The Pros and Cons of Finances/Free Agency
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:28 pm
Let me preface this by stating that I got a CD book from the library called "The Teammates", by the late David Halberstam. It's the story of four players who, with one exception, played their entire careers with one team and remained close friends throughout their lives. The players: Ted Williams, Dom DiMaggio, Johnny Pesky and Bobby Doerr. Yeah, you know who they are.
I'm quickly realizing that my anachronistic replay of 1939 (with finances ON), while entertaining, is turning into what may as well be a fantasy draft league. In a little over three months, I've basically reconstructed the Dodgers, and have thrown historicity into the wind. I keep coming back to the idea that the AI GMs can't handle the money aspect properly, and I've taken advantage of it. The way I toss players around, the prospect of a long-term one-team career is damn near impossible. Adding to that is the unrealistic way that PS evens out the money between teams, making little difference beween small and large-market teams. This has been one reason that I don't play seasons in the free agency era.
This is NOT to say that I desire a strictly historical reenactment. My most successful & enjoyable completion of a season was 1947, when my Dodgers met the Yankees in the WS and won it. In that one I had finances turned OFF. Yes, I made some good trades, but the Dodgers were still recognizable.
OK, this is basically an editorial, so I apologize. Some guys like to play with the money/contract negotiations, but I'll posit that it is only appropriate to the 1975-76 seasons and beyond. A reserve clause era replay, right or wrong, should probably stick to the player/owner conditions/restrictions of the time.
What do you guys think?
I'm quickly realizing that my anachronistic replay of 1939 (with finances ON), while entertaining, is turning into what may as well be a fantasy draft league. In a little over three months, I've basically reconstructed the Dodgers, and have thrown historicity into the wind. I keep coming back to the idea that the AI GMs can't handle the money aspect properly, and I've taken advantage of it. The way I toss players around, the prospect of a long-term one-team career is damn near impossible. Adding to that is the unrealistic way that PS evens out the money between teams, making little difference beween small and large-market teams. This has been one reason that I don't play seasons in the free agency era.
This is NOT to say that I desire a strictly historical reenactment. My most successful & enjoyable completion of a season was 1947, when my Dodgers met the Yankees in the WS and won it. In that one I had finances turned OFF. Yes, I made some good trades, but the Dodgers were still recognizable.
OK, this is basically an editorial, so I apologize. Some guys like to play with the money/contract negotiations, but I'll posit that it is only appropriate to the 1975-76 seasons and beyond. A reserve clause era replay, right or wrong, should probably stick to the player/owner conditions/restrictions of the time.
What do you guys think?