|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 16, 2012 23:03:34 GMT -5
I have simmed one day to get everyone to November 1st. File is up!
I have been torn on the budgets but the thing is I don't feel completely right against chopping the budgets to the level some would drop without enough notice.
The owners ARE doing a better job of getting money adjusted into the league but to be fair I got to make a decision that helps both sides.
What I'm thinking of doing is FOR THIS SEASON, taking the newest budgets set by the owners this year combining that with the past 2 seasons budget and use its average. Next season, we would use the budgets set forth by the owner.
This will cause some increases/decreases all across the board but its the fairest way to continue with the older budget methods while incorporating the newest budget set by owners.
Any reason this doesn't work, I wanna know but I'm 90% convinced on this method for the upcoming season.
Unless someone talks me out of this then tomorrow I will put in all new budgets and Wednesday night we sim through Arbitration and start Rule-V on Thursday.
Sorry for the delays but its going to be an adjustment for us to get into a routine in my house with the newest addition. We will be back on track in no time..
Hope you all understand...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2012 23:05:53 GMT -5
Solid decision making yet again from the commish. Moving forward with you 100%
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2012 23:17:58 GMT -5
Agree
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2012 23:18:06 GMT -5
^ Agreed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2012 1:07:38 GMT -5
Agreed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2012 1:36:54 GMT -5
Meh. I still think we should just live with what the game gave us, but in the interest of getting the show back on the road, I'll support whatever decision you make.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Jan 17, 2012 1:42:29 GMT -5
I don't think the teams that got bonuses should be penalized for this at all.
Why should we have to lose some of the money we were given? If you are going to help teams out at a time when in the past there was chance to help teams out in the same situation but you chose not to. It's only fair to at least not punish the teams that did good by their owner.
Why would we lose part of our raise just because some other teams disappointed there owners are getting helped?
I don't agree with the teams getting helped, because it isn't consistent to the decision that was made before, so if we are going to switch over and change that pov then at the very least don't punish the teams that did what they needed to do to get a raise by taking away some of their raise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2012 2:07:36 GMT -5
I don't think the teams that got bonuses should be penalized for this at all. Why should we have to lose some of the money we were given? If you are going to help teams out at a time when in the past there was chance to help teams out in the same situation but you chose not to. It's only fair to at least not punish the teams that did good by their owner. Why would we lose part of our raise just because some other teams disappointed there owners are getting helped? I don't agree with the teams getting helped, because it isn't consistent to the decision that was made before, so if we are going to switch over and change that pov then at the very least don't punish the teams that did what they needed to do to get a raise by taking away some of their raise. you're pittsburgh. you don't deserve half the budget you have, and neither do i in miami. so count your blessings and move on.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Jan 17, 2012 2:16:41 GMT -5
I don't think the teams that got bonuses should be penalized for this at all. Why should we have to lose some of the money we were given? If you are going to help teams out at a time when in the past there was chance to help teams out in the same situation but you chose not to. It's only fair to at least not punish the teams that did good by their owner. Why would we lose part of our raise just because some other teams disappointed there owners are getting helped? I don't agree with the teams getting helped, because it isn't consistent to the decision that was made before, so if we are going to switch over and change that pov then at the very least don't punish the teams that did what they needed to do to get a raise by taking away some of their raise. you're pittsburgh. you don't deserve half the budget you have, and neither do i in miami. so count your blessings and move on. I gotta disagree with you on that one. We are going into year 2017 of a completely different world then what you are basing your opinion on. I don't play the game to be constantly compared to the current Pirates that we all know of today. In the PBL I like to think of them as a team that budget cuts when we were bad for a few years and then we got better and we were rewarded for it and have earned everything within the game and I'm sure I am not the only team as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2012 2:29:55 GMT -5
I don't like it for the same reasons as Shane, but I will back decisions I don't like (as with the previous budget changes) so long as the league gets better.
Tying in future budgets with in-game revenues is the key for me, as long as we do that from next season onwards with no more fiddling, I can deal with a hybrid for one year.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Jan 17, 2012 4:34:04 GMT -5
Like I said above though if you are going to do this then don't punish the teams that got budget increases. We should get to keep all of our increases if teams that lost are going to get help. If you don't think it is fair that a team that didn't expect a budget decrease but got one anyway and by not having a year in advance makes it unfair. then it isn't fair for a teAm that was expecting an increase and earned one then gets that taken away and then they don't have a notice in advance for that as well. And they are a team that did what they were supposed to do. So if we are going to change the way to handle this then I think to be fair to the teams that got a budget increase or stayed the same should get to remain the same or keep their whole budget increase if they received one.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 17, 2012 7:01:39 GMT -5
Shane, you can't argue your team should have a budget increase and others shouldn't. Going down that road simply will not work. Granted your performances of late have been very good, you also still have a small market, mediocre AT BEST loyalty and an economizer for an owner. If this was real life and you won the World Series, under those credentials, your owner is patting you on the back, having a big parade and promising to do it again while behind closed doors saying, 'Shane you know what to do now'. Then BOOM firesale from the Marlins playbook.
We go by what the game gives us for ownership, etc so I'm not gonna listen to this owner is different either.
You will be mad that your not getting increases but the Red Sox (for example) should sit back and say, okay I'll accept my budget cuts of almost $40M since in the past few years?!?!?!
I'll admit your MUCH better setup for the future than my club but going from Day 1 to now, what many are forgetting is the Red Sox won MORE games than the Pirates, More division titles and the same amount of rings. Yet, you want teams like mine to accept these massive cuts then complain when your team will have a minor cut in payroll?
Again we can talk about how you were the Pirates and came a long way but it is a proven fact that so far in this league the smaller market teams with good farm systems (TB, MIA, PIT top that list) have been a hell of a lot better than the larger market teams with old players and rising salaries (PHI, NYM, CHC, etc.).
gotta set up for work.... more on this when I get back....
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 17, 2012 8:00:54 GMT -5
Like I said above though if you are going to do this then don't punish the teams that got budget increases. So you DON'T want me to punish teams that got budget increases from their in-game owner despite all the inconsistencies that part of the game provides but you DO want me to punish the owners who took my word in previous seasons where I said I won't be slashing budgets? Explain to me how that is fair for everyone then I'll consider it, until that question can be answered, I can't.
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Jan 17, 2012 9:16:37 GMT -5
Im with you commish 100%
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2012 9:38:15 GMT -5
Like I said above though if you are going to do this then don't punish the teams that got budget increases. So you DON'T want me to punish teams that got budget increases from their in-game owner despite all the inconsistencies that part of the game provides but you DO want me to punish the owners who took my word in previous seasons where I said I won't be slashing budgets? Explain to me how that is fair for everyone then I'll consider it, until that question can be answered, I can't. I don't understand how something the game does is relevant to a promise you made. You are not slashing budgets--the owners in the game are. I have to agree with Shane, if you are going to provide a welfare check for those teams that lost money, then you shouldn't punish those teams that gained it by taking money away from them. I can understand Shane's frustration as any interference in budgets will now have been punitive towards his team TWICE. I also understand your frustration with Boston's situation, but when you run a team like Boston, you have VERY HIGH expectations--a season where you don't make the playoffs is a HUGE disappointment. Just look at the situation in Boston this year after they missed the playoffs IRL. Either way, let's make a decision and get this thing moving again.
|
|