Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SkyDog
I agree with your argument from a realism standpoint, but this is a point where I'd sacrifice realism for challenge, because it's not like I'll be looking carefully at AI rosters, anyway. Other than during beta, the only time I *ever* look at AI rosters is if I'm playing against them in a postseason series. At that point I only care about who they have in the starting lineup--and I'd prefer they do whatever it takes--including signing a $10M guy to replace a fading $10M guy--to put the best 9 on the field every day.
It's the same discussion we had about FOF's AI rosters and the amount of turnover on them. AI teams usually only keep 15-20 players from one year to the next, but it appears that it actually makes the game a little harder--because they keep their stars. I'd rather keep the challenge and sacrifice the realism in this case.
|
I hate to beat the drum on this one - but are the Yankees, with the astronomical payroll, the only teams doing this? Do other teams have a large contract guy playing in the minors? If that's the case (and therefore there's no logic to prevent this) then yes, there will be additional challenge when playing a team that can afford it, and less of a challenge when it comes to a team like the Royals (who can't afford to stick a $10 million contract in the minors).
Again, there should be some roster/lineup logic that takes into account salary...just a slight modifier - it's really no big deal.