My question is "What rationale is given as to why new owners are forced to start at 10 (+/-4) in budgeting categories?

1) Most of the time the team was abandoned because there are major issues to address. So the new owner, aside from not having any idea of how the world plays, is disadvantaged further by the budgeting restraints.

2) When a team is available due to the previous owner being booted for tanking. Maybe I can take over this team and draft well. But I can only have a 14 scouting. I may only see 2-5 of the top 10 prospects...

3) A team is abandoned due to the previous owner signing back-loaded contracts and bailing when it's time to pay the piper. So I take this team full of older veterans and not much wiggle-room in the budget. At season's end many of my older players take a nose-dive in ratings due to a 14 training budget.

In both examples I am fighting injuries left and right also due to a 14 training budget. To top it off, the recovery time for these injuries are longer than necessary due to a 14 medical budget.

4) I may have a few veterans who could garner some young prospects to start rebuilding with, but it is a big risk as my adv scouting is only 14.
So I am trading known quality for a shot in the dark, as with a 14 adv scouting I am not overly confident in the  proj ratings.

The only thing I can max out as a new owner is payroll, coaching and prospect. Why wouldn't I max coaching and prospects and go for an IFA or 2?

What is my incentive to spend payroll on FAs only to watch them get injured and/or lose ratings at years end and still be under contract (as most good FA want 3-5 yrs.)


Again, the question is:
What rationale is used to defend this system instead of allowing a new owner to set his budget however he/she wants the first season he/she comes in? 

It's halfway. It's like being a taint, not *****, not A-Hole. Get it!!

Because then there is too much incentive for alias shenanigans.

14 medical is more than enough for most teams, I normally dont go much higher than 11 or 12 and rarely have issues
14 training if more than enough for most teams, some people still believe that the old steroid era exists and you should spend 20, I would never go higher than 15, it is a waste.
14 advance scouting is too much for most teams.  In fact a lot of experienced players drop this down to 0 due to the fact that you can use progression to figure out projections with decent accuracy 90% of the time.
14 college high school and internationals -- well we all see the rants about people with 20 in these categories that miss the top guys while someone with 5 sees them.  There is always some randomness to it, so I would never spend more than 16 tops on any of these -- 14 is more than sufficient.

1.  The medical bug still exists.   20m and the 60 day DL can turn average players into A/S.
2.  If you want maximum physical development from your prospects, I'd recommend 20m.
3.  Yep.
4.  More or less.   A smart owner goes 0/20 or 20/0 with HS/College and drafts accordingly. 

Of course, neither of our posts has anything to do with what he asked.   Just thought I'd throw that in.

I personally think that a well policed private world could take care of the budget shananigans, I am in favor of being able to make the budget whatever you want in year 1

Agreed, but there are and will always be public worlds and it would be a nightmare for them.

That being said, if there was a way to allow it for private worlds (and even maybe to let the individual worlds choose) while keeping the current system in place for public worlds, I think that could be good.  Probably not going to happen any time soon, though.

I've argued in the past that new owners should be allowed to start at 10 (+/- 4) or keep the previous season's settings, and I still think that would be a fair solution. But I think the game is set up so that new regimes are supposed to set up their own scouting departments, training facilities, etc. over time, rather than overnight, whereas payroll is more fluid. (I think this is more realistic, but not everyone agrees.)

But the only real issue I have with the present setup is that high-paid veteran teams, which are frequently abandoned, are so much less valuable without a high training budget. This also encourages new owners to trade off all assets, which can be disastrous in the wrong hands.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/2/2011 9:53:00 AM (view original):
1.  The medical bug still exists.   20m and the 60 day DL can turn average players into A/S.
2.  If you want maximum physical development from your prospects, I'd recommend 20m.
3.  Yep.
4.  More or less.   A smart owner goes 0/20 or 20/0 with HS/College and drafts accordingly. 

Of course, neither of our posts has anything to do with what he asked.   Just thought I'd throw that in.

Why does a smart owner go 0/20 or 20/0?  Wouldn't a smart owner go 20/20 and see every possible player? 

smart owners go 0/0 for draft budgets, because they don't need the 32nd ******* pick in the draft, because they're too busy winning rings imho

It sucks, but that's one way the game is somewhat realistic.

Look at the O's, for example.  Angelos things international scouting is a waste of money.  Andy MacPhail seems to agree with him.

Do you think if the next GM comes in hell-bent on expanding the O's presence in the international market, and manages to convince Angelos to give him the money for it, that the O's will magically be big players on the top prospects right away? 

I fully understand your gripe, but real franchises need time to fix disasters, so it shouldn't be a magic one season fix for anyone here, even if the previous owner was an inept/tanking douche.

Posted by a_ersberg on 9/2/2011 3:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/2/2011 9:53:00 AM (view original):
1.  The medical bug still exists.   20m and the 60 day DL can turn average players into A/S.
2.  If you want maximum physical development from your prospects, I'd recommend 20m.
3.  Yep.
4.  More or less.   A smart owner goes 0/20 or 20/0 with HS/College and drafts accordingly. 

Of course, neither of our posts has anything to do with what he asked.   Just thought I'd throw that in.

Why does a smart owner go 0/20 or 20/0?  Wouldn't a smart owner go 20/20 and see every possible player? 

If you get more than 2 legit BL players in a draft, you're very lucky.   Why spend 47m for two players?     Use that other 20m on something else. 

Posted by a_ersberg on 9/2/2011 3:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/2/2011 9:53:00 AM (view original):
1.  The medical bug still exists.   20m and the 60 day DL can turn average players into A/S.
2.  If you want maximum physical development from your prospects, I'd recommend 20m.
3.  Yep.
4.  More or less.   A smart owner goes 0/20 or 20/0 with HS/College and drafts accordingly. 

Of course, neither of our posts has anything to do with what he asked.   Just thought I'd throw that in.

Why does a smart owner go 0/20 or 20/0?  Wouldn't a smart owner go 20/20 and see every possible player? 

Because it's a waste.  There are enough good HS and college prospects to build your team with, so you don't need to invest/waste resources in fully scouting both.  And 10/10 would be pointless because you won't see the best of either.

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/2/2011 4:06:00 PM (view original):
It sucks, but that's one way the game is somewhat realistic.

Look at the O's, for example.  Angelos things international scouting is a waste of money.  Andy MacPhail seems to agree with him.

Do you think if the next GM comes in hell-bent on expanding the O's presence in the international market, and manages to convince Angelos to give him the money for it, that the O's will magically be big players on the top prospects right away? 

I fully understand your gripe, but real franchises need time to fix disasters, so it shouldn't be a magic one season fix for anyone here, even if the previous owner was an inept/tanking douche.

Law of diminishing returns. Back at inception, i recall that was noted as one of the reasons for the 4M budget swing.

Quote post by Jtpsops on 9/2/2011 4:06:00 PM: