Franchise Players

[Halladay_is_God]

I don't like it, DD hit it right on the head

[browntown653]

there's even negatives in Candyland... don't make OOTP more lame than Candyland

Signature worthy.

[browntown653]

Meh, it's too big already

[ljshorty89]

Just as in real life, there is NO guarantee of such a thing... it happens to even the stars... if it is because of roids, drugs, injury, death, or just losing it... Strawberry, Bodicker, Gooden, etc... it HAPPENS

Again... you are only trying to guarantee against the negative, something that in a game is an impossibility... taking away the drama, excitement, surprise... what next, wrap the players in bubble wrap to prevent injury, invoke the Gods with sacrifices to ensure protection and prowess... c'mon man... every game needs it's negatives... there's even negatives in Candyland... don't make OOTP more lame than Candyland

But shouldn't there also be a limit? I mean, you can't hurt players in OOTP by using the statement that a fictional simulation did cocaine, or stopped using roids. You have to go based on the assumption that every player does the same thing. Not drugs, no injury, no death, because than how do you just allow the game to randomly choose players to "die"?

[Doppelgänger]

I don't see how protected 1 or 2 players is taking out all of the negatives, it hardly makes a difference at all when you look at all the players. This has nothing to do with injuries, age, drug problems. If a player has a reason for losing talent then yes, it happens. That has been established, but the argument that it isn't part of the game is crazy. I guess that means we can't edit draft classes anymore or have Dream League players since thats not originally part of the game...

[NYgiantsfan5689]

exactly doppel. and it's not like we're guaranteeing a prospect will fill out. we're just guaranteeing he won't lose talent. so it's not ensuring anything really

[DiamondDave]

But shouldn't there also be a limit? I mean, you can't hurt players in OOTP by using the statement that a fictional simulation did cocaine, or stopped using roids. You have to go based on the assumption that every player does the same thing. Not drugs, no injury, no death, because than how do you just allow the game to randomly choose players to "die"?

Is their a God imposed limit on how many players can go down in production in at any given time in baseball??.... the reasons behind the drops are inconsequential

The fact is in baseball there are positives and negatives... in trends, in performances, in teams, in players, in everything

To try and put in even more positives and false insurances against negatives just pansies up the game... as stated, making it lamer than Candyland

[ljshorty89]

Yes, but do you want a SIMULATION GAME to start choosing people to "do cocaine" and lose ability? What if all of a sudden, A-Rod drops to 7-5-5-6-7...you gonna tell me that the owner should just deal with it, and act as if a player was a druggie and finally lost talent? NO. The game is meant to be realistic, and you typically see more players succeed surprisingly than you see fail surprisingly

[DiamondDave]

Yes, but do you want a SIMULATION GAME to start choosing people to "do cocaine" and lose ability? What if all of a sudden, A-Rod drops to 7-5-5-6-7...you gonna tell me that the owner should just deal with it, and act as if a player was a druggie and finally lost talent? NO. The game is meant to be realistic, and you typically see more players succeed surprisingly than you see fail surprisingly

As stated... the computer generated reasons make no difference (or if there are no apparent reasons).. are completely inconsequential...

And YES... I am saying the owner needs to deal with it as it is a rightful part of the game... part of the positives AND NEGATIVES that are incredibly important to any enjoyable game

You do not see more players succeed surprisingly than drop surprisingly... just listen to talk radio and hear the *****ing and moaning by various homers about ones that drop... Miggy Cabrera, D-Train, Andruw Jones, Justin Verlander, Bedard, Robinson Cano, Carlos Beltran, etc... the list goes on on BOTH sides of the coin

Don't protect against the negatives when not protecting against the positives as well... as stated, you don't see anyone complaining that too many players are getting boosts... take the lumps of surprise uncertainty, positive and negative... or as they told me in the Army during training.... SUCK IT UP AND DRIVE ON

[NYgiantsfan5689]

DD, you're talking about underperformance, not permenant talent damage. they're different. this doesn't protect against underperformance. just permenant death

[ljshorty89]

I have no problem if a player with 10 contact ends up hitting .260. I really don't. But when a 27 year old goes from 10 contact to 7 in one week, thats something thats ridiculously unrealistic. You dont lose talent overnight.

[NYgiantsfan5689]

I have no problem if a player with 10 contact ends up hitting .260. I really don't. But when a 27 year old goes from 10 contact to 7 in one week, thats something thats ridiculously unrealistic. You dont lose talent overnight.

Exactly what i was talking about

[DiamondDave]

DD, you're talking about underperformance, not permenant talent damage. they're different. this doesn't protect against underperformance. just permenant death

No... I am talking about the continued decline of a player... it does happen... just as continual inclines in performance happen....

It's the pansies who boo hoo with a negative and cheer with glee at the positive... and because of their boo hoo-ing, they don't want to cry again, and wish an insurance policy... well.... I hate to tell you, but an insurance policy don't keep it from happening, they just pay you money because it happened

Again... if ones who wish to 'prevent' this little occurrence, they need to have the whammy put on them that the surprise increases are instantly negated... ANY increase... considering any play can boost into a star, and you are protecting stars...

[ljshorty89]

How often have you had players who were mediocre suddenly gain actuals? It's happened once for me, in about 7 seasons in 4 seperate SIM leagues. It's not very common in my experience, hence why it's not worth worrying about

[Halladay_is_God]

for who voted yes, lets do away with the whole development system

I love the surprises that happen when a late round pick gained talent and I hate when a high round high lose talent but this proposed system (no offense to crazy since he wants to try new stuff) sounds really stupid. Only the real superstars in the MLB play at a high level for a long time and most hit a wall at 35-37, it's just the way it is