|
Post by Nick_BrewersGM on Nov 11, 2015 10:31:13 GMT -5
i vote we increase everyones budget except for Anthony's because the braves suck and no one likes them hahah
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 11, 2015 12:15:13 GMT -5
I also vote the Nationals get moved to AAA. That is a franchise that is going to take a TON of work to win and make money.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 11, 2015 12:18:17 GMT -5
Ron, I should of bolded some key points here but below is the course of action. Tonight there will be much more clarity.
"To keep the PBL going and to buck a trend we got no idea as to why its going in this direction so dramatically and why some teams are being victimized more than others I do feel that its in the best interest of the league to revise team budgets and input some of the money that has been taken out back into the league.
As a direct result of this we will see the league open back up in a better way where the bidding on the remaining Free Agents will become competitive, the trade market should open back up and we should get more activity as a group.
The actual number that each team will be reviewed and announced tomorrow night as I need to do a little more research and come out with a fair and equal number for each franchise. Some teams will still see budget cuts and some will be quite substantial still but they will be based on a number that I find much more accurate and fair for all parties involved.
Finally speaking of fair for all parties involved there are 7 teams who have made an increase in budget and I will be compensating each in some way as well as I think this works both ways. I'm not looking to punish those who did turn a profit, specifically Texas, Cincinnati and Miami by giving them more competition in this market and not getting some type of benefit. This is an announcement that will come tomorrow as well."
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 11, 2015 12:18:46 GMT -5
I will say this took forever but I LOVED doing this. I absolutely loved diving into the numbers and find information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2015 12:33:24 GMT -5
Are you saying the Nationals will be moved to AAA?
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Nov 11, 2015 12:43:11 GMT -5
Are you saying the Nationals will be moved to AAA? Yes and your team will be replaced with little people. Your new team strategy will be forcing walks on offense due to your extremely small strike zone. This will be a major draw because fans have never seen anything like this since the early 1900's.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Nov 11, 2015 12:53:03 GMT -5
As others noted, phenomenal work Derek. I continue to admire the way you present data and share your thoughts.
Looking forward to hearing more later today. Really appreciate the effort!
More than ever, OOTP forces you to pay for poor contract signings if the results on the field do not hold up while balancing a budget.
Other than what was shared, is it possible to turn off the owner goals in the game and will that prevent the copious amount of punished teams through budget takeaways? Just asking.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Nov 11, 2015 14:31:22 GMT -5
Oh thank god. My biggest worry was that I was going to have to operate at with an international scouting budget and player development budget at $0 just to stay out of the red. Rebuilding without those is more or less imoossible. Been there, done that, for two seasons I believe. Will go WITHOUT a scout this season as I do not see the rationale for pumping money into a salary AND only for international free agents that essentially stink. Finally have some money for player development. Jury is out on "impossible"...but I will eventually let you know.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Nov 11, 2015 14:35:02 GMT -5
Also, is this going to be a yearly deal going forward? I, for one, would certainly hope not. The game has checks and balances built in. We are choosing to fly in the face of them to "save" some franchises currently in trouble. I, again just my opinion, hope this is a one-time correction. The game will not repeat some of the moves that have driven franchises into the dirt. Humans always will (fiscal stimulus or not)...
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Nov 11, 2015 14:41:54 GMT -5
Naturally I will abide by the decision of the Commissioner, but choose to disagree.
If you dig your hole, you must work your way out. If one of the variables is an owner not to your liking, either work with it or apply for a new GM gig elsewhere. If your current "plan" doesn't work, change it.
It would be an interesting exercise to revisit this thread at the end of the coming season to see if the highlighted teams make headway with their "revised" budgets.
I understand the thought of putting more money back into the league and appreciate the research done by both Derek and Tim in this area. My lingering fear however, is that the money has to come from somewhere! If you simply add numbers externally (as we appear to be doing), I fear the game will work to "balance" the new money available. How, I am not sure...but it will be interesting to watch what happens this coming season.
Also cannot wait for the "report" first day of the new season on who is meeting the rule of being in the green!!!
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 11, 2015 14:51:54 GMT -5
That is a good question I do not know the answer to but one that I think is worth considering.
The owner set goals for the Nationals as:
* Do not suck completely (2036) * Acquire and MVP caliber player (2036) * Build your farm system up (2037) * Bring more players from your farm to the Majors (2036) * Make playoffs by 2038
Two years ago the Nationals had a budget of $116 million in then it tried to be competitive by acquiring Orlando Reyes for $23.6 million which was risky as it was 20% of teams budget but now that contract is now 38% of the Nationals overall budget. They also tried by bringing in Mike Austin ($15m) and Armando Manuel ($12m). Right now those three players are taking up $50.6m of the teams $62m overall budget going into this season or simply put 3 players taking up 82% of the budget.
so with the remaining $11.4m in budget room the Nationals are supposed to fill an entire roster of players, add money into developing the farm system and OH BY THE WAY, add an MVP caliber player.
If the Nationals traded every single player except those three for guys making $500k they would still be over budget BEFORE draft pick signing, development, staff, etc so only on player expenses by $7.1 million.
Completely impossible goals set by the owner.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 11, 2015 15:23:18 GMT -5
Dave, how can you say we are doing this to "save" some franchises currently in trouble. Almost 80% of the league experienced a budget drop. 40% suffered from a drop of $20 million or more over two years.
The Pirates suffered a massive drop.
The game uses checks and balances but it doesn't mean it uses common sense.
I'd argue fairness as well. Look at the example of the Rockies versus the Angels. There is simply no way that makes any sense either.
|
|
|
Post by Chip_PhilliesGM on Nov 11, 2015 17:50:35 GMT -5
That is a good question I do not know the answer to but one that I think is worth considering. The owner set goals for the Nationals as: * Do not suck completely (2036) * Acquire and MVP caliber player (2036) * Build your farm system up (2037) * Bring more players from your farm to the Majors (2036) * Make playoffs by 2038 Two years ago the Nationals had a budget of $116 million in then it tried to be competitive by acquiring Orlando Reyes for $23.6 million which was risky as it was 20% of teams budget but now that contract is now 38% of the Nationals overall budget. They also tried by bringing in Mike Austin ($15m) and Armando Manuel ($12m). Right now those three players are taking up $50.6m of the teams $62m overall budget going into this season or simply put 3 players taking up 82% of the budget. so with the remaining $11.4m in budget room the Nationals are supposed to fill an entire roster of players, add money into developing the farm system and OH BY THE WAY, add an MVP caliber player. If the Nationals traded every single player except those three for guys making $500k they would still be over budget BEFORE draft pick signing, development, staff, etc so only on player expenses by $7.1 million. Completely impossible goals set by the owner. Yeah, I am all for getting rid of owner goals. In theory they could be fun, but I've given the example before of one of mine that is for me to get the top 6 farm system. If I promote my top prospects to the majors, they are no longer part of the farm system and my owner is upset that my farm system is not good enough. I think they can be turned off in Global Settings, there's a checkbox at the bottom left for it (according to the OOTP boards, I didn't actually check myself lol).
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Nov 11, 2015 18:22:56 GMT -5
Chip is correct for where to find the owner goals in game.
My main reason for asking is incomplete. I don't really understand how owner goals drive budget decisions. Or at least, IF they drive these decisions and by how much. But it stands to reason this has come up since we moved to 16. A coincidence? I think not.
We do know that the owner fiscal personality controls the owner behavior towards team budget. Let me see what I can uncover. Stay tuned!
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Nov 11, 2015 18:42:15 GMT -5
I know that I am new to the league, but I have to agree with the Angels owner that adjusting the budgets is the wrong move in this case. When I started looking at the teams I notices that salaries are really out of control. $20-30M a year for non-elite players is ludicrous. I am looking at extensions from some of my players and they want $18M a year to resign.
Maybe the reduction of payroll is in response to the inflated salaries of players. If you look at most teams there is a HUGE gap in salaries, its 80% at 500K and then it jumps to 10-20M/year on average.
Maybe the "extension agent" or the prohibiting of extending young players with less than 5 years services is playing havoc with the game's mechanics.
I would hate having budgets being messed with, because if you do it now, how long before you need to adjust them again?
I would rather see top salaries dropped (this can be done with the agent extensions) and allow teams to buy out arbitration years earlier than currently allowed.
This will allow for lower budgets to work properly, rather than artificially inflating them every so often.
|
|