Is "swiping" another team's staff cool or nah?

[jiminyhopkins]

So apparently this is a thing now, where teams can sign away staff that are already under contract with another team.

Cool or Nah?

[shoeless.db]

Part of the story we create is converting former players into coaches. There will be major animosity when a beloved former player is stolen. Or when a guy dumps PP into a coach who is nabbed the following off-season.

This is not good for our league.

[cheekimonk]

How? I just hired an FA coach so he had to be just waiting by the phone...didn't claim him from anywhere. I could see, however, if he WAS employed. That's a key

[Dington]

It would be nice if you got a notice or chance to match or beat the new offer. I don’t think I’ve ever had any luck snagging another manager because when I’ve inquired they were not interested in leaving or just signed. Never even got to making an offer.

[Dington]

How? I just hired an FA coach so he had to be just waiting by the phone...didn't claim him from anywhere. I could see, however, if he WAS employed. That's a key

That’s the entire point of the debate.

[crobillard]

I voted fair game, but I just don't have strong feelings about it. Ask me how I feel about this after a few seasons and I might feel really strongly the other way.

[cheekimonk]

There was an earlier period, when I first started, that coaches didn't seem to have any effect whatsoever. Now it's a more varied, complex feature.

[aaronweiner]

Nah. Would basically never happen in real life unless they’re minor leaguers and you’re hiring them for major league duty.

[usnspecialist]

Nah. Would basically never happen in real life unless they’re minor leaguers and you’re hiring them for major league duty.

Bob Melvin is overlooked again.

[aaronweiner]

Nah. Would basically never happen in real life unless they’re minor leaguers and you’re hiring them for major league duty.

Bob Melvin is overlooked again.

Or some other kind of promotion I guess.

[7teen]

I'm neutral either way. Granted I just did it by taking Vegas' pitching coach but if it were stopped I'd have no problem with it either.

Granted I don't think taking someone's pitching coach and making them your manager is entirely unrealistic. In fact, seems like that kind of stuff happens regularly.

[ae37jr]

I was playing around with this feature the other day and found that....

-coaches will not listen to offers for lower level
-coaches will not listen to offers for lesser role(Manager>Bench Coach>Pitching/Hitting>Base Coach)
-coaches will not listen to offers if they have just signed with new team
-you need to offer more money than current job
-some just don't want to leave where they are(loyalty?)

I'm not sure if these are concrete rules. I just spent like 20 minutes asking a bunch of coaches if they'd sign at various roles.

IMO it works as intended and is realistic if we are trying to recreate the role of a real life MLB GM. In fact, it diminishes an aspect of the BBA that I think is totally unrealistic.... using participation point to beef up some random 35 year old league minimum coach to be a coaching god that you can control for the next 40 years.

This is one of those realistic play VS baseball simulator arguments. It's gonna split the crowd and both sides are going to have a few passionate lobbyists. I personally like the new feature as it's a great way to help take down some of the evil empires eating at the leagues parity. But if we decide to disable it, then I'm not going to bitch and moan.

[felipe]

Fair game

Pay him more if you want to keep him

He's free

You don't 'own' him...

Put yourself in the coaches shoes

[jiminyhopkins]

1. They are not free, your staff payroll is part of your budget.
2. Many coaches are created from former players and then modified with PPT.
3. They are already UNDER CONTRACT. They are not free agents.
4. If this is OK for coaches, why not for players?
5. Again, they are NOT free agents. They are under contract. Why is this hard to understand?

[JimBob2232]

1. They are not free, your staff payroll is part of your budget.
2. Many coaches are created from former players and then modified with PPT.
3. They are already UNDER CONTRACT. They are not free agents.
4. If this is OK for coaches, why not for players?
5. Again, they are NOT free agents. They are under contract. Why is this hard to understand?

For a lateral yes - i'd agree. but id argue for a promotion this seems like a reasonable thing.

[jiminyhopkins]

1. They are not free, your staff payroll is part of your budget.
2. Many coaches are created from former players and then modified with PPT.
3. They are already UNDER CONTRACT. They are not free agents.
4. If this is OK for coaches, why not for players?
5. Again, they are NOT free agents. They are under contract. Why is this hard to understand?

For a lateral yes - i'd agree. but id argue for a promotion this seems like a reasonable thing.

In that case, creating your own coach and developing them with PPT is completely useless because someone will just steal them. We're allowing a stupid OOTP setting to basically neuter an established part of our league writing reward system.

[CTBrewCrew]

God DAMN thats a huuuuuge sig @cheekimonk

[cheekimonk]

"Is that better?"

[CTBrewCrew]

[recte44]

I'm neutral either way. Granted I just did it by taking Vegas' pitching coach but if it were stopped I'd have no problem with it either.

Granted I don't think taking someone's pitching coach and making them your manager is entirely unrealistic. In fact, seems like that kind of stuff happens regularly.

This.