Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2016 20:34:21 GMT -5
Chris told me to post this for a vote.
I am proposing that a new owner can reverse a talent increase that was made by a previous owner. This could be beneficial when a player already had their talent increases spent (according to the player log) and are no longer eligible for an increase. In some cases, some of them may seem like wasted/pointless increases that could have been better spent.
To be clear, this would only be for new owners. You would not be able to reverse a talent increase that you purchased/requested.
|
|
Matt
Other 
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Apr 11, 2016 20:50:13 GMT -5
Why would you want to reverse them? If they wasted increases, how would undoing them help?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2016 20:58:14 GMT -5
Because then an increase would be available and you could spend it how you wish.
For instance - someone increased running speed when they could have done stolen bases. Someone increased fielding percentage when they could have done range, etc. Vice versa.
Just would allow you to increase someone in a way you wish as opposed to not being able to modify them because a previous owner already used up all the increases available on a player. I think we would all agree that some increases are more beneficial than others. It would just give someone a chance to do something with a guy they want as opposed to him being "locked out".
|
|
Padres
General Manager 
San Diego Padres
Posts: 387
|
Post by Padres on Apr 11, 2016 21:12:45 GMT -5
I want to know if u get the points back. If it's about how to get that player to how u want them than I understand. I think u shouldn't get those points back. Commish can undo the changes but ur team loses the points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2016 21:14:58 GMT -5
I guess I made an assumption that you wouldn't reverse it and take points back, but rather change what was modified.
In that case, it would be yes for a cost/penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Apr 12, 2016 6:49:54 GMT -5
What kind of time line?
I wouldn't really be for this if, lets say in your case, you took over SF and wanted to reverse something Spencer did 3 sim season ago.
Something he did earlier in the season you took over, or maybe the season before? I wouldn't dislike it as much, but I'm still not sure I'm on board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2016 6:56:57 GMT -5
Is this going to be called the "Spencer was a bad GM" rule?
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Apr 12, 2016 7:43:05 GMT -5
lol
I would probably limit it to within the past 365 sim days (Player Log shows the date of increase) and the penalty would be 5 or 10 points for each reverse. The "new" points should be spent elsewhere ASAP.
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Apr 12, 2016 8:16:20 GMT -5
Which leads to the other issue I was looking at...would it have to be something changed by the SF GM?
Say the Yankees increase Joe Blow's speed, then Joe Blow gets traded to SF. New GM comes in for SF and would rather have increased stealing. Can the new SF GM reverse something a different GM has done before he was on SF?
When you get into talents, it leaves too big of a gap for me as well. If you make an talent increase, won't that change the number ratings as well? Are we going to consider that as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Apr 12, 2016 8:20:14 GMT -5
When you get into talents, it leaves too big of a gap for me as well. If you make an talent increase, won't that change the number ratings as well? Are we going to consider that as well? That is one of the reasons I don't like this as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Danny Glover on Apr 12, 2016 8:34:30 GMT -5
Nay
|
|
RoyalsGM
General Manager
Kansas City Royals
Posts: 4,594 
|
Post by RoyalsGM on Apr 12, 2016 10:18:52 GMT -5
The other problem I have is that if too much time has passed, the player could have theoretically benefited from the boost, then have it reversed, retain most of that benefit, and get another boost. It seems like it is open for gaming the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny Glover on Apr 12, 2016 11:02:06 GMT -5
Seems silly to reverse an increase that was intended to improve the player already
|
|
dougiejays
General Manager
Toronto Blue Jays
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by dougiejays on Apr 12, 2016 11:42:35 GMT -5
In principle I'm against this but if it were to go through I do have a player I'd like to make an increase on who I believe is ineligible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2016 12:28:40 GMT -5
Here's an example that wouldn't affect numeric ratings at all. It's a secondary talent. Dick Dietz had an increase of range at C. Seems pointless - who purchases a range increase at a position that doesn't need range? I can understand primary talents since numbers have been affected...but secondary?
|
|
bigmark
General Manager
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by bigmark on Apr 12, 2016 16:27:47 GMT -5
i could see doing it just for secondary talent...not for main talents.... but within a time limit as well. also a lot of other factors like what if the guy rates up or down on his own during that time......seems like almost too many variables to be feasible
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Apr 12, 2016 17:31:04 GMT -5
This is slippery slope stuff imo
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Apr 12, 2016 23:53:10 GMT -5
Yeah I see where Steinie (did I spell it right?) is coming from, but this would just become too much work for Chris to manage on a day-to-day basis. He busts his ass more than any OOTP commish out there to run this league and the potential for mistakes to happen here would be pretty high, so I just don't see this working out.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Apr 14, 2016 7:17:43 GMT -5
Looks like this one is a no-go, sorry Josh!
|
|
