Posted by jvford on 10/25/2011 9:16:00 AM (view original):
There are all kinds of budgets....budgeted projections used for attracting investors(pro forma financials), internal budgets for predicting future cash flow, budgets that are used as a tool to measure performance, and expense allocation budgets (type that seems to be thrown around a lot in this thread).

What do they all have in common?  They have nothing to do with an internet baseball game.

+1

There is also no ROI or profit in HBD. Or taking the money out of the game and spending it on something else.

And a minimum or maximum amount that can be put in any one budget has nothing to do with the ability to move money. Two different concepts.

I find it entertaining & sad that that a simple idea - either you lose money when you move it from one budget to another or not - can bring out so many irrational responses that have nothing to do with that one simple idea.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2011 11:12:00 AM (view original):
You can't stop tankers from tanking(without minimum win rules) so I don't sweat that so much.    But, when there's no money to sign draft picks or, even worse, coaches, a problem is created where there's no real solution.    You almost have to have the minimums in prospects/coaches in place to protect the dumbasses from themselves. 

Mike - not that I think you give a s**t, but I completely agree with you on this.

A win minimum in the ML, and maybe the MinL, is the only rational way to deal with tanking. Trying to micromanage details beyond that is going to be futile.

If there are going to be coaches, there should be a minimum budget required. At least until the end of coach hiring. Protects new players and really doesn't hurt experienced players.

Maximum budgets are probably best as world-specific rules. If someone can win 80 games and afford to sign an IFA for $40M, I don't see the problem. If other players do, there should be worlds with a maximum prospect budget.  I'm in one and it's great.

Posted by tufft on 10/26/2011 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 10/25/2011 9:16:00 AM (view original):
There are all kinds of budgets....budgeted projections used for attracting investors(pro forma financials), internal budgets for predicting future cash flow, budgets that are used as a tool to measure performance, and expense allocation budgets (type that seems to be thrown around a lot in this thread).

What do they all have in common?  They have nothing to do with an internet baseball game.

+1

There is also no ROI or profit in HBD. Or taking the money out of the game and spending it on something else.

And a minimum or maximum amount that can be put in any one budget has nothing to do with the ability to move money. Two different concepts.

I find it entertaining & sad that that a simple idea - either you lose money when you move it from one budget to another or not - can bring out so many irrational responses that have nothing to do with that one simple idea.

<pretending tufft was not the one trying to relate real life budgeting to hbd>

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2011 11:31:00 AM (view original):
Not sure that matters.   If the highest someone can bid on an IFA, due to transfer fees, is 40m, they'll bid 40m.   Or 100m if that's where they're going.  Again, tankers gonna tank.  Can't stop them without MWR.

Can't stop them... but you can limit them. If they spend $40 mil on 1 IFA w/ transfer penalties its better than letting them grab 2 top IFAs for $40 and $30 mil while the rest of us are more balanced budgets. There is a limited supply of top flight IFAs to get each season.... I think $70 mil would take the fun out of IFAs for the rest of the world.

Also I agree with minimum budgets for those w/o foresight into signing draft picks etc.

Let's not pretend that someone else wouldn't be bidding up IFA.  One guy isn't locking down two 40m IFA because he can.  He's doing it because someone else is bidding 39.5m.    And, nonetheless, it doesn't stop a tanker from tanking.

I really like that it takes a 50% penalty to move your prospect payroll above $20M and I hope it never changes

moy23 - "pretending tufft was not the one trying to relate real life budgeting to hbd"

Moving money from one budget to another. That's it. Why does that seem so hard for you to understand?

Posted by tufft on 10/26/2011 5:55:00 PM (view original):
moy23 - "pretending tufft was not the one trying to relate real life budgeting to hbd"

Moving money from one budget to another. That's it. Why does that seem so hard for you to understand?

you obviously have read nothing of what i've posted.  i understand what you are saying and i think it will kill hbd w/o budget caps (floor and ceiling) and/or transfer  penalties.

Posted by tufft on 10/19/2011 4:41:00 PM (view original):
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?

<pretending tufft was not the one trying to relate real life budgeting to hbd>

Posted by tecwrg on 10/17/2011 8:45:00 AM (view original):
At the end of coach hiring, allow a "grace period" where unused coaching budget can be transferred to player payroll without the 50% penalty.  The grace period can last between the end of coach hiring through the end of spring training.  It does not need to conform to the $2m increments.  It would be an "all remaining unused budget" transfer.

I understand the reasoning behind the 50% transfer penalty, and for the most part fully agree with it.  But under the current format, I think that it can lead to some stupid and unrealistic decisions during coach hiring when, once you realize that you will have less than $2m in unspent coaching budget, you get into a "use it or lose it" mentality and start offering unreasonably high offers to fill those last few coaching vacancies that you may have.

If you know that that last bit of unspent money can be transferred rather than just lost at the end of the coach hiring phase, then you might make some more realisitic decisions rather than blowing that last $1.5m on a Low A bench coach.

Finally, this "no penalty grace period" can only be used to transfer unused coaching budget into player payroll after coach hiring (and by defauly, after free agency) has concluded.  It cannot be transferred into prospect budget, and it cannot be transferred during free agency.  Those transfers would still need to adhere to the current restrictions ($2m increments with 50% penalty).

I'll bring this up again, though I'll amend it with a 50% transfer penalty.

Just finished coach hiring with one of my teams.  I had one coach left to go, and was looking at around $660k leftover.  I had absolutely no reason to not just throw that extra money on top of what I had already offered that final coach because it was just going to go unused.  Which is exactly what I did.

If I had another option, i.e. transferring some or all of it back into player payroll, I might have made a different decision on who I was going to try to get for that final coaching role.

Having no other options on what to do with that last bit of coaching budget dumbed down the game for me.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/18/2011 10:01:00 AM (view original):
I'm actually leaning more and more towards coach, player and prospect money being fluid.   After all, it's just "cash" being used to buy individuals.     You'd still have the budgeting process for scouting, medical, training.

Agreed.

Posted by genghisxcon on 7/16/2012 2:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/18/2011 10:01:00 AM (view original):
I'm actually leaning more and more towards coach, player and prospect money being fluid.   After all, it's just "cash" being used to buy individuals.     You'd still have the budgeting process for scouting, medical, training.

Agreed.

We did discuss some pitfalls to this.  Dumbass owners, without a doubt, will spend all their money on FA and have none left for coaching or draft picks.   You and I both know that would happen.

Actually, it's only a matter of time before WIS realizes that they can jack up the revenue by allowing you to "buy" a larger budget, similar to the way gaming networks allow you to pay EXTRA money to increase your assets in the game.

If WIS allowed you a one-time "increase" of your HBD budget of $20M for, say, $20 in cash, and there was a spectacular international FA or a top draft pick that wouldn't sign for his slot money, would you buy it?  Some might, and it would essentially be gravy for the WIS coffers.

I have spoken!!!!


Seriously, though, you'd still need to have a minimum amount in coaching and draft picks.

Posted by toddcommish on 7/16/2012 2:41:00 PM (view original):
Actually, it's only a matter of time before WIS realizes that they can jack up the revenue by allowing you to "buy" a larger budget, similar to the way gaming networks allow you to pay EXTRA money to increase your assets in the game.

If WIS allowed you a one-time "increase" of your HBD budget of $20M for, say, $20 in cash, and there was a spectacular international FA or a top draft pick that wouldn't sign for his slot money, would you buy it?  Some might, and it would essentially be gravy for the WIS coffers.

Quiet!!

Oh, wait, they don't pay attention to these forums.