2009 Season Ramblings

[brak60]

Right. They'll be back where they were - with the same risk of injury that they had before. The next day they could have another career ending injury.

Rather than thinking about it as a Cyber Surgery, I prefer seeing it as a "second opinion" or a "missed diagnosis". One doctor thought it was a career ender, while in reality it was merely a minor injury.

In response to your point, though, why not give the player some time on the DL then to recoup from the "Cyber Surgery"? It won't be his whole career, but it could be as long as a year or maybe as little as a two week DL stint.

[CrazyEights]

I'm curious, has anybody actually paid points to have a historical player imported yet? If so, who was the player?

Nope...nobody has earned enough pionts yet.

[Providence A's]

The players added to the draft is different than the historical players. All of the historical players added through the draft are young (under 25). The original concept of adding historical players is that the team creating the player must submit the name of the player and the year they want the player to be imported from. I will then import that player and that year from the OOTP Lehman database unedited. This way, a GM could choose to import a 30 year old player (or any age for that matter), and that player would not need to develop through the minors.

ohhh...in that case, disregard my other post then...I didn't realize the historical players came in all pumped up.

[DiamondDave]

I don't like that either.... all pumped up... I thought it was that if you liked Gary Matthews for example, and you wanted to add him... you got him like one of the historical players that goes in the draft... just without having to draft him......

[CrazyEights]

I don't like that either.... all pumped up... I thought it was that if you liked Gary Matthews for example, and you wanted to add him... you got him like one of the historical players that goes in the draft... just without having to draft him......

One thing that was discussed at the time we first discussed this was that the historical player should have a jacked up salary ($10 or $15 Mil) and/or some type of no trade clause. We never added anything like that, but I think that would be a good addition to the rules for adding a historical player. If that is a case, then is it any different than adding a high priced free agent during the offseason, except you give up a lot of points.

[Providence A's]

could we have the option of adding a historical player that is like the ones that get added to the draft? Then it becomes like getting a 1st round pick with your points.

[CrazyEights]

could we have the option of adding a historical player that is like the ones that get added to the draft? Then it becomes like getting a 1st round pick with your points.

We could. The problem is that I have to edit the players in the draft, because they are already pumped up when I import them. That doesn't bother me, because everybody can see the edited version before they draft them. I don't feel as comfortable "editing" players that teams spent their points on. I would rather leave them unedited, because I can already see a lot of complaints if I do that, because the ratings will be too low in whatever category or other teams will complain because it will be too high in whatever category.

[Providence A's]

I understand...my issue with getting a pumped up historical player for my team (assuming I get that many points) is that I don't want to add $10 million or more for one player just like that...I would like to have some flexibility if possible.

Adding a pumped up, expensive player might be what one teams wants and might be what's best for them. Adding a player that could potentially become a stud might be what another team wants and what's best for their organizational plan. I'm just saying it might be nice to have that option if possible.

[DiamondDave]

I kind of like that

Risk low cost talented spect who might or might not progress...
or
Risk high priced alreay ready player who could hurt your payroll and may not re-sign

[CrazyEights]

I understand...my issue with getting a pumped up historical player for my team (assuming I get that many points) is that I don't want to add $10 million or more for one player just like that...I would like to have some flexibility if possible.

Adding a pumped up, expensive player might be what one teams wants and might be what's best for them. Adding a player that could potentially become a stud might be what another team wants and what's best for their organizational plan. I'm just saying it might be nice to have that option if possible.

One thing we could do is to add the option of choosing to create a player instead of importing a historical player. The cost would be the same amount of points, but the created player would be underdeveloped and younger. In order to do that we would need to set guidelines, and an amount of rating points that could be used when creating the player. That way you would have the option of creating a player or importing a more expensive historical player from the database.

[DiamondDave]

Agreed... guidelines would be MUCh needed....

a number of points that can be used on talent aspects... not just 9-7-5-10-10 for example, but also having to spend a point if they are clutch, spend a point if they are consistent, spend a point if they are durable... getting an extra point to spend if they are injury prone, inconsistent, or terrible in the clutch... costing for endurance and all as well for pitchers, and stealing, # of positions known, etc for offensive players

[CrazyEights]

Agreed... guidelines would be MUCh needed....

a number of points that can be used on talent aspects... not just 9-7-5-10-10 for example, but also having to spend a point if they are clutch, spend a point if they are consistent, spend a point if they are durable... getting an extra point to spend if they are injury prone, inconsistent, or terrible in the clutch... costing for endurance and all as well for pitchers, and stealing, # of positions known, etc for offensive players

Yeah...I like that idea. If anybody wants to try their hand a "blueprint" for this type of thing, feel free to give it a shot.

[DiamondDave]

I'll work something up.. slow day at work today anyway

[Providence A's]

whatever the blueprint ends up being, it needs to be generous as it should be a comparable option to choosing a historical player. And a lot of participation points are going to be spent, too...

If we can agree that a historical player would be a top notch guy (especially since you can choose exactly who you want), then the other option should be almost equal talent-wise IMHO. Otherwise what would be the point if it were for a crappy spec? He should be a 4.5/5.0 spec, no?

[DiamondDave]

I would not want to make them mediocre... but I also would not want an instant 9-9-9-9-9 clutch, durable, consistent guy with 9 spped and 9 steals automatically..... or a 10-9-10 9 END clutch, durable, consistent SP throwing 98-100MPH.... I think I have a good idea... gimme a minute to finish writing it up