Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 14:28:23 GMT -5
Is it just me, or does this free agent class look pathetically and unrealistically bad? I can't remember a real life offseason where the available talent was this depleted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 14:29:56 GMT -5
Its because the budgets for many teams are set ridiculously high. Teams are able to spend what they need to to keep all their top players. For example, my Marlin's budget is at $97 million, thats just silly.
|
|
|
Post by reds on Feb 21, 2011 14:36:08 GMT -5
Would having the budget be set by the revenue rather than by the owner fix this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 14:47:25 GMT -5
It would help a little, but revenues are also way too high. It's an OOTP thing not a PBL thing unfortunately, the low/mid end teams in particular have way too much revenue compared to expenses. Only the big-2 ever seem to not gain 10s of millions
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 14:50:08 GMT -5
Also, players are willing to sign ridiculously cheap contract extensions with their own teams rather than test the market. Look at some of the deals Pujolz and Lincecum signed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 14:50:24 GMT -5
The Giants have it dead on
OOTP just doesn't have the finances set up with this in consideration and theres not much to do about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 14:53:23 GMT -5
Also, it looks like the game has been eliminating debt and only carrying over 10% of it which screws up the finances even more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 14:55:18 GMT -5
Also, it looks like the game has been eliminating debt and only carrying over 10% of it which screws up the finances even more. Another OOTP thing, Markus says it represents the owner injecting cash. The bug is that there is no news message generated for it.
|
|
|
Post by reds on Feb 21, 2011 14:56:29 GMT -5
There are supposedly some changes to finances coming in the new version right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 15:07:13 GMT -5
Also, it looks like the game has been eliminating debt and only carrying over 10% of it which screws up the finances even more. Another OOTP thing, Markus says it represents the owner injecting cash. The bug is that there is no news message generated for it. The funny thing is that there is a line item in the budget for cash infusion, but it does not appear there and it's not a percentage. So even if this is from Markus, I doubt it is correct or he is borrowing a convenient excuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 15:20:43 GMT -5
Also, players are willing to sign ridiculously cheap contract extensions with their own teams rather than test the market. Look at some of the deals Pujolz and Lincecum signed. I don't know if commish ever looked at this but in the league setup -> rules you can set the typical salary for a Super Star Quality player, Star Quality Player, Good Quality Player etc...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 15:26:39 GMT -5
Its because the budgets for many teams are set ridiculously high. Teams are able to spend what they need to to keep all their top players. For example, my Marlin's budget is at $97 million, thats just silly. This is a problem, and for every team. Why bother to have owners control the budget, when they are less fiscally responsible than the players?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 15:32:55 GMT -5
It looks more like a bug than anything since it conveniently leaves the team with almost exactly 90% of debt erased. Maybe it's a measure to prevent big market teams from inevitably crumbling under their own weight early in MLB seasons, but it's kind of ridiculous.
Boston should be $5 million more in debt (something that can easily be corrected for in free agency), but this feature basically gives the Yankees a get out of jail free card. They should be forced to take drastic measures.
On the other hand, if the Yankees DID need money badly, Steinbrenner would just pump more and more cash into the team.
Maybe we can add intrinsic rewards retroactively to debt?
For example, if you make the playoffs (making the playoffs should have more intrinsic rewards than simply $4 million-ish in revenue generated, with prestige and exposure and the like), and your owner is fiscally generous, $15 million in debt will get taken off the books, $9 million if your owner is charitable, $5 if the owner is an economizer, $2 if the owner is controlling, and nothing if your owner is a penny-pincher?
Or what if, instead of adding cash from promos, they get used to remove debt (or get taken away automatically when debt is incurred?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 15:47:35 GMT -5
I knew there was something wrong with budgets when my owner said mine was 146 million haha or 160 i forget
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 16:56:53 GMT -5
I knew there was something wrong with budgets when my owner said mine was 146 million haha or 160 i forget You have the 3rd highest budget of any team...
|
|