What a Difference a Day Makes

[JasonC23]

I enjoyed the juxtaposition of these 2 news stories appearing on consecutive days in my inbox at the end of my most recent fictional season...

[Pelican]

Love it, as a Phillies fan; although I don’t recognize any of those player names. I think the first story was a random one, that by odd coincidence happened to fall the day before the clinching. Still pretty weird to go from walking on eggshells to a team party in one day.

You know, Gene Mauch was known as being quite intense during his time with the Phillies. But he took a bad team and made it into a contender in three years. Some would blame him for the collapse in 1964; but without Mauch they never would have been leading the league in the first place.

To paraphrase: “intensity in pursuit of the pennant is no vice”.

[OutS|der]

This is something where I wish the story line system was more advanced. There should be a mention of the previous storyline.
I'd love storylines to be more like the local news, with stories that build off each other

[JeromeNale]

Yay, I am so happy. I also love it < 3. As a student, these assignment-help websites are my secret weapon! Say goodbye to late-night struggles and hello to top grades. This will help in assignment writing and I am Impressed with the quality of work these websites deliver! Their professional writers ensure academic success in every assignment.

[JasonC23]

The Phillies continue to phascinate in my phictional, sorry, fictional league. After riding the momentum of their late-season clubhouse-tension-to-division-title adventure all the way to the World Series (where they were summarily dispatched by my White Sox), they continued their contradictory nature in the off-season...

[redranger]

Sounds like the Phillies owner wasn’t aware of that signing

Wait? What? You resigned him for what? I said you had 36m to sign several needs, not one player. GET RID OF THAT CONTRACT!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JasonC23]

It's such an interesting situation because, on the one hand, it's not great AI for a team to resign someone to a 3-year deal and then, not even a week later, trade that player/contract. On the other hand, this situation fascinates me because I can't tell which move was most questionable:

A) The Phillies giving a 32-year-old fragile closer a 3-year contract with a no-trade clause that guaranteed him the closer role

B) The player, having parlayed a 1-year free-agent deal with Philadelphia into a trip to the World Series, the Reliever of the Year Award, and a 3-year contract with a no-trade clause and a guarantee of being the closer immediately deciding, "You know, Cincinnati seems like a cool team to pitch for"

Or C) Cincinnati, despite already having a durable stud reliever guaranteed the closer role who is still under team control relatively cheaply through arbitration for 3 more years, deciding not only to trade for the Phillies' freshly signed closer but, for the privilege of inheriting such a bad contract, to give up 3 prospects, including a 4-star durable outfielder who had just been the 34th pick in the draft earlier in the year.

I think the answer here is C, because Philadelphia was somehow able to dump a self-inflicted bad contract for a good prospect, and the player apparently ended up where he wanted to with a 3-year deal and guaranteed job. Cincinnati...yeah.

[JasonC23]

At this point, maybe I should start an ongoing "This Day in Philadelphia" diary for my fictional league, because, early in spring training the year following the "sign the closer/trade the closer" drama, this happens to the Phillies new closer...

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by JasonC23

At this point, maybe I should start an ongoing "This Day in Philadelphia" diary for my fictional league, because, early in spring training the year following the "sign the closer/trade the closer" drama, this happens to the Phillies new closer...

It HAS to end with it being career ending, of course that's after an article comes out saying that he's on the mend and is looking better then ever.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by JasonC23

It's such an interesting situation because, on the one hand, it's not great AI for a team to resign someone to a 3-year deal and then, not even a week later, trade that player/contract. On the other hand, this situation fascinates me because I can't tell which move was most questionable:

A) The Phillies giving a 32-year-old fragile closer a 3-year contract with a no-trade clause that guaranteed him the closer role

B) The player, having parlayed a 1-year free-agent deal with Philadelphia into a trip to the World Series, the Reliever of the Year Award, and a 3-year contract with a no-trade clause and a guarantee of being the closer immediately deciding, "You know, Cincinnati seems like a cool team to pitch for"

Or C) Cincinnati, despite already having a durable stud reliever guaranteed the closer role who is still under team control relatively cheaply through arbitration for 3 more years, deciding not only to trade for the Phillies' freshly signed closer but, for the privilege of inheriting such a bad contract, to give up 3 prospects, including a 4-star durable outfielder who had just been the 34th pick in the draft earlier in the year.

I think the answer here is C, because Philadelphia was somehow able to dump a self-inflicted bad contract for a good prospect, and the player apparently ended up where he wanted to with a 3-year deal and guaranteed job. Cincinnati...yeah.

All 3 moves in a vacuum are questionable and just show how bad the AI still is in this game, the fact they happened back to back to back is even more concerning. They really need a massive overhaul on how the AI makes decisions and how it builds a roster because it can be really bad at it.