knowing that every 80 potential prospect you draft is going to bloom into a beautiful flower as long as you water it, but it's just as fun even if different.
Yes...both approaches work out in the end (lesser drafts result in more difficult decisions in the draft itself but gives more bumpers, better drafts result in more sexy prospects but more lumpers). Most OOTP players seem to like the instant gratification of deep drafts, but pay for them by having a lot of flame outs--which cause long-term depression as most of your guys fade. A few like the challenge of drafting players with flaws and then developing them. I fall into the later, but I'm fine with whatever.

Bottom line: GMs are either going to complain about shallow drafts or about their draft picks crashing.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

agrudez
Ex-GM
Posts: 7681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:30 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by agrudez » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:09 pm

RonCo wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:59 pm
Bottom line: GMs are either going to complain about shallow drafts or about their draft picks crashing.
Exactly, you simply CANNOT have it both ways. I know I've said it before, but give me the deep drafts to get excited about 10 times out of 10. I remember the "lean years" where I was lucky to get a 6th inning reliever with a mid-20s pick in the first round of the draft. That was damn depressing.
Fat Nige wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:43 pm
So in other words, what you’re saying is that if my game plan is to develop players I’m a dead duck as the top teams have too much talent? It’s my 40-man roster taking the hit though not my draftees, I haven’t dared to look at them yet
If every team has 3 of their top 10 draftees develop every year then the ones that draft higher will (in most cases) have better odds of their 3 being better than a lower team's 3. That's because if team A picks #1 and drafts a 80 POT and team B picks #30 and drafts a 60 POT, a 20 POT lump* makes team A's player a quality ML starter and team B's player a role player. It's not a clean distribution like that, though - it might be that team B has 5 players develop and team A has 2. So... team A might have gotten 2 better players, but they got less of them by a sizable amount. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is 'yes'. If your only plan to improve is drafting players and watching them develop then you're a dead duck. It's a tale as old as time and I've discussed it ad nauseum before on these forums. Even if ALL your players develop, you only get the first crop of the developers for 6 seasons before you have to pay them and that's not quick enough to field a team full of superstar prospects, generally (I guess Rockville is an exception, but even though I wasn't here for their rise, knowing Aaron as GM I can guesstimate that he wasn't just sitting on his hands and watching prospect paint dry).

*Also, we need to define a player that has "developed" better. An 80 POT prospect that makes it to the majors at 60 OVR was a massive success in my book. So often I see those called busts, though.

You HAVE to do something other than draft and watch prospects develop. Be active in the Rule 5. Be active in IFA. Sign players in FA and flip them at the deadline. Sign younger players in FA with an eye towards keeping them for your next 'window'. Sign players in FA to 1 year deals, give them a ton of play time and try to recoup a comp pick for them at the end of the year. Look into trading 1 18 year old 80 POT prospect for 2 22 year old 55 POT ones to significantly raise the floor on your development risk. Trade for players with bad contracts to get prospects back in the deal. Trade your MLers BEFORE they run out of cost control years (4 ML service years feels like a sweet spot - long enough for them to develop a track record of statistical success while still allowing you to sell them as more than just a 'rental') to maximize their value on the market and make sure you get good deals (I mentioned a rule of thumb I have above - in general I need 2-3 prospects of equal talent to every MLer I'm sending out to offset developmental risk). Etc.
League Director: Kyle “agrudez” Stever*
*Also serves as chief muckraker
-Ron, 2025 media guide

Image

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by RonCo » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:09 pm

Fat Nige wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:43 pm
So in other words, what you’re saying is that if my game plan is to develop players I’m a dead duck as the top teams have too much talent?
That's not exactly how I would put it. But in the end, I think that to grow a mega-team like Rockville/Jacksonville/California/San Fernando, a GM can't rely on just one approach (draft vs. trade vs. FA vs. IFA vs. waiver vs. Rule 5). The BBA is as highly competitive (in a good way) as any league I've ever been in. So it helps to use all tools and develop a comprehensive approach (...blah, blah, blah)
It’s my 40-man roster taking the hit though not my draftees, I haven’t dared to look at them yet
Yes...realize that the harsh development fields are hitting everyone. I think it was Scott noting his sheet of red earlier. In this kind of environment (high ratings in, high rate of lumping), I personally find that I have to watch the development reports every sim, and work very hard to keep organizational depth. My "master plan" of who is moving up and down the organization and who might be major league players and when changes much more rapidly.

But, yes, while others will disagree, I think it's fair to say that a deep-draft approach helps better teams more than a shallow-draft approach does. YS9 has been drafting in the bottom five or six teams for the past several seasons, and still arguably has one of the best farm systems in the league. Some of that is IFA and IC...but only some.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by RonCo » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:32 pm

agrudez wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:09 pm
RonCo wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:59 pm
Bottom line: GMs are either going to complain about shallow drafts or about their draft picks crashing.
Exactly, you simply CANNOT have it both ways. I know I've said it before, but give me the deep drafts to get excited about 10 times out of 10. I remember the "lean years" where I was lucky to get a 6th inning reliever with a mid-20s pick in the first round of the draft. That was damn depressing.
I find the analytical chess of either approach fine. I like drafting guys with warts in the 15th round and then working to fit them into the organization and watch as they grow or bump. That feels to me more like I can affect development by wise positioning of my players over time. [I think this is part of what Ted means when he discusses enjoying building an organization, and hates to see his guys get churned up, but I don't want to speak for him].

The "deep draft" approach, for me, feels like playing a lottery wherein there's less challenge in drafting a full team and your work through the year is more triaging who dies so you can replace them quickly. But as a guy who drafts pretty late in the process these days, those deep drafts are probably in my favor. :)

Similar processes in the end, I suppose.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by RonCo » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:42 pm

I do disagree with your assessment of the "shallow" drafts, though. I've been drafting late for some time, and other than a few development busts to a couple of my picks, I've never felt bad about the first couple rounds of my draft (actually, most of my busts came when I was drafting early...which is a big deal) . So, I think your view of what a good pick is comes partially from your systemic view of players.

Here's my write-ups of YS9 First Round picks. viewtopic.php?f=44&t=25585

It doesn't really matter, though. The main value in the discussion is so our GMs are comfortable understanding that development is going to be harsh, and that it's harsh for everyone. So plans that don't account for prospect depth have higher risk than other arrangements.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

Bumstead
Ex-GM
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:06 pm
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by Bumstead » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:50 pm

As an aside, Boise isn't "bloated" with talent...

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by Ted » Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:03 pm

Nigel, see THIS topic. Almost everyone is seeing a 1-2 stuff decline on their pitchers in the OSA scouting report. It's not real. It's a glitch. For whatever reasons, the previous scouting reports are showing the "Stuff" rating as a pre ratings change value. That is, it is showing absolute ratings. Everything from 6/23/2037 to the one before the value for "today" is wrong in the "stuff" column.



And next month, what is the current report now will get changed to show absolute ratings instead of what it is showing now, and the new current report will look like a lump again. I don't know why this is happening, but it looks like a bug that occurred when we switched. The crazier part is that it's only the "Stuff" value that is wrong. Motion and control are being displayed as relative ratings. So it really looks like lumping. But it isn't. (I mean, some of all of our players are lumping, but not every pitcher).

This really sucks, but I think we're stuck with it until the next version. You are going to have to use StatsPlus to scout pitcher development for the time being, and understand that the in game OSA scouting is just wrong for STUFF in everything but the most recent OSA scouting report.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
ae37jr
BBA GM
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:37 pm
Location: Davenport, FL
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 645 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by ae37jr » Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:32 pm

So the UMEBA teams have a boatload of money and not much to spend it on. I was ready to drop a cash bomb on the International pool. Even though it's a weak year, the top guys would be legends across the pond. Unfortunately the game stopped me.
Alan Ehlers
GM of the Twin Cities River Monster
Image

udlb58
Ex-GM
Posts: 3553
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by udlb58 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:47 am

Nige, there are more ways to build a team than tearing down the roster and stacking multiple high draft picks (and I'd argue that most of the time, simply relying on draft picks is guaranteed to fail in this particular world).

Just look at my organization. In 2025 this was arguably the worst (definitely 2nd worst, YS had a case) organization with virtually no talent on the roster, little talent in the farm, and tens of millions in debt. I had back-to-back #1 overall picks and both have been massive busts, barely playing in the BBA (Howard and Manning).

Just last year, my 96 win team had 6 regulars who were drafted by the team and one of them was a re-tread that was picked up on a minor league deal. My drafted players were Noboru (2nd overall), Victor Batista (65th overall), Dave Robertson (125th overall and MiLC retread), Donald Harris (185th overall), Brandon Callahan (315th overall), and Manuel Martinez (595th overall). I had 2 scout finds and 2 minor league FA signings that bumped enough to be relevant. The other 15+ were a combination of trades (both Major League and prospect acquisitions) and FA/Minor League FA signees.
Image
Greenville Moonshiners/Jacksonville Hurricanes GM: 2026-Present
Jacksonville Hurricanes GM: (1251-1018); 2029, 2031, 2034-38 Div. Champions
Paris Patriots GM: 2025 (79-83)

User avatar
niles08
BBA GM
Posts: 2507
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:15 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 424 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by niles08 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:46 am

I'd like to think I am as good as any example of a team that was torn down when I started in 2030, and drafted very poorly. 3 of my 7 first round picks are still in the minor leagues and have busted. 2 of the other 4 are still down there and could very well bust.

Yet we gained ground each year, gained revenue each year, and now are "hopefully" a contender each season for the Heartland division.

Case in point, it's very difficult to build through the draft alone. Most of my rebuild was through signing veterans during the off-season and flipping them when the time came for a solid prospect or two. I also took on some salary when I could just to pick up a prospect or two.
Image

Spiccoli
Ex-GM
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:24 pm
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: 2038, Rule 5/Winter Mtgs/FA Sim #3 Chatter

Post by Spiccoli » Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:31 am

ae37jr wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:32 pm
So the UMEBA teams have a boatload of money and not much to spend it on. I was ready to drop a cash bomb on the International pool. Even though it's a weak year, the top guys would be legends across the pond. Unfortunately the game stopped me.
I have a feeling it’s going to take a couple of seasons for the UMEBA to normalise. I signed several “minor leaguers” who wouldn’t talk to me about regular contracts. And many of these guys are better than my last season’s guys.

Soon they’ll get contracts, league min. But when it’s time for extensions, then things will get real.

Until then though, financials are going to be a little whacky.
Scott Piccoli GM Twin Cities

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “League Chatter”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests