|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Aug 21, 2015 19:46:06 GMT -5
Sean, earlier in this thread you stated that: "If you're over budget, you are at a clear advantage over the teams that are following the rules." and "You can't argue that the teams that are over budget don't have an advantage over the teams that are under." Now your position is that even though you are over budget you do not have an advantage. Why is that? I don't understand your reasoning. Earlier in the thread, I posted what my financial screen showed before last night's sim. During the sim, I signed two free agents. According to Derek, I am now over budget. So what am I doing? Making a move to balance that out. The two free agents I signed combined salary wasn't more than what my projected positive budget was, so it doesn't make much sense how now I am at a negative. Anyway, I am working to balance that budget, which again went over this past sim. That is completely different than going into the year at Opening Day and being over by $5 mil or more. Sean, I am with you on some of the points you have made so don't take this too strongly... but I really agree with some of what Craig has been saying. Here's the thing... yes, maybe it is different what Derek did, but let's move past that for a moment. Without looking, I know that the rules state that the ONLY balance that matters for PBL compliance is the "PROJECTED BUDGET ROOM" on the Front Office page. I know this because one way or another, we have had this same conversation somewhere on this forum every single year. Now, if everyone else does not remember this--- that's no big deal, HOWEVER... it is EVERYONE'S responsibility to either KNOW this, or review when necessary so you remain in compliance. From the screenshot Derek has shown us, and from what you are saying... you were positive in PROJECTED BUDGET ROOM prior to last night's sim, and then signed players to put that in the negative. This shows lack of adherence to the rules. The very thing you have spent some energy preaching about today. You stated you looked at PROJECTED BALANCE or some other thing but, ultimately... that's not moving the needle for me a bit, because the rules clearly state where you SHOULD be looking. And Craig is exactly right--- once the season starts, you do NOT get to make ANY move that puts you in the negative PROJ BUD ROOM, no matter how quick you plan on resolving it. While I think some of the criticism you received today was a bit harsh imho... in the final analysis, you have sort of become what you despise, right? Either not caring or, more likely not taking responsibility to be aware of the rules. Don't focus on Derek's infraction being bigger... he has a bigger problem to fix, but the rules were violated in both cases. Derek will have to fix his, you will have to fix yours. Now, to Baltimore's point... I feel pretty bad on this one. It's the same thing that happened to me, and to many other teams. Several requests were made by multiple teams, including me... for us to forgive any debt relevant to this issue for just this ONE year. That request never seemed to get the traction that I thought it deserved. It seemed like a no brainer to me. I heard two real objections, and I personally didn't really buy into either of them. Objection 1: We can't really know WHO needs to be forgiven of debt. I didn't buy this one. If a GM doesn't complain ... they don't need help. If they do complain of being impacted, it's easy to see in commish mode, I'm sure, that the team is at the default numbers for Scout and PD. Objection 2: A team like mine would be at an ADVANTAGE if I can go in the negative. It took me awhile to understand why those taking this position had a point... but they do have a point. I get the benefit of default numbers in scouting and PD, but ALSO am allowed to spend to go negative by that amount. I get it.. a fair point. But I submit that any advantage gained by this is slight at best. On the other hand, the impact of NOT helping these teams is much greater IMO. If we don't help them, we are making them move SALARY guys (regular starters, in other words)... with basically no notice right before the season, with no time to plan for filling that hole. I thought that was a far greater negative impact than any positive advantage we might have by granting one year grace for the commensurate amount of negative balance. Example--- I traded Francisco Camacho to another team because of this issue. I did NOT want to move Camacho at all. At 3 mil this year, Camacho is a STEAL! But I had to move that 3 mil to another team to get my PROJECTED BUDGET ROOM back in the green. Baltimore's situation is worse, and I feel bad for him. He is going to have to move more like 7 or 8 mil. Even though I have already gotten back into compliance and I know some others have as well--- I would love to see an exception made for teams like Baltimore. We never really got a ruling on that because Derek has been very busy with his personal life, which we all understand. If we don't make that exception... I trust everyone to handle it the best they can. Baltimore, I'm sure, is willing to get back into compliance if he must. Finally... I agree with the group sentiment that maybe the time has come to let the game handle the finances. If you drive yourself way negative, you are just shooting yourself in the foot. It's NOT smart. Fiscal responsibility is critical to team success. Even if you want to GO FOR IT... you have to be somewhat balanced. The only concern I think people have had with this is that teams may spend like crazy to try and run to a title, and then quit the league when the time comes to go through the THIN YEARS because of that decision. I get that. It's a very valid concern. But MAN... we really have a pretty good group. We have SO many vets in this league that have been here for so long... and I trust them to take responsibility for their decisions. And even the new guys... maybe one in 5 new people would show that kind of league disrespect, imo. And don't get me started on the benefits to our hard working commish. Ultimately--- too many benefits to let the game handle it, and not enough negative impact. I'd love to see this changed next year.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Aug 21, 2015 20:30:28 GMT -5
Earlier in the thread, I posted what my financial screen showed before last night's sim. During the sim, I signed two free agents. According to Derek, I am now over budget. So what am I doing? Making a move to balance that out. The two free agents I signed combined salary wasn't more than what my projected positive budget was, so it doesn't make much sense how now I am at a negative. Anyway, I am working to balance that budget, which again went over this past sim. That is completely different than going into the year at Opening Day and being over by $5 mil or more. Sean, I am with you on some of the points you have made so don't take this too strongly... but I really agree with some of what Craig has been saying. Here's the thing... yes, maybe it is different what Derek did, but let's move past that for a moment. Without looking, I know that the rules state that the ONLY balance that matters for PBL compliance is the "PROJECTED BUDGET ROOM" on the Front Office page. I know this because one way or another, we have had this same conversation somewhere on this forum every single year. Now, if everyone else does not remember this--- that's no big deal, HOWEVER... it is EVERYONE'S responsibility to either KNOW this, or review when necessary so you remain in compliance. From the screenshot Derek has shown us, and from what you are saying... you were positive in PROJECTED BUDGET ROOM prior to last night's sim, and then signed players to put that in the negative. This shows lack of adherence to the rules. The very thing you have spent some energy preaching about today. You stated you looked at PROJECTED BALANCE or some other thing but, ultimately... that's not moving the needle for me a bit, because the rules clearly state where you SHOULD be looking. And Craig is exactly right--- once the season starts, you do NOT get to make ANY move that puts you in the negative PROJ BUD ROOM, no matter how quick you plan on resolving it. While I think some of the criticism you received today was a bit harsh imho... in the final analysis, you have sort of become what you despise, right? Either not caring or, more likely not taking responsibility to be aware of the rules. Don't focus on Derek's infraction being bigger... he has a bigger problem to fix, but the rules were violated in both cases. Derek will have to fix his, you will have to fix yours. Now, to Baltimore's point... I feel pretty bad on this one. It's the same thing that happened to me, and to many other teams. Several requests were made by multiple teams, including me... for us to forgive any debt relevant to this issue for just this ONE year. That request never seemed to get the traction that I thought it deserved. It seemed like a no brainer to me. I heard two real objections, and I personally didn't really buy into either of them. Objection 1: We can't really know WHO needs to be forgiven of debt. I didn't buy this one. If a GM doesn't complain ... they don't need help. If they do complain of being impacted, it's easy to see in commish mode, I'm sure, that the team is at the default numbers for Scout and PD. Objection 2: A team like mine would be at an ADVANTAGE if I can go in the negative. It took me awhile to understand why those taking this position had a point... but they do have a point. I get the benefit of default numbers in scouting and PD, but ALSO am allowed to spend to go negative by that amount. I get it.. a fair point. But I submit that any advantage gained by this is slight at best. On the other hand, the impact of NOT helping these teams is much greater IMO. If we don't help them, we are making them move SALARY guys (regular starters, in other words)... with basically no notice right before the season, with no time to plan for filling that hole. I thought that was a far greater negative impact than any positive advantage we might have by granting one year grace for the commensurate amount of negative balance. Example--- I traded Francisco Camacho to another team because of this issue. I did NOT want to move Camacho at all. At 3 mil this year, Camacho is a STEAL! But I had to move that 3 mil to another team to get my PROJECTED BUDGET ROOM back in the green. Baltimore's situation is worse, and I feel bad for him. He is going to have to move more like 7 or 8 mil. Even though I have already gotten back into compliance and I know some others have as well--- I would love to see an exception made for teams like Baltimore. We never really got a ruling on that because Derek has been very busy with his personal life, which we all understand. If we don't make that exception... I trust everyone to handle it the best they can. Baltimore, I'm sure, is willing to get back into compliance if he must. Finally... I agree with the group sentiment that maybe the time has come to let the game handle the finances. If you drive yourself way negative, you are just shooting yourself in the foot. It's NOT smart. Fiscal responsibility is critical to team success. Even if you want to GO FOR IT... you have to be somewhat balanced. The only concern I think people have had with this is that teams may spend like crazy to try and run to a title, and then quit the league when the time comes to go through the THIN YEARS because of that decision. I get that. It's a very valid concern. But MAN... we really have a pretty good group. We have SO many vets in this league that have been here for so long... and I trust them to take responsibility for their decisions. And even the new guys... maybe one in 5 new people would show that kind of league disrespect, imo. And don't get me started on the benefits to our hard working commish. Ultimately--- too many benefits to let the game handle it, and not enough negative impact. I'd love to see this changed next year. No offense taken Tim. I'm telling you though, when I made the offers I had around $9.5 mil available in budget. The two players I signed didn't go over that amount, so I'm really confused how I'm now -$3.3 mil. I agree with just about everything you posted above.
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Aug 21, 2015 20:46:38 GMT -5
Sean, looks like you've pushed your player salaries to the budget of 122 mil with those signings adding your 111 current budget by 9.3 more. Keep in mind your scouting and development and unless they are at ZERO I'm assuming its like 4 mil combined and that's where that -3 mil comes in
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Aug 22, 2015 0:11:24 GMT -5
Im suggesting next year that... 1) We let the game handle the financial side of things. Derek does have to be careful as the game allows the commish to spend over budget. 2) As soon as the regular season stars, remove all compensation on any remaining free agents. This way it wont screw up the draft order. Both of the above would be great! Anything to make the game easier for all should be highly considered.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Aug 22, 2015 8:42:35 GMT -5
My 2c... I have long been a proponent of letting the game handle the finances and removing the rule about the Projected Player Budget needing to be green. Is it dangerous? Of course. For the reasons already cited, like a GM going for it and then abandoning his/her team, and probably some others. But it does allow a certain amount of flexibility to sign free agents (NOT trade into the red or further into the red, which the game would still prevent and the Commissioner should NEVER override). And will the BIG budget teams have an advantage? Oh likely, but that's one of the dynamics in both the game and baseball IRL. You simply have to find another way to your end goal - OR, as I've said previously, GM the YANKEES (or any other big market team) if they open up again! OR just keep working and working until your market and budget improves dramatically - that can also be accomplished...slowly. But it would make the argument about the Owner assigning budget to Scouting and Development an "internal issue" between you and him. If he screws you and somehow takes you into the red in some column, that's your issue and may prevent you from doing some things, but that too should not be overruled by the Commissioner. And I also side with Anthony above (I think that's twice now) that IF you maintain draft pick trading, you have to be aware of the COMP element. Probably the only option is to remove that COMP once the season begins. Or we could eliminate draft pick trading entirely?
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Aug 22, 2015 9:27:41 GMT -5
Here's another factor that I haven't yet seen mentioned in these PBL threads but could have possibly the most serious impact of all to the league...maybe?!?
Apparently some of the more "radical" owners have the ability to sign and extend players (think Steinbrenner) within the game, whether YOU , as GM, like it or not. Should that happen in the game it would directly fly in the face of the "Zevin" mechanism that has long been in place. Could be an aging veteran for which the owner has a soft spot...or some other reason??? I believe the "involvement" personality trait is "Meddling". Might want to check your team? The Angels, btw, "Normal". Can't wait for the firestorm the first time this occurs!! I love this game!!
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Aug 22, 2015 9:58:16 GMT -5
For the sake of Derek's sanity it only makes sense to let the game do its job. We all want this to go on forever so anything that takes a burden off him and at the same time makes it easier on the casual GM only makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Aug 24, 2015 18:28:20 GMT -5
With the lost 1st round pick due to signing a FA, my budget for signing draft picks still remained at $5,625,000.
So, by my estimate, I am actually over budget by about $1,500,000.
Regardless, I'm going to make a trade to balance the budget ahead of time.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Aug 24, 2015 19:10:56 GMT -5
With the lost 1st round pick due to signing a FA, my budget for signing draft picks still remained at $5,625,000. So, by my estimate, I am actually over budget by about $1,500,000. Regardless, I'm going to make a trade to balance the budget ahead of time. When the signing period ends, the draft budget - fixed until then - will be replaced with the amount actually spent to sign picks. If you spent less than the draft budget, total expenses will decrease and projected budget room will increase. Based on what you said, this probably is what will happen to you this season. Budget relief is on its way, but it has not yet arrived.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Aug 24, 2015 19:13:57 GMT -5
With the lost 1st round pick due to signing a FA, my budget for signing draft picks still remained at $5,625,000. So, by my estimate, I am actually over budget by about $1,500,000. Regardless, I'm going to make a trade to balance the budget ahead of time. When the signing period ends, the draft budget - fixed until then - will be replaced with the amount actually spent to sign picks. If you spent less than the draft budget, total expenses will decrease and projected budget room will increase. Based on what you said, this probably is what will happen to you this season. Budget relief is on its way, but it has not yet arrived. So technically I still need to clear some salary to be within the rules right? I just made a trade that put me back in the black but just trying to understand so it doesn't happen again.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Aug 24, 2015 19:42:07 GMT -5
When the signing period ends, the draft budget - fixed until then - will be replaced with the amount actually spent to sign picks. If you spent less than the draft budget, total expenses will decrease and projected budget room will increase. Based on what you said, this probably is what will happen to you this season. Budget relief is on its way, but it has not yet arrived. So technically I still need to clear some salary to be within the rules right? I just made a trade that put me back in the black but just trying to understand so it doesn't happen again. Yes, that's they way it works. It feels good to be back in black, doesn't it? Good job. Hopefully we will agree to change the rule. I believe the logic in the game now is strong enough to enable us to let the AI penalize GM's for fiscal irresponsibility. I would like to see the current rule replaced with a rule that simply specifies a maximum amount of debt (i.e., negative cash) allowed before a penalty is assessed. Beyond this threshold, a GM would not be allowed to make moves that would increase debt (i.e., reduce cash further). Doing so covers the unlikely situation in which a GM intentionally is wrecking the franchise in pursuit of a championship. But that topic deserves further discussion. In the meantime, the rule is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by RandyP on Aug 26, 2015 21:00:01 GMT -5
Im suggesting next year that... 1) We let the game handle the financial side of things. Derek does have to be careful as the game allows the commish to spend over budget. 2) As soon as the regular season stars, remove all compensation on any remaining free agents. This way it wont screw up the draft order. Both of the above would be great! Anything to make the game easier for all should be highly considered.
|
|
|
Post by RandyP on Aug 26, 2015 21:01:54 GMT -5
Rays agree, Lets go with the game on the financial side
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Aug 26, 2015 21:04:22 GMT -5
I'm all aboard letting the game handle it next year.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Aug 26, 2015 21:07:36 GMT -5
I'm all aboard letting the game handle it next year. Would it make it easier if I kept my GM name in the game so my history is in order but I take away Commissioner powers then create another Commish user name to run all sims, etc.
|
|