|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Nov 11, 2015 18:49:36 GMT -5
One other thought.
Instead of pumping money into our game (or do it anyway, either way i'm cool with your direction Derek), why not change the option of 'Team owner controls budget?' to 'No, entire revenue available'.
This option is located on the financials game setting, under team revenue settings.
Would that solve the issue we see with owners arbitrarily increasing/decreasing team budgets? Just a thought and would welcome any input.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Nov 11, 2015 18:54:13 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. That's not necessarily wrong, but I'd have you look at my salary situation. I took over the Rockies a week ago. We had two players eating up 28 million of my salary. Now it was completely reasonable for the previous GM to offer these contracts when he had a budget of 120 million or so. It's only unreasonable now that the budget has been dropped so precipitously. Maybe some other teams are in trouble because they mismanaged their funds, but as far as I can see the trouble the Rockies are in has nothing to do with absurd contracts.
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Nov 11, 2015 19:02:40 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. That's not necessarily wrong, but I'd have you look at my salary situation. I took over the Rockies a week ago. We had two players eating up 28 million of my salary. Now it was completely reasonable for the previous GM to offer these contracts when he had a budget of 120 million or so. It's only unreasonable now that the budget has been dropped so precipitously. Maybe some other teams are in trouble because they mismanaged their funds, but as far as I can see the trouble the Rockies are in has nothing to do with absurd contracts. Yes, but both of those players will come off your payroll at the end of the year. So its not a long term issue for you.
|
|
|
Post by Nick_BrewersGM on Nov 11, 2015 19:38:02 GMT -5
can't we just have a floor budget? if a team can't afford an $80 mill a year budget then the owner doesn't deserve to run a franchise
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Nov 11, 2015 19:42:17 GMT -5
One other thought. Instead of pumping money into our game (or do it anyway, either way i'm cool with your direction Derek), why not change the option of 'Team owner controls budget?' to 'No, entire revenue available'. This option is located on the financials game setting, under team revenue settings. Would that solve the issue we see with owners arbitrarily increasing/decreasing team budgets? Just a thought and would welcome any input. Just to add to this, from the manual:
Team Owner Controls Budget? Determines whether or not the team owner controls the budget. Either the team owner controls the budget, and the general manager has limited use of money, or the team's entire revenue is available to the general manager.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Nov 11, 2015 20:24:29 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. The examples you cited were franchises in trouble. I won't argue your stats/numbers as they are well-researched. I happened to use the word "save." I can't imagine you referencing Pittsburgh means you're considering helping Shane because of a massive budget drop? I'll assume you are simply using that as an example of how odd the game acts at times. I'll leave just a couple of additional points and then simply "play the game" under whatever decision you render: 1) Please do not take this the wrong way, but you are utilizing your calculations to challenge how the game coders/developers intend the game to act. I can only trust that they have put a lot more time and effort into balancing the game, testing the game through QA and reacting to feedback than any one person, group of persons or league could. I choose to trust that the game is intended to operate a certain way (even accepting it's lack of common sense occasionally, as you mentioned) and external help, especially financially as that is what we're taking about, risks throwing things off. 2) As there is no inflation in the game and I trust that the game tries to balance things over time in sort of a closed loop. Zevin almost certainly adds an intangible to the PBL as the contracts are essentially negotiated outside of the game. Again you are calculating in a different way the game would in an effort to keep things "fair" but honestly may also be unintentionally throwing things out of whack by doing so. But I acknowledge that as a unique part of PBL. 3) Another factor to consider (and I have read this elsewhere - but unfortunately cannot call up the specific text) is that OOTP operates with a "pool" of money in-game and always tries to "balance" itself over time. - If too much money is in the league then players will ask for more money (if we used that mechanism in PBL instead of Zevin) in free agency. I think we'd all attest to that through playing solo or by being in other leagues. - If the money dries up, then a by-product of that might just be some "sweetheart" deals through in-game free agency until things level out over time. - Pittsburgh (since you brought them up), being a consistently phenomenal team, likely making oodles of money each season as they repeatedly reach the post-season and Shane likely maximizes his revenue behind the scenes might simply be experiencing a "balancing" of the disparity between his HAVE team (and the other mega-money franchises) and the HAVE NOT teams (some struggling mightily with their finances). Shane also makes a point of trading his larger, elite player contracts before they burden his budget, in favour of up-and-coming studs, thereby achieving even more success (on the field and off) and undoubtedly keeping his owner happy and bank account full. I'm sure the GAME cannot simply let his franchise rampantly get so far ahead of every other, widening the HAVE/HAVE NOT gap!!! As the game can't really and truly control the team Shane assembles to win 100+ games per season (and further increase his bankroll) MAYBE, just MAYBE, it uses a budget cut (even accepting a nonsensical owner) to keep his team from running and away as an out-of-control money machine! Even if it doesn't look "fair" or "right" in isolation, maybe it's simply the game code trying to rein in his team (or any other incredibly successful franchise) the only way it knows and can to balance the game??? And lastly, I still maintain that if a GM in the game (in this league or any other) flushes his/her team down the toilet, through whatever means, or simply assumes a team that is toilet-bound, throwing more money at the franchise might not necessarily put them on the path to solvency. BUT we shall see... OK, back to focusing on my Angels and charting their path out of the crapper!
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 11, 2015 20:30:44 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.
New or not your opinion is considered one of thirty two and is very much valued.
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.
This may "look out of control" but fact is they are not. A study was done to show our salaries are right in line with Major League Baseball and the accuracy was pretty damn good based on top players at each position, etc.
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.
Over inflated salaries have been around since we started the league. Hell the original roster set was full of over priced salaries and we needed to remove money from the game back then because teams were making so much there was nobody going to free agency.
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 don't buy this. Zevin has negotiated extensions but numbers are based off of other players which mean what guys signed for in Free Agency as well. Free Agency market is determined by what GMs are willing to pay a player and a GM needs to determine what they can pay based off their budgets. If they are always seeing increases and decreases in the $4-8m range then its completely unrealistic to prepare for a $50m budget cut. I guarantee if Atlanta knew about the $50m budget decrease POSSIBILITY, he would of made a lot of trades differently as well as FA signings.
I would hate having budgets being messed with, because if you do it now, how long before you need to adjust them again?
I guess 20 seasons since that was the last time we had to do it.
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 happen. Salaries got high because teams could afford to pay it. That has nothing to do with manually adjusting anything. Teams simply worked within the budget the game gave them and nothing more. If budgets were less then salaries would of been less but to cut out $466 MILLION from the league in 2 years without notice is blindsiding to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 11, 2015 21:15:48 GMT -5
One other thought. Instead of pumping money into our game (or do it anyway, either way i'm cool with your direction Derek), why not change the option of 'Team owner controls budget?' to 'No, entire revenue available'. This option is located on the financials game setting, under team revenue settings. Would that solve the issue we see with owners arbitrarily increasing/decreasing team budgets? Just a thought and would welcome any input. Just to add to this, from the manual:
Team Owner Controls Budget? Determines whether or not the team owner controls the budget. Either the team owner controls the budget, and the general manager has limited use of money, or the team's entire revenue is available to the general manager.
How does it determine budgets? Total Revenue from the past season or over x-amount of seasons? Is there a big change over either way? PBL TOTAL REVENUE for all teams in 2035 -- $3,713,342,873 PBL TOTAL REVENUE from all 2026-2035 -- $4,022,517,217 2036 PBL Team Budgets -versus- 2035 Team Revenue2036 PBL Team Budgets -versus- 2026-35 Team Revenue
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Nov 11, 2015 21:21:01 GMT -5
This is getting old. Please post your decision and move on.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Nov 11, 2015 21:32:08 GMT -5
Your questions are valid Derek. It's hard to quantify how the game goes about determining a budget, why such harsh penalties are levied to certain teams. I can only surmise OOTP is much more sophisticated now and the days of building super-star teams without fiscal responsibility are long gone. It truly is starting to resemble a simulation, finances and all.
I need to do further digging to try and uncover where the parallels are when owner goals are on/off, owners with/without budget decision-making power to see if something stands out.
In the meantime, i'm comfortable moving on with any decision you want to make.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 11, 2015 22:33:16 GMT -5
This is getting old. Please post your decision and move on. Don't read it. Like it or not, I am going to do thorough research because I want to feel confident in my decision. This is something I take seriously so if you don't then go wait in another thread until we move forward. very simple. If I simply make a decision and throw random numbers out there you will be the FIRST person lined up questioning it and demanding answers and wanting reasoning and proof so its guys like you that make me be sure I'm prepared.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 11, 2015 22:35:03 GMT -5
And no offense, Sean but I didn't invest hours looking into numbers for the best interest of the league just to then throw random numbers out there.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 11, 2015 22:53:46 GMT -5
The solution is in place, just putting the numbers together now.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 11, 2015 23:52:44 GMT -5
Upon review of every teams budget over the past 10 years, I have gathered a sample size of 3,200 times an owner made a decision on their team budget. This was a fun little project to do for me to give myself some confirmation this is the right decision to make. Upon this review I have discovered the following data: * 15 times out of 3,200 (0.0046%) the Owner decided to cut a team budget by $12m or more from one season to the next * 14 times out of those 15 (93.3%) happened this off-season when the owners set budgets for 2036 * 5 teams have seen budget cuts of $11m, 13 teams seen $10m cut * 13 teams have yet to see a budget cut of over $9m from one season to the next * 2 teams have seen increases of $18m from one season to another * 11 teams seen increases in the range of $10.5-15.5m * 10 more seen increases of $10m * 9 teams have only seen increases from $2-9.5m; 4 of those 9 teams just seen their budget slashed from $14-24m. I'm pretty confident in saying something funky happened this off-season and I don't know why. Free Agents have been signed at a slightly lesser rate and extensions have been signed and evened out from the consistent increases HOWEVER, I do not think the extensions make any difference since they are done in game and within team budgets. I was considering many different options on how to handle these major shifts in budgets and I came to the decision that for this year I have a plan in place in which I will monitor and review at the start of NEXT OFF-SEASON when budgets are released again. I did not want to penalize teams who made money so that eliminated some of the options I was considering such as altering budgets based on last two year averages, etc. I did not want to have to reward teams who made budget by altering other parts of the game at this time as I was considering allowing those who made money to add more seats, upgrade fan base, market size by one, etc as a reward but I felt this was a road I did not feel comfortable with. So I think the best way to move forward with this season is to install a baseline for budget cuts and not allow a team to have their budget reduced by more than that specific number. The pool of 3,200 decisions by owners cemented that this was the right thing to do. The fact that only 15 times has a major budget cut happened and all but one was this off-season tells me it was a fluke. So with that being said, I am going to set a cap on budget reduction for this season only and pending further review this offseason to decide if we will continue or be able to dig deeper in the reason why. That number will be $15,000,000. This will pump money back into the league but not an amount that is going to make it a free for all going forward. This will allow some teams some wiggle room to sign free agents, get out of the red or work on player development. It is now up to the General Manager to work under these budgets and get out of the red before the season begins or they do risk penalty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2015 23:55:20 GMT -5
This game is made by Germans. They're obviously still pissed that the USA beat them. Lets send an apology and maybe in ootp34 they'll get this budget thing right
|
|