Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammercraft
Maybe you should be able to send your bench coach out to assess the clubhouse (or a minor league team) the same way you send a scout to evaluate a player
|
I like this idea, it feels realistic and parallels other existing game mechanics. After all, a GM probably wouldn't know why team chemistry is terrible without input from the coaching staff, and even the manager might not fully recognize what is going on without some input from his coaching staff. There's no reason we should have to wait until mid-season, like the staff is prohibited from speaking with each other in the meantime.
Some other ways of handling it would be through news stories. A news story here and there about troublemakers saying obnoxious things about their teammates, either publicly or privately, or reported rumors that certain players are causing problems.
Not to go too far off topic, but I think more interaction back and forth between the GM, manager and/or coaching staff (and team morale could be one area where this interaction could be useful) would make the GM-only role or manager-only role more interesting. As GM, I should have the option of giving the manager some heat over who he is using on a day-to-day basis without having to actually take over the team. I don't want to fill out the lineup card, finding a manager who fits the team I'm trying to build is an interesting part of the challenge with the GM role. But if I sign a big free-agent closer in the off-season and the manager decides to keep the clearly over-the-hill veteran in that slot way longer than he should, I should be able to say something about it. Maybe the GM should be able to set some goals or give general direction to the manager the way the owner sets goals for me.
And in reverse, a manager only should be able to say to the GM, look, this player is causing problems despite his output, I really need him out of here. Or, I desperately need another usable arm out of the pen to compete for the division, etc.