Yeah, there's no theoretical reason why player, coach and prospect shouldn't be fluid.  Make it so.

It's a different game if you do that. Is it a better game?

Posted by deathinahole on 10/18/2011 8:09:00 PM (view original):
It's a different game if you do that. Is it a better game?

yes

It's certainly an easier game. So does easier = better?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/18/2011 10:11:00 PM (view original):
It's certainly an easier game. So does easier = better?

In this case, yes. Always? No

The inclusion of cash in trade devalues the budgeting process as is.    IF payroll, prospect and coaching were fluid, there would be more reason to limit cash inclusion.    The only time an owner would be up against the cap would be if he'd already spent all his cash.   No $12 in payroll room, 18m in prospect unused.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/18/2011 10:11:00 PM (view original):
It's certainly an easier game. So does easier = better?

I don't agree that it makes it an easier game. If money can be moved, you can do more with it. More options = more challenges = more strategy.

I set my budget so I had $30M to bid on one of the 2 top FAs. Both signed with another team for $110M / 5 yrs.

It doesn't make any sense that I loose half that money if I now want to put that money toward an Int FA.

The current rules make the best move to overpay for one of the remaining FAs. How is that better for the game?

I'll disagree with your disagreement.

Being able to transfer money freely across budgets without penalty takes away the tougher decision . . . do I transfer at a 50% penalty to try to pursue an IFA knowing that if I don't get him I just "lost" money with nothing to show for it?

If there's no penalty, then you can constantly move money around at will with no consequence.  Consequences force decisions involving risk.  Lack of consequences takes risk out of the equation.  Lack of risk = easier.

Regardless of how I feel about budget transfers, no penalty or one "pool" definitely makes it easier.    Anyone denying that it doesn't isn't really looking at it thru unbiased glasses. 

Just like cash in trade makes the game easier.   Don't have enough cap space, ask for cash.   No tough decision on another player to move in order to make salary work.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/19/2011 2:04:00 PM (view original):
Regardless of how I feel about budget transfers, no penalty or one "pool" definitely makes it easier.    Anyone denying that it doesn't isn't really looking at it thru unbiased glasses. 

Just like cash in trade makes the game easier.   Don't have enough cap space, ask for cash.   No tough decision on another player to move in order to make salary work.

Right, adding cash is like a no penalty transfer in a way. 

Posted by tecwrg on 10/19/2011 2:00:00 PM (view original):
I'll disagree with your disagreement.

Being able to transfer money freely across budgets without penalty takes away the tougher decision . . . do I transfer at a 50% penalty to try to pursue an IFA knowing that if I don't get him I just "lost" money with nothing to show for it?

If there's no penalty, then you can constantly move money around at will with no consequence.  Consequences force decisions involving risk.  Lack of consequences takes risk out of the equation.  Lack of risk = easier.

I understand your position. I disagree, but it's just a difference of opinion.

Your example is exactly why I don't like the way it works now.  It's just not how the real world works. IMO, HBD is an MLB simulation. As much as possible, it should word like MLB. Because all teams start with the same budget every year, and there really is no penalty for messing up a team or tanking (you can't get fired or lose a lot of real money), there needs to be some rules specific to HBD.  I just don't think this should be one of them.

IMO, the bad of the penalty outweighs the good.

If WIS wont eliminate the penalty, I'd like them to at least me transfers conditional.  Allow us to bid on the IFA if we have the money in Player Salary. Only transfer the money if we win.  Don't transfer it if we don't win.  I don't see any sense in forcing us to lose 1/2 the money in a transfer if the money isn't spent.

Now you don't even want to make a decision.   Which is simplifying the game.  Or, making it easier.

I want to make the decisions I'd have to make in the real world.  In the real world, unspent money can be moved from one budget to another without penalty.  That's what I want in HBD.

If I wanted to buy the red house on the corner, but got out bid, and then decided I don't want a different house, so I'm going to invest it, I don't have to give up 1/2 the money I would have spent on the house and only get to invest the rest.

Wouldn't it be a little easier to fill worlds if a new owner knew they could at least they could spend the $180M they way they wanted and not have to pay a transfer penalty and be limited to $4M budget changes for what could be a lot of seasons?

The real world doesn't have pre-set budgets.

We're kind of on the same side but you want no restrictions/penalties for bad decisions.

I'm sort of pushing a different agenda.    No cash in trade. 

I'm pretty sure most businesses make a budget every year.

In the real world that isn't the final decision.  The budget is a plan that can be changed based on new information.  That's how I think it should work in HBD.

Money in trades is a different topic. I got on a rant why I think there should be no limit on money in trades in a different post the last time I had time to kill in this forum.