I think it would be quite beneficial if you could wait to set your amateur draft budget (high school and college) until after the "offseason" period. It is fine if you set everything else during the budget time but I think if you could wait on these until after the free agency period it would be a huge help. This might be something that favors better teams but nevertheless, I think it's a flaw. I am generally partaking in the latter half of the draft. When I know my team is doing well and not going to have a top draft pick I take a lot of money away from my amateur draft scouting. This becomes a problem with Type A free agents. Let's say you have a couple of Type A's that you are planning on resigning and that you even budgeted a little extra money for. Since you are planning on resigning them, you don't put extra money into your amateur draft scouting to account for what could be 4 or more top 100 picks you are picking up. Then, once budgets are set, you get a message from your free agent that they are testing the market regardless. You are just screwed here. Not only are you now losing out on those players you thought you were going to have but you are now well under budgeted for the amateur draft scouting. Another solution to this would be to have players give their answers to their intentions during the budgeting process. Have 3 possible answers: 1) Willing to resign; 2) Not willing to resign; 3) Willing to listen to your offer but no guarantees (this 3rd 1 can use work for sure). I understand you might be able to get an idea for what their intentions are based on the message they already have but why leave it open for interpretation? I don't really care which solution you may like best but I think both are viable and make complete sense.

Please feel free to elaborate on my idea or comment on it. I look forward to hearing what people have to say.

Too wordy with no breaks.

Are you suggesting that all budgets are set except those two?   So if you miss out on a big FA you'll be able to add/deduct 4m to/from the previous season's budget?  Seems harmless enough but also not a big help to anyone either.

The real problem is the departing FA's messages during the budget period.

If they plan to "test the FA market no matter what", then you should be allowed to know that during the budgeting period so that you could plan accordingly.

If that can happen, the "budget for the draft later" idea becomes moot.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/24/2012 9:31:00 AM (view original):
The real problem is the departing FA's messages during the budget period.

If they plan to "test the FA market no matter what", then you should be allowed to know that during the budgeting period so that you could plan accordingly.

If that can happen, the "budget for the draft later" idea becomes moot.

Agreed. This was 1 of my 2 ideas and either would suffice.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/24/2012 8:06:00 AM (view original):
Too wordy with no breaks.

Are you suggesting that all budgets are set except those two?   So if you miss out on a big FA you'll be able to add/deduct 4m to/from the previous season's budget?  Seems harmless enough but also not a big help to anyone either.

My apologies. It  may be a minimal effect, especially depending on where you budget starts, but it still makes a difference. In a game where there is a finite amount of money, every dollar counts IMO.

The budgeting & transfer process & rules should be fixed. 

This is just one real world, common example where budgeting is completely unrealistic and penalizes planning & strategy.

It should work like it works in the real world.  If you set aside money for something (ex. 1 or 2 particular FAs) & you can't get that, you don't lose 1/2 your money if you then decide to spend it on something else.

** Typos edited to appease Mike"*

Maybe spend 1/2 hour money on grammar and spelling classes?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/24/2012 3:26:00 PM (view original):
Maybe spend 1/2 hour money on grammar and spelling classes?

And he wonders why 99% of people who frequent the forums think he's a jackass.

I don't think he really cares what most of the people here think of him.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/25/2012 2:02:00 PM (view original):
I don't think he really cares what most of the people here think of him.

Of course he doesn't.  As someone who has to deal with and diagnose people with borderline or overt personality disorders, MikeT is a simple case.  Clinically speaking he is a serial bully leaning toward sociopathic traits.  He falls into the "Guru" subset of the serial bully profile.   The clinical trait profile is as follows:

• often successful in their narrow field of expertise
• regarded as an expert
• valued by the employer because s/he brings in the money, status etc
• ruthlessly pursues objectives regardless of the cost
• ruthless determination to succeed
• can be successful over the medium term in their field
• task focused
• zero people skills
• control freak
• mainly but not exclusively male
• often has a favourite who receives extra attention but who is expected to reciprocate with sycophancy
• favours, protects and promotes non-threatening sycophants whilst marginalizing and hindering the advancement of those with higher levels of competence, especially in people skills
• apt to betray those formerly favoured, especially when the favoured person starts to show independence of thought or action, or starts to receive more attention or become more popular than their mentor
• a male Guru in a position of power may exhibit inappropriate sexual conduct
• gauche, aggressive and unpleasant but not evil
• may not be overtly attention-seeking but dislikes those around them getting more attention than they're getting, or getting attention which doesn't include the bully
• selfish, self-centred, self-opinionated, dogmatic and thoughtless and with a tendency to pontificate
• apt to throw temper tantrums when things don't go well or can't get their own way
• emotionally immature, perhaps emotionless, sometimes cold and frigid
• convincingly intellectualises feelings to compensate for emotional immaturity
• intelligent (often highly) but lacks common sense
• is happy to lie to suit own purposes
• can have a rigid routine
• does not accept responsibility for their own behavior
• blames others for own inadequacies
• refuses to recognise that they could have any shortcomings of their own
• does not live in the present
• usually extremely neat (for example, desk is always clear)
• organized (sometimes overly)
• tempts fate but always gets away with it
• has stereotypical ideas about gender roles (though this may not be expressed consciously)
• makes assumptions about others' thoughts
• does not follow social rules, for example may display bad table manners in public
• appears unable and unwilling to engage in and sustain small talk
• seems unaware of the nature and purpose of rapport
• seems to exhibit some symptoms similar to autism, although autistic people tend to be shy, introspective and lack manipulative skills and are usually the targets of bullying, not the perpetrators (it's unknown whether there might be a common cause or whether the similarities are just a superficial coincidence)
• appears unable to read people and their thoughts and especially feelings
• when held accountable exhibits genuine confusion as to why their behaviour is inappropriate
• in cases where malice is low or absent the person my be regarded as somewhat avuncular or mildly jovial or charismatic in nature
• likes the appearance of normalcy but rejects responsibilities of relationships
• is unable to comprehend or meet the emotional needs of others
• often puts work and duty above everything, including relationships
• makes power plays, for example leaves the room when someone is speaking, or pretends not to hear and constantly asking a person to repeat what they just said, etc
• doesn't share information about self (thoughts, insights, etc) and is not open to receiving this type of information from others (allegedly knows it all already)
• secretive
• possessive of objects and sometimes people
• may view people as objects (this enables controlling behaviour of other people)
• thinks of self as superior and above the law / rules / regulations etc (these only apply to other people)
• uses denial as a defence mechanism
• there are likely to be problems with succession
   

Oh, and tecwrg, you may want to pay particular attention to bulletpoints 11 through 13.

Too long, spaceboy.  But don't forget to take your protein pills and put your helmet on.

I'll shorten it for you.  He's deranged and you are his little *****.  Clearer now?

Thank you, Dr. Phil.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/25/2012 2:02:00 PM (view original):
I don't think he really cares what most of the people here think of him.

Was he referring to me?   Because I do, I do care deeply what most of the people here think of me.    Haven't you noticed how I go out of my way to make internet buddies?  

HAVE YOU NOT NOTICED!?!?!??!?!