Reserve Clause Or Free Agency?

[GoBucsGo]

So, I just got to 1975 in my complete MLB historical sim, and I'm at a bit of a crossroads. Iv'e always been interested to know how the MLB landscape would look if the reserve clause had stayed in effect.

In that same token, I was born and raised in the free agency era, it's all I know and I love the parody it causes. So my question to you guys is, which do you prefer, and most of all, why???

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by GoBucsGo

So, I just got to 1975 in my complete MLB historical sim, and I'm at a bit of a crossroads. Iv'e always been interested to know how the MLB landscape would look if the reserve clause had stayed in effect.

In that same token, I was born and raised in the free agency era, it's all I know and I love the parody it causes. So my question to you guys is, which do you prefer, and most of all, why???

Real life, I would say I prefer free agency

OOTP, it's reserve clause all the way. I love seeing guys play their entire careers with the same team. I love it when a team gets strong and stays that way for years. I also admit a lot of my love is the fact that the reserve clause really helps me get to know my league. For me trades are a lot bigger deal in reserve clause leagues. I love the ripple across an imaginary universe that takes place when a long term vet gets shipped to another team late in their career. I like that the reserve clause tends to create rivalries in an imaginary world.

As for free agency, I'm not a fan of guys becoming 1 year rentals from their early 30's to retirement. I hate seeing teams have an almost entirely new bullpen every single year. I also hate seeing the AI sign a good player and then turn around and sign another guy for the same position. Example, If a GM signs Tony Perez should he then turn around and sign Lou Gehrig? Especially if that means Perez will be a pinch hitter for the season?