May 26th Update - Feedback Topic

Posted by alleyviper on 5/27/2015 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by rockindock on 5/27/2015 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by damag on 5/27/2015 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Way back when this all started, on the very first day of the other thread, MikeT23 speculated that it could easily lead to more owners simply zeroing everything out and only investing in veteran free agents.

Right now that's a largely unpopular strategy, but it could gain traction. 

Never happen.

There are simply not enough free agents to make it worth while.
It's certainly how I am most likely to budget going forward.

For your sake I hope not too many others join you. The FA pool will shrink and you will be left holding big $$. Or spending big $$ on crappy FA's.
5/27/2015 10:00 AM
ha.

I almost typed the same exact thing as tec and then decided "meh let him learn the hard way".
5/27/2015 10:01 AM
Feel free to think that free agency is the only way to make use of a high payroll and zeroed out draft budgets.

Or to think that it's a reaction to the changes as opposed to extending what I'm doing with half of my teams to potentially all of my teams.

5/27/2015 10:09 AM (edited)
Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2015 9:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by alleyviper on 5/27/2015 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by rockindock on 5/27/2015 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by damag on 5/27/2015 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Way back when this all started, on the very first day of the other thread, MikeT23 speculated that it could easily lead to more owners simply zeroing everything out and only investing in veteran free agents.

Right now that's a largely unpopular strategy, but it could gain traction. 

Never happen.

There are simply not enough free agents to make it worth while.
It's certainly how I am most likely to budget going forward.
By choosing to do that, you are essentially "funneling" all the IFAs and draftees to a smaller pool of owners.  They get young, cheap cost-controlled talent while you focus on older and more expensive talent.

Doesn't seem like a sustainable strategy in the long run, born in a knee-jerk reaction to something you either don't like or don't understand about the update.

Good luck with that.

Owners do it now.   Hell, I do it in spurts.   It's not as unsustainable as you think.    It would be if several other owners in the world did it.   Because, as has been noted, the "pool" of players shrink when more owners take the same route.
5/27/2015 10:12 AM
133 (136)
6 (0) - don't need prospect money.
6 - bare minimum on coaches cause you've got no prospects.
0
0
0
0
20 - Training cause all you've got is declining old guys.
20 - Medical cause these old guys will be getting injured.

5/27/2015 10:13 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2015 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2015 9:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by alleyviper on 5/27/2015 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by rockindock on 5/27/2015 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by damag on 5/27/2015 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Way back when this all started, on the very first day of the other thread, MikeT23 speculated that it could easily lead to more owners simply zeroing everything out and only investing in veteran free agents.

Right now that's a largely unpopular strategy, but it could gain traction. 

Never happen.

There are simply not enough free agents to make it worth while.
It's certainly how I am most likely to budget going forward.
By choosing to do that, you are essentially "funneling" all the IFAs and draftees to a smaller pool of owners.  They get young, cheap cost-controlled talent while you focus on older and more expensive talent.

Doesn't seem like a sustainable strategy in the long run, born in a knee-jerk reaction to something you either don't like or don't understand about the update.

Good luck with that.

Owners do it now.   Hell, I do it in spurts.   It's not as unsustainable as you think.    It would be if several other owners in the world did it.   Because, as has been noted, the "pool" of players shrink when more owners take the same route.
That will be awesome. I hope it becomes the new 0 ADV.
5/27/2015 10:15 AM
How successful would you consider this owner?

Cooperstown PIT Stains 25 $53.2M 100-62 (.617) 2 -
Cooperstown PIT Stains 26 $56.3M 103-59 (.636) 1 -
Cooperstown PIT Stains 27 $61.0M 111-51 (.685) 1 -
Cooperstown PIT Stains 28 $70.1M 99-63 (.611) 1 -
Cooperstown PIT Stains 29 $81.3M 102-60 (.630) 1 -
Cooperstown PIT Stains 30 $98.6M 108-54 (.667) 1 -
Cooperstown PIT Stains 31 $122.9M 98-64 (.605) 1 -
Cooperstown PIT Stains 32 $130.4M 112-50 (.691) 1 -
Cooperstown PIT Stains 33 $122.3M 103-59 (.636) 1 X


He's in the midst of doing it right now.    Because he's had to.
5/27/2015 10:17 AM
He's 67-24 with a 127m payroll this season.
5/27/2015 10:18 AM
You are correct, he's had to. Backing off now would hurt him. However, my point is if other owners decide to go this route he will suffer from a lack of available talent.
5/27/2015 10:23 AM
Sure.  Just like when a dozen owners decide to run low payrolls and chase IFA.   It's always best to use a contrarian strategy.
5/27/2015 10:25 AM
That's actually a good world to use as an example.   Until a recent 5 game skid, I had the best record in the AL(he's a NL team).   I also have a high payroll/low scouting.   I picked 23rd, with 4m in scouting, and got Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Marwin Mota based solely on current ratings.

League payroll average is 90m.   We have 5 at 114m and above, 5 at 55m and below.   The strategies are spread out right now thus leaving no one really holding the bag in FA or IFA.   The scales might start to tilt and, if/when they do, the viable strategies will change.
5/27/2015 10:37 AM
Im glad they made changes its been long overdue. I just wish they would roll them out when worlds roll over not midstream. I also wish they would do away with the 4 mill at a time restriction. Especially if they are going to make major changes in the middle of seasons.
5/27/2015 10:45 AM
I will admit that the changes might lead to more transient high payroll/low scouting owners in a public worlds.   Not that it isn't a problem already but, if it becomes a more viable strategy, it's pretty easy to blow up a payroll, offer bad deals on the back end and bail when it's time to pay the piper.

Of course, that's a good argument for 4m increments for budget changes.   Takes that guy 3 seasons to get 0/0/0/0 in the scouting departments.
5/27/2015 11:14 AM
Without current ratings showing, the importance of draft And intl scouting has gone up, not down. So why are people thinking of zeroing out those budgets if they weren't doing so before?

That seems to me to be the exact opposite of common sense.
5/27/2015 11:18 AM
Because you can't base your picks/signings off current ratings using low scouting.

As I said above, I picked a guy with 4m based on currents.   I've signed IFA based on opening demands/current ratings with low scouting.   So the people running 2-6m have likely been doing the same.   Now it's just a waste of 2-6m.   May as well go 0. 
5/27/2015 11:21 AM
◂ Prev 1...8|9|10|11|12...26 Next ▸
May 26th Update - Feedback Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.