|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 18, 2016 23:01:40 GMT -5
Just a quick update on budgets, this is the second off-season that the PBL limited budget decreases to a maximum of 15% and I am very happy with the results. Most budget fixes this off-season did not see a major change and the two teams with the biggest drops (ATL and WAS) are now in position where they can view their projected for next season and work to be within that budget.
With that being said and to keep this from becoming too long, barring some information that changes how I'm seeing this, I plan on going back to game generated budgets next season.
I do not believe $30-40m pay cuts are beneficial to the team, the GM or the league. However, the Braves and Nationals are about to see decreases of $22-25m next season and I feel both clubs are in position to work under those guidelines and and can continue to work to fix their franchise and start raising budgets on their own.
I believe the decision to alter game budgets were 100% the right thing to do to transition all teams fairly and I believe the decision to announce before we get into Free Agency that the budgets will be game generated going forward will be the right thing to do as well....
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jan 19, 2016 8:11:52 GMT -5
Any chance we can discuss removing the salary floor or lowering it? For example next season my projected payroll is 82 million. Salary floor is 40 million. So id be required to spend 50% of my budget on salary? OOTP punishes teams a lot as it is, not sure if we really need a "floor" anymore. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 19, 2016 8:34:01 GMT -5
I think we can come to an agreement on this whether its removing the floor completing or lowering the % of the budget.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jan 19, 2016 9:34:05 GMT -5
Derek, here's the part that I'm struggling with. Both of the teams you mentioned lost $32.5M and $33.8M last season. How is it unreasonable that an owner wouldn't be happy about that and in response lower a teams budget between $30-$40M to get spending under?
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jan 19, 2016 9:46:47 GMT -5
Any chance we can discuss removing the salary floor or lowering it? For example next season my projected payroll is 82 million. Salary floor is 40 million. So id be required to spend 50% of my budget on salary? OOTP punishes teams a lot as it is, not sure if we really need a "floor" anymore. Just a thought. A few seasons ago we switched to a percentage instead of a constant. paramountbaseball.proboards.com/thread/9311/paramount-baseball-league-governance"i. Teams with a budget of less than 100m must have a payroll of at least 40% of their budget. ii. Teams with a budget of 100m-150m must have a payroll of at least 45% of their budget. iii. Teams with a budget of more than 150m must have a payroll of at least 50% of their budget." So you are only required to spend 32 million if your budget is 80.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 19, 2016 11:23:21 GMT -5
Derek, here's the part that I'm struggling with. Both of the teams you mentioned lost $32.5M and $33.8M last season. How is it unreasonable that an owner wouldn't be happy about that and in response lower a teams budget between $30-$40M to get spending under? Because I simply do not think the game does a good enough job of being realistic. The in-game owner is saying okay you lost money this year so we will knock your budget down from $140 million to $100 million (fake numbers here)... BUT 1) I am assigning you a draft budget (ATL and WAS both got the highest I seen assigned at $9.4m) 2) I also want you to develop the farm system into a top 10 in the league, so essentially saying you need money in your player development expense 3) I know you still have to field a 40 man roster, and if not at a minimum 30-35 guys to cover your 25 man plus the obvious injuries that will occur 4) You also have a player under contract making $20m+ for the next 3 years (Like Orlando Reyes at the time in Washington for example) 5) You also have other high priced players on your roster because your budget WAS so high before I knocked it down $60m in 2 years and I wanted us to win before. OH and by the way... 6) I want you to acquire a Cy Young caliber starting pitcher so fit that into the budget And Finally Don't Forget.... Make me some money while you're at it! I also think the game sucks with matching its owner personality to actions. Both Atlanta (Generous with money and understanding with patience) and Washington (charitable with his money and tolerant with patience) and then they get nailed. Again this isn't to say I don't think their budgets shouldn't be dropped but I do think a scale is the right way of doing it and I think the decision to modify budgets and now step away has made scaling work for the best. I also don't think owners drop budget by $60-70 million in two years, watch their product suffer and life of their franchise get sucked away. I think they fire their GM, hire someone else to come in and fix the mess and work within a budget to get back to their goals knowing its going to take time. They simply don't let the same guy continue to handle things... I think the game is close in its approach but is just off enough to ruin things if not properly watched. The game can tell you I want a top 5 farm system, or I want to win a World series in 5 years, etc. The game should then be able to say, I'm not happy with our profit margins or performance has been so in 3 years I expect our budget to be lowered to $_____. If that was the case, then I would of been okay with leaving it alone from day one.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jan 19, 2016 12:01:21 GMT -5
Derek, here's the part that I'm struggling with. Both of the teams you mentioned lost $32.5M and $33.8M last season. How is it unreasonable that an owner wouldn't be happy about that and in response lower a teams budget between $30-$40M to get spending under? Because I simply do not think the game does a good enough job of being realistic. The in-game owner is saying okay you lost money this year so we will knock your budget down from $140 million to $100 million (fake numbers here)... BUT 1) I am assigning you a draft budget (ATL and WAS both got the highest I seen assigned at $9.4m) 2) I also want you to develop the farm system into a top 10 in the league, so essentially saying you need money in your player development expense 3) I know you still have to field a 40 man roster, and if not at a minimum 30-35 guys to cover your 25 man plus the obvious injuries that will occur 4) You also have a player under contract making $20m+ for the next 3 years (Like Orlando Reyes at the time in Washington for example) 5) You also have other high priced players on your roster because your budget WAS so high before I knocked it down $60m in 2 years and I wanted us to win before. OH and by the way... 6) I want you to acquire a Cy Young caliber starting pitcher so fit that into the budget And Finally Don't Forget.... Make me some money while you're at it! I also think the game sucks with matching its owner personality to actions. Both Atlanta (Generous with money and understanding with patience) and Washington (charitable with his money and tolerant with patience) and then they get nailed. Again this isn't to say I don't think their budgets shouldn't be dropped but I do think a scale is the right way of doing it and I think the decision to modify budgets and now step away has made scaling work for the best. I also don't think owners drop budget by $60-70 million in two years, watch their product suffer and life of their franchise get sucked away. I think they fire their GM, hire someone else to come in and fix the mess and work within a budget to get back to their goals knowing its going to take time. They simply don't let the same guy continue to handle things... I think the game is close in its approach but is just off enough to ruin things if not properly watched. The game can tell you I want a top 5 farm system, or I want to win a World series in 5 years, etc. The game should then be able to say, I'm not happy with our profit margins or performance has been so in 3 years I expect our budget to be lowered to $_____. If that was the case, then I would of been okay with leaving it alone from day one. Alright, it's clear you've spent some time thinking about this and are pretty set in your opinion on this. There have been a few teams in recent memory (CHC, ATL, MIA) that have had that amount of budget reduced but like you said those teams hire new gm's. The farm system goal should be pretty easy to meet though, especially with all of the early draft picks. I think in Anthony's situation, his owner didn't want him to break his team up. Anthony thought that was the best way to go. When you lose the amount of money that ATL has lost the past few seasons, I really don't think it's unreasonable for the owner to take drastic measures to reduce the budget. How many teams in MLB lose $30+M per season? I'm concerned though of the potential impact on the league as a whole when we make changes to budgets. Many gm's have reported that they have received budget cuts this season that they do not understand. I really hope that the changes made to teams budgets the past few years have not caused the game to start trying to balance itself and take budget away from the top teams that are doing well. I have read on the OOTP boards that there is a pool of money for team budgets and it adjusts per team based on performance, profit, team goals, etc. I'm happy that you've decided that this won't happen again next season. Hopefully we can start normalizing things and let the game handle them.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jan 19, 2016 15:38:01 GMT -5
Derek,
You have thought this through. Have taken action for a couple of teams. And have stated we'll get back to "normal" going forward. I am good with that. Way to go!!!
The two glaring anomalies I see with the two teams that have been helped (and NOT to pick on anyone specifically):
First, Atlanta has had a HUGE deferred payment for several years which has clearly dragged them down, the extent to which cannot be seen by the rest of us, so I am just assuming. And because doing that requires "manual" intervention (it can certainly be done by the Commish behind the scenes) I am not sure the game truly deals with that correctly.
As this is under the rules section, I might want to propose:
We strike the ability to defer salary/cash in trades over multiple future years from the PBL rules and simply return to how the game would normally treat cash sent in a trade in the trade window (essentially for the current season/year of contract). Simple is better!
PLUS that would not hamstring a "next" GM should the first depart after making such a deal.
Second, Washington is a mess (with respect to the GM trying to dig out). Losing money has been the norm. You cited REYES. Why he was acquired in the first place is (again with respect and purely in my opinion) completely baffling. You would have to argue long and hard that ONE gigantic, injury-prone, senior citizen at 2B would help a team that has been consistently a bottom-feeder.
I know it has been stated by others that there is more than one way to "re-build" but I am firmly in the camp that says THAT is not the way.
He presently consumes about 1/3 of the team payroll and almost HALF next season (thankfully, his final). Hopefully a collection of minimum salaries can be fielded around him. I blame eMax...in a playful, somebody got caught up in the hype...sort of way. Based ONLY on that information, regardless of your help, I would be shocked if Washington was any better next year than they have been. Restraint, once REYES is off the books, will be a bitter pill, to build the team and its financial capacity over the next several years.
Anthony will find his way out of the forest soon and, with the TOP farm system he has accumulated while struggling financially, will be a great team again soon. I honestly believe the deferred BIANCHETTI killed him since the deal was done. Again, that's just me talking.
Washington.........good luck! Sincerely!
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jan 19, 2016 16:15:39 GMT -5
Derek, You have thought this through. Have taken action for a couple of teams. And have stated we'll get back to "normal" going forward. I am good with that. Way to go!!! The two glaring anomalies I see with the two teams that have been helped (and NOT to pick on anyone specifically): First, Atlanta has had a HUGE deferred payment for several years which has clearly dragged them down, the extent to which cannot be seen by the rest of us, so I am just assuming. And because doing that requires "manual" intervention (it can certainly be done by the Commish behind the scenes) I am not sure the game truly deals with that correctly. As this is under the rules section, I might want to propose: We strike the ability to defer salary/cash in trades over multiple future years from the PBL rules and simply return to how the game would normally treat cash sent in a trade in the trade window (essentially for the current season/year of contract). Simple is better! PLUS that would not hamstring a "next" GM should the first depart after making such a deal. Second, Washington is a mess (with respect to the GM trying to dig out). Losing money has been the norm. You cited REYES. Why he was acquired in the first place is (again with respect and purely in my opinion) completely baffling. You would have to argue long and hard that ONE gigantic, injury-prone, senior citizen at 2B would help a team that has been consistently a bottom-feeder. I know it has been stated by others that there is more than one way to "re-build" but I am firmly in the camp that says THAT is not the way. He presently consumes about 1/3 of the team payroll and almost HALF next season (thankfully, his final). Hopefully a collection of minimum salaries can be fielded around him. I blame eMax...in a playful, somebody got caught up in the hype...sort of way. Based ONLY on that information, regardless of your help, I would be shocked if Washington was any better next year than they have been. Restraint, once REYES is off the books, will be a bitter pill, to build the team and its financial capacity over the next several years. Anthony will find his way out of the forest soon and, with the TOP farm system he has accumulated while struggling financially, will be a great team again soon. I honestly believe the deferred BIANCHETTI killed him since the deal was done. Again, that's just me talking. Washington.........good luck! Sincerely! Ive wondered about the deferred payment thing as well.. Derek, i also sent you a PM i was hoping to get clarification on regarding some wording in that Bianchetti trade. Can you take a look when you get a chance?
|
|