2061 What Is Your General Minor League Promotion Plan?

[Trebro]

I can't remember the link now but an old OOTP playing guide suggested you always go one level per year with your minor league talent. However, speaking only on casual observation, it seems the BBA doesn't do this and often moves players more aggressively but maybe I'm wrong? One way to find out!

[BaseClogger]

I just want my players to be challenged. That’s where development happens.

About half the guys in a given org aren’t really prospects and I’ll do whatever with them.

[Lane]

Once they're average or better at their level they're promoted. If they have ratings that i feel are appropriate for a higher level i put them there. There's no coddling in long beach, sink or swim bitches.

[Jwalk100]

I voted one year per level but it's more complicated than that.

I put drafted players in the lowest appropriate level. I keep that player at that level the entire season. If that player dominates the league they were placed in the wrong level. I try to stay away from promoting players mid season because it causes me to move players up to take that spot and he may not be ready. If the player is dominating then he isn't being challenged as @BaseClogger points out.

I also dont promote just by ratings because they are flawed so I use stats and compare them to the ratings I see.

I try to follow this schedule for HS draftees-

Year 1: (18) Drafted then placed in Rookie
Year 2: (19) Start at R+
Year 3: (20) Start at Single A
Year 4: (21) Start at Single A+
Year 5: (22) Start at Double A
Year 6: (23) Start at Triple A with a cup of coffee
Year 7: (24) Begin year in ML

If that player is a quick developer it will look like this because not all development is equal-

Year 1: (18) Drafted then placed in Rookie, finished at R+
Year 2: (19) Started in Single A, finished in A+
Year 3: (20) Started in A+, finished in AA
Year 4: (21) Started in AA, finished in ML
Year 5: (22) Begin year in ML

College players will look like this depending on his age-
Year 1: (21) Drafted then placed in A-
Year 2: (22) Start at Single A+
Year 3: (23) Start at Double A
Year 4: (24) Start at AAA with a cup of coffee
Year 5: (25) Begin year in ML

Or

Year 1: (21) Drafted then placed in A-
Year 2: (22) Start at Single A, finish in A+
Year 3: (23) Start at Single A+, finish at Double A
Year 4: (24) Start at Double A, finish at AAA with a cup of coffee
Year 5: (25) Begin year in ML

Your team needs and player evals will determine if you’re going to start a 2nd year college draftee at A or A+. Your more advanced college players might be ready much sooner. An accelerated path would go like this:

Year 1: (21) Drafted then placed in A-, finish at A or A+ (Skipping A may be acceptable)
Year 2: (22) Start at Double A, possibly finish at Triple A
Year 3: (23) Start at Triple A, finish at ML
Year 4: (24) Begin year in ML


My friend Joe Peters came up with this and I've tweaked it to fit for my tastes.

[RonCo]

I picked "no plan" because mostly I'm hunting playing time within age-appropriate bands. I'll promote in mid-year if it makes sense, or not. I prefer to start guys at whatever level their ratings say they ought to be at, but I break that rule of thumb all the time. Ultimately, as long as you're paying attention and getting guys proper time, you're probably fine.

[chicoruiz]

I generally promote a guy when he’s had success at the level he’s at. The only exception is age-related; if a guy is 26, for example, and hasn’t played well at AA, I’m liable to send him to AAA and tell him, “okay, bub, sh** or get off the pot”…

[Trebro]

Hi all,

I'm really glad to see these polls are leading to a great discussion of our philosophy and ideas.. That's exactly what I was hoping for. I love when we get on the forums and start extended conversations!

[ae37jr]

I handle it two ways...

=The run of the mill minor leaguer who may or may not have a future goes mostly by age
-Players who I think have a future, I keep a close eye on and go more off ratings and stats then age.

When playoff time comes around, I like to bunch my prospects up on teams still playing. It gives them more playing time and I also feel there is something positive about players winning minor league championships.

[JimSlade]

There is a great degree of "it depends" mixed in with my typical patience for letting prospects develop 1 level per year:
- Developed, older prospect for his level is performing well above his peers
- Need for an RP at next level up (eg, injury) and opportunity to give a younger SP a chance to get his feet wet at a new level in the pen
- Sense that a player with great ratings and perioherals needs more of a challenge.

[Trebro]

I voted one year per level but it's more complicated than that.

I put drafted players in the lowest appropriate level. I keep that player at that level the entire season. If that player dominates the league they were placed in the wrong level. I try to stay away from promoting players mid season because it causes me to move players up to take that spot and he may not be ready. If the player is dominating then he isn't being challenged as @BaseClogger points out.

I also dont promote just by ratings because they are flawed so I use stats and compare them to the ratings I see.

I try to follow this schedule for HS draftees-

Year 1: (18) Drafted then placed in Rookie
Year 2: (19) Start at R+
Year 3: (20) Start at Single A
Year 4: (21) Start at Single A+
Year 5: (22) Start at Double A
Year 6: (23) Start at Triple A with a cup of coffee
Year 7: (24) Begin year in ML

If that player is a quick developer it will look like this because not all development is equal-

Year 1: (18) Drafted then placed in Rookie, finished at R+
Year 2: (19) Started in Single A, finished in A+
Year 3: (20) Started in A+, finished in AA
Year 4: (21) Started in AA, finished in ML
Year 5: (22) Begin year in ML

College players will look like this depending on his age-
Year 1: (21) Drafted then placed in A-
Year 2: (22) Start at Single A+
Year 3: (23) Start at Double A
Year 4: (24) Start at AAA with a cup of coffee
Year 5: (25) Begin year in ML

Or

Year 1: (21) Drafted then placed in A-
Year 2: (22) Start at Single A, finish in A+
Year 3: (23) Start at Single A+, finish at Double A
Year 4: (24) Start at Double A, finish at AAA with a cup of coffee
Year 5: (25) Begin year in ML

Your team needs and player evals will determine if you’re going to start a 2nd year college draftee at A or A+. Your more advanced college players might be ready much sooner. An accelerated path would go like this:

Year 1: (21) Drafted then placed in A-, finish at A or A+ (Skipping A may be acceptable)
Year 2: (22) Start at Double A, possibly finish at Triple A
Year 3: (23) Start at Triple A, finish at ML
Year 4: (24) Begin year in ML


My friend Joe Peters came up with this and I've tweaked it to fit for my tastes.

I *think* that's the post I am referring to or something similar. I used to be much more rigid about this, but I experimented a bit in 2061 and may do so again in 2062. The fact that OOTP is starting to ding more players in their late 20s (not sure yet if this is true) might mean I want to get them to BBA a bit faster. We'll see.

[Jwalk100]

I voted one year per level but it's more complicated than that.

I put drafted players in the lowest appropriate level. I keep that player at that level the entire season. If that player dominates the league they were placed in the wrong level. I try to stay away from promoting players mid season because it causes me to move players up to take that spot and he may not be ready. If the player is dominating then he isn't being challenged as @BaseClogger points out.

I also dont promote just by ratings because they are flawed so I use stats and compare them to the ratings I see.

I try to follow this schedule for HS draftees-

Year 1: (18) Drafted then placed in Rookie
Year 2: (19) Start at R+
Year 3: (20) Start at Single A
Year 4: (21) Start at Single A+
Year 5: (22) Start at Double A
Year 6: (23) Start at Triple A with a cup of coffee
Year 7: (24) Begin year in ML

If that player is a quick developer it will look like this because not all development is equal-

Year 1: (18) Drafted then placed in Rookie, finished at R+
Year 2: (19) Started in Single A, finished in A+
Year 3: (20) Started in A+, finished in AA
Year 4: (21) Started in AA, finished in ML
Year 5: (22) Begin year in ML

College players will look like this depending on his age-
Year 1: (21) Drafted then placed in A-
Year 2: (22) Start at Single A+
Year 3: (23) Start at Double A
Year 4: (24) Start at AAA with a cup of coffee
Year 5: (25) Begin year in ML

Or

Year 1: (21) Drafted then placed in A-
Year 2: (22) Start at Single A, finish in A+
Year 3: (23) Start at Single A+, finish at Double A
Year 4: (24) Start at Double A, finish at AAA with a cup of coffee
Year 5: (25) Begin year in ML

Your team needs and player evals will determine if you’re going to start a 2nd year college draftee at A or A+. Your more advanced college players might be ready much sooner. An accelerated path would go like this:

Year 1: (21) Drafted then placed in A-, finish at A or A+ (Skipping A may be acceptable)
Year 2: (22) Start at Double A, possibly finish at Triple A
Year 3: (23) Start at Triple A, finish at ML
Year 4: (24) Begin year in ML


My friend Joe Peters came up with this and I've tweaked it to fit for my tastes.

I *think* that's the post I am referring to or something similar. I used to be much more rigid about this, but I experimented a bit in 2061 and may do so again in 2062. The fact that OOTP is starting to ding more players in their late 20s (not sure yet if this is true) might mean I want to get them to BBA a bit faster. We'll see.

Yep. I was in his PBC league and he posted this in the chat. I tweaked it for me.

[DaveB]

I generally like to promote when they have a green arrow from AA on down. At AAA it depends on space on the active roster.

That said I’ve collected a lot of 18 year olds in recent drafts and trades so I’ve been more aggressive promoting players in recent seasons.

[Bob Breum]

I prefer to see them turn in an OPS+ / ERA+ of over 100 over the course of a season, or 125+ OPS+ / ERA+ in a smaller sample size, before I promote them. They can move more than one level/season if they dramatically overperform. I start high school age draftees in rookie ball. Players with a year of college may start in short season A. Players with three years of college may start in Single-A.