Ha ok sorry, I forgot who suggested what.  But yeah I like your first suggestion.  The idea of working out a trade with someone just to have it turn out to have been not even possible in the first place and voided due to insufficient funds sounds frustrating.

That was directed towards kartman who said "I'm telling you...."

If you've "worked out a trade", insufficient funds shouldn't be a problem.    The problem you're thinking of comes from blind offers without discussion. 

If we're trying to have ppl spend money on ADV why not just merge the HS draft pool with the college draft pool into one joint pool, what's the point of having them separate anyways?  Allow for maximum overall scouting to be 60 total:  20 on draft (foggy), 20 on ifa (foggy), 20 on adv (not foggy) for 60 units total instead of spending your 60 on 15-15-15-15 which is actually 30-15-15 or maxing it out with 80 via 20-20-20-20 (40-20-20).  

Keep (or enhance) the custom formula config so that you can give 1.1x preference or whatever to 18 year olds and the people who currently go 0 coll-20 HS will still get what they want.

The whole point of going 0 in ADV in the past was that draft scouting was more than enough as long as you copied and pasted into an excel. Those draft ratings were fixed and reliable in the long run. Just have us pay less up front (halve the draft) and let us pay more in the long run (ADV) but have us invest the same amount overall

Also if you halve the draft then the game's pillars become more balanced. 60 max on "player improvement" aka coaching, training, medical; 60 max (rather than 80 max) on "scouting" aka draft, non-draft, and pro-player; and 65 min (rather than 45 min) on players + prospects

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/26/2015 3:24:00 PM (view original):
If you've "worked out a trade", insufficient funds shouldn't be a problem.    The problem you're thinking of comes from blind offers without discussion. 

Right, and those discussions have to start with every team you think *might* have the finances.  Back to my original problem.

I didn't vote in the poll, and I don't have a strong opinion, but I'll try to present the case for keeping payroll budgets visible.

For one thing, the current system has worked fine for 35+ seasons, so there's no harm in staying with the status quo. For another, the current system is not without it's charm. The way I see it, there is some strategy involved in the current system that would vanish if it were changed. Right now, if an IFA appears at the beginning of the season, I calculate who has enough prospect money to outbid me and use that to decide what to do. So if a decent Venezuelan RF prospect appears, and three people have more money than me, I take a look at each one, check their Intl budgets to see if they're likely to have spotted him, and make a decision on what to do. Maybe I'll bid a few million and hope they don't want him. Maybe I'll go all-in on this guy. Or maybe I'll just bid $20 million in the hopes that I'll force the guy who does sign him to lose all his money. With a little luck, I can use the system to my advantage. Sometimes people stay out of the IFA bidding because they know others have more money, and I can get a good prospect for $5-6 million and still have some money for a more expensive one later.

If you take away the information about budgets, everyone will be bidding blind. I can see this creatin a situation where every IFA goes for a ton of money and some of the subtlety will be lost.

I'm not going to cry if the budgets change, and maybe I could be convinced to like it the way. But I don't think it's 100% obvious that all budgets need to be hidden.

Posted by cimmy426 on 5/26/2015 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/26/2015 3:24:00 PM (view original):
If you've "worked out a trade", insufficient funds shouldn't be a problem.    The problem you're thinking of comes from blind offers without discussion. 

Right, and those discussions have to start with every team you think *might* have the finances.  Back to my original problem.

Not if you're allowed to make offers that will be voided should the other owner not take the time to determine if he has cap space.

Posted by pjfoster13 on 5/26/2015 3:25:00 PM (view original):
If we're trying to have ppl spend money on ADV why not just merge the HS draft pool with the college draft pool into one joint pool, what's the point of having them separate anyways?  Allow for maximum overall scouting to be 60 total:  20 on draft (foggy), 20 on ifa (foggy), 20 on adv (not foggy) for 60 units total instead of spending your 60 on 15-15-15-15 which is actually 30-15-15 or maxing it out with 80 via 20-20-20-20 (40-20-20).  

Keep (or enhance) the custom formula config so that you can give 1.1x preference or whatever to 18 year olds and the people who currently go 0 coll-20 HS will still get what they want.

The whole point of going 0 in ADV in the past was that draft scouting was more than enough as long as you copied and pasted into an excel. Those draft ratings were fixed and reliable in the long run. Just have us pay less up front (halve the draft) and let us pay more in the long run (ADV) but have us invest the same amount overall

Also if you halve the draft then the game's pillars become more balanced. 60 max on "player improvement" aka coaching, training, medical; 60 max (rather than 80 max) on "scouting" aka draft, non-draft, and pro-player; and 65 min (rather than 45 min) on players + prospects

I think it's more fun to have two separate draft piles. I like having to choose between one or the other (or both a. The expense of something else). And it's a good feeling when the player I am hoping to land is a college player, and I see that most of the guys ahead of me have spent more on high school scouting.

Matter of personal opinion, of course. But I like it this way.

C'mon man you voted... No way did you skip right over it without knowing which way the vote was going..  I voted NO just because I think you should be able to view PLAYER PAYROLL. Had the vote been just for PROSPECT BUDGET I wouldve voted YES.. 

IMO, I think it is too much of a inconvenience to not know if a team has enough payroll available to do a trade.. 

Honestly, the whole "trading will become more difficult and a waste of time" is a weak argument.    "Hey, I need pitching.   Interested in moving Joe Bob?" takes about 8 seconds for a slow typist.   It takes longer to go thru a roster to decide if they have anyone you'd want.

i like the following  ideas:

1. giving commissioner a min/max to set for enforcing "private world rules" (i.e. max prospect budget, min scouting, etc).
2. not showing any budget information at all.  Not that we are trying to be 100% realistic, but no team would ever do that. They let it be known that a player is available for trading or they need a specific player to fit a particular price range.  That teams budget is their budget.  This should also encourage owners to use the tools already available in the game more....trade chat, trade block, etc.
3.  If people want to do trades they can send a" blind offer"  to a team that cant be accepted but wont show budget, and would allow the other team to know that someone is looking to do business.

Just thoughts

articlegend, what you described is exactly why I want change. There is no "charm" in gaming the system. What you describe is not competition. I really don't have a problem being out bid for an IFA. I have a problem being out bid by $1.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/26/2015 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by indy_angels on 5/26/2015 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Why did they remove current ratings for IFA (and I assume draft prospects)? I can see current ratings for players on other teams. I can see current and projected ratings for tryout camp players. If my scout is standing there watching the player, he can't tell me what his current abilities are??? Only his future projections?? Very odd logic

It's to make the scouting budgets more relevant.

If you have an 18 year old with current hitting projections all in the 50's or higher, you KNOW he's going to be good, without having to look at or rely on his projections.

Without seeing currents, you only have projections, so if your scouting budget is low, you can't trust what you see.

I don't think this change is going to have any real significant impact on the game, esp the amature draft. HS/Coll scouting budgets do 2 things that I am aware of, 1 determine the size of the player pool you get to see and the quality of the projections. This has value only on draft day. Currently teams at the top of the draft spend more on average than teams at the bottom for the above reasons. This change places more emphasis on the projections, but isn't going to drive a bad team that is rebuilding and already setting their scouting budget high to act differently and likewise a very competitive team picking low in the draft isn't going to tie up money in am. draft scouting that can be used to sign/resign a FA. To some extent the same will apply to IFA's. If you have 20+M to spend bidding on IFA's you will already spend on Int scouting. If you don't have that kind of money to spend, you aren't going to tie up money in Int scouting

It prevents those low budget owners from drafting off currents.    That is sort of the point.

When you budget 0, you shouldn't get any sort of info.