|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Jan 6, 2016 21:03:03 GMT -5
It's quite apparent the OOTP owner mode is modeled after Charles Oscar Finley.....
And i love it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 21:11:42 GMT -5
One of my 3 goals was to extend the old ball Israel Hinojosa that I had to cut 3 weeks in.
I'm for turning them off
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Jan 7, 2016 11:44:28 GMT -5
I'm apathetic. I do believe that the owner goals are more realistic. I also think that they're a pain. The question is whether or not the irritation derived from their annoyance is greater than the experience gained from the immersion they yield. Personally I favor them but I don't think they would be a huge loss if they disappeared.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jan 7, 2016 12:12:25 GMT -5
So your budget should go down because of a game formula based on goals instead of on field performance and making money? In real life your owner might want you to sign an old past their prime player but they aren't going to reduce the budget if you're making a profit and winning. I agree with Ben. Additionally, as far as I know we have no idea how much, if any, not meeting a goal by the deadline the owner set influences an owner's decision to increase or decrease a budget for the next season. What I do know is that as soon as the Giants moved into a positive profit position in September of this season - thanks to the tight pennant race - our owner increased the projected budget for next season by $2 million. Of the goals set with 2036 deadlines, I achieved one and missed on two - one being the "win the championship" directive he issues each season. It will be interesting to see what happens when we enter the off-season. The bottom line for me is that I find the goals realistic and interesting. I am not overly concerned about them. You're right about not knowing the impact of not meeting a goal and after thinking about it further I don't think turning them off is the right thing to do at this point. Too many unknowns and I let my frustrations with bad goals influence my post. Thanks Tim for putting it a different way.
|
|
|
Post by Chip_PhilliesGM on Jan 9, 2016 11:31:31 GMT -5
At least I have a workaround for one of my owners dumb new goals. He wants an upgrade at RF, even though our current RF had a 3.4 WAR. Went to to Millard Nosworthy, set position to RF, there, now I've gone 21st at RF to 11th, even though Nosworthy will never play a game there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 11:36:52 GMT -5
Our off season goal should be to move quickly. We non playoff teams out number you
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Jan 11, 2016 13:40:34 GMT -5
I don't know if Zevin is even eligible to be discussed or not. Perhaps Derek, and perhaps others are so ALL IN on the Zevin process, that a dissenting view is a waste of everyone's time.
But, on the off chance that this concept is fluid and still open to discussion. ..I am no longer able to say that I prefer Zevin.
I see the value it cam create. .. there are certainly some positives. But I have a small issue, and a big issue.
Small. .. I think this hurts recruiting and perhaps retention on newer owners. I have nothing to prove that, so feel free to trample that thought, lol.
My big issue is. .. the process just takes too long. By making it a human process, we have added to Derek's workload. No one who has been in this league for even one year would dispute how busy Derek is. .. that's critical to acknowledge, because I don't want to imply Derek should be working harder or something. But in my experience, Zevin takes too long to reply. I have sent pm's that go unanswered for many weeks. That translates into many MONTHS in game time. When we have to wait months to hear back on offers. .. Zevin loses its value to me. Sometimes, we need to know quicker than that where Zevin is on a player so we can allocate resources and/or make decisions more quickly.
I know at one point we were told that Finn was being schooled in the arts of Zevin so he could help alleviate the workload. ..but I haven't seen Finn providing support as far as I have been able to tell.
I just believe that with the time delay that Zevin requires, I would much prefer a discussion about some common sense contract restrictions that we could put in place and monitor. I do not buy that monitoring can't be done on these extensions and, putting money where my mouth is. .. happy to volunteer for this oversight role.
I just figured. .. honesty is best policy, so that's where I am. If Zevin is a fundamental part of pbl that Derek does not want to revisit, or if my desire to move on without Zevin is an outlier... we can move on, obviously.
Tim / KC
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Jan 11, 2016 15:26:18 GMT -5
You couldn't have said it any better. I feel the same way. If zevin is deeply rooted then so be it but if not I'd love to see at least an attempt at a system that we could all agree on so we can do contracts in game.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Jan 11, 2016 16:59:34 GMT -5
I have to agree with the above two. I believe that Zevin is a definite upgrade over the in-game system. I only wish Zevin didn't take so long; an inability to get contract quotes in a league as fast-moving as this one is problematic. And as was very well stated, this is obviously not a failing on the part of our commissioner. Given a choice between Zevin or the in-game . . . Zevin is better but I think I'd take the ease of access the in-game model offers. It's a tough spot to figure out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 18:40:38 GMT -5
I also agree and I also like Zevin because it's a good system but when you're trying to build a team and it takes 2-3months to figure out what you might have to pay a guy is a bit harsh.
My other big concern with Zevin is it's an out of the game system it works well but at the same token then shouldn't budgets be looked at in the same light? I understand we need free agents in the game but we also need to be rewarded as GMs for making good moves and building a strong organization. I have the 5th largest budget In game and it's at 140M and we are in year 2037. My team has a winning record for 6 years straight and a large market with a fan interest of 88 and I don't see an increase. Hell I don't know what Shane's budget it but IMO it should be at the top or top 3 anyways.
I don't want to put more burden on Derek but I think we should go with the games system just for the sake of time and fairness. Maybe make some rules in place for really cheesy contracts....I don't know but try come up with something.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Jan 12, 2016 11:56:48 GMT -5
So we've seen about 6 to 0 in favor of moving on without Zevin. That's still a pretty small sample size. Love to get some more feedback, fellas. Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Chip_PhilliesGM on Jan 12, 2016 12:16:15 GMT -5
In a vacuum, I would prefer to go on without Zevin, assuming controls on when and what type of extensions allowed (Only allowing extensions in last years of contracts, limiting options, etc.). I think the only extension I've done in the past season is Scott Sempill. There's really not much of a market for the type of players I target, so I feel like I can get the same price or better in free agency anyway and I don't have to deal with the hassle of messaging back and forth.
Of course, I am fine if Derek or everyone else wants to continue with Zevin.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jan 12, 2016 12:17:57 GMT -5
I would be in favor of moving forward without Zevin. Like others have said, I also support added contract controls and monitoring by the league as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jan 12, 2016 12:38:56 GMT -5
If there was a pole up I would vote for keeping Zevin. I am not passionate about it and will happily go with the league majority. Obviously it is far from a perfect system so it is just a matter of weighing the pros and cons. The cons discussed here are valid. On the pro Zevin side of the ledger I don't think anyone can deny that Free Agency is thriving. Without Zevin it is way too easy to get a cheap deal from the AI (no matter what controls are in place) and great teams can hold on to much more talent. In the end it is about league parody. To me the pros outweigh the cons but I concede it is a near thing.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Jan 12, 2016 12:47:16 GMT -5
I'm pro-Zevin. The problem is, I think the kind of rules we'd end up making to establish contracts would just be the kind of algorithms that Zevin is designed to create anyway. Except we'd end up having to do the math instead of the Commish. Really I think most of our problems are solved by having someone with more time on their hands be in charge of updating Zevin on a more regular basis.
|
|