Eliminate Prospect Budget Topic

Quote: Originally Posted By timf on 1/11/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By The_Stiffs on 1/11/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By timf on 1/11/2010

I am not as experienced as alot of guys on here but why do so many people ***** about transferring budget to sign INTL FA's? Of course some guys are going to do it and they will end up with the best prospects but aren't you other guys missing something? The guys that have to do this are not good managers or they would be able to make trades, draft better and sign the cheaper INTL FA's and at the same time they could field a competitive team. There are far better ways to win besides tanking to get INTL FA's and high draft picks. Sign FA's wisely, draft well, manage your team and budget properly and these tankers won't be a problem because they still won't know how to manage a winning team while you will have the experience necessary to do just that.






in-gmae "managing" (manager settings until or unless we ever get LIVE play) is a small component of this game.

after 4 or 5 seasons of drafting a franchise player AND signing at least one more franchise player through the international market, these organizations can be STACKED with talent to the point that the AI could run off consecutive championships.

THE REAL PROBLEM is that there are no "real world consequences" (i.e. lost box-office draw, fewer merchandising dollars, bankruptcy) under the current model. and since these owners are obviously not shamed out of a league after fielding an embarrasingly amatuerish team for years, plunking down another $24.95 to continue hoarding exciting young talent is well worth it in the eyes of the tanker. i have been shot down with my proposed "dynamic budgets" system in the past. personally i still think it's a workable idea (though i admit i have no idea how difficult it would be to write the code for such a comlicated system), but at least capping budget transfers is a step in the right direction.
stiffs the point I was trying to make is that even though they can get the draft picks and IFA's they still have to figure out how to put everything together and how to make trades and sign FA's for the remaining roster. A few guys alone aren't going to win many championships, well maybe in a weak league but I doubt very much that would work in a very good league. Tanking and getting prospects is just one element to winning. I woud classify these guys as 'losers' and generally they wouldn't know how to win or they wouldn't bother going this route. A good manager will be able to get the better ML team through trades and FA signings and always be one step ahead of the tanker in that regard
so you're saying there's too much strategy involved for an owner playing a baseball simulation to know that they shouldn't draft all 1B?

two great SPs, a stud closer and three or four MVP type bats is enough for anyone to win a playoff series.

trading is not part of a tanking owner's strategy.

ALL that is required to be a successful tanker is patience and $100.
1/11/2010 3:27 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/11/2010Allow transfer from coaching and prospect into payroll. Not the other way around.
with no minimum and no penalty.
1/11/2010 3:28 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By The_Stiffs on 1/11/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/11/2010
Allow transfer from coaching and prospect into payroll. Not the other way around.
with no minimum and no penalty
or at least no minimum.
1/11/2010 3:30 PM
We can name this the PIEO rule....

1/11/2010 3:31 PM
stiffs, i love the idea of rewarding owners who win games (even if they don't make the playoffs) and punishing owners who lose games (to prevent tanking). but i don't think that dynamic budgets would work, because of turnover, and the rich getting richer.

what else can be done?
1/11/2010 3:31 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By examinerebb on 1/11/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By schedule1 on 1/11/2010
this will make the draft more important, though, won't it? which will... encourage tankers.
A fair point, which seems to have gone largely ignored. Now, instead of spending almost nothing on payroll, tankers can use the extra payroll they don't transfer to sign horrible players to horrible contracts, insuring good draft position but leaving the next owner in a lurch when they inevitably bail because no one wants them in the World.

Example: Tankapottamous decides he's not competing for four seasons, just building his minors. Trades away all of his ML contracts in Season 1, then signs 38 year old slugs to 3 year deals in Season 2 with the payroll he couldn't transfer. That way his team gets progressively worse until the point he's ready to compete.

Not that I'm arguing against a prospect budget cap in principal - $30 million seems more than fair - but this has the potential to make Worlds worse off than they were before.





Is Tanka pottamus related to shankapottumus ?
1/11/2010 3:35 PM
Put a boot to the *** of tankers. Don't let them play in your worlds.
1/11/2010 3:35 PM
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/11/2010Put a boot to the *** of tankers.   Don't let them play in your worlds.

i'm in a public world. i'd love to kick out the tanker, mirky. but i can't.
1/11/2010 3:38 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/11/2010Put a boot to the *** of tankers. Don't let them play in your worlds
Exactly.



This is an interesting read. It got so out of hand, that I have now cut the IFA scouting budget to about 0 in all my worlds and build up the draft. Drafting seems to be the quickest rebuild anyways. In Duff Beer, I built HS and college scouting to 20/20, let 2 type A's go, and just had 4 1st round picks in one draft. I got my catcher, 1B, closer and #2/#3 Sp o fthe furure in one round of the draft, and all for regular draft $$$. My 2nd round pcik will be a ML player as well.



Screw IFA.
1/11/2010 3:38 PM
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
1/11/2010 3:38 PM
Don't play in public worlds?
1/11/2010 3:39 PM
Can we leave the poor coaches out of it? Does anyone have a problem with the way budget transfers between coaches and player payroll work? Except perhaps those who would like to see the $2 mil increment eliminated.
1/11/2010 3:39 PM
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/11/2010Allow transfer from coaching and prospect into payroll.   Not the other way around.
I can't see a problem with transferring money to coaching.
1/11/2010 3:40 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By The_Stiffs on 1/11/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By The_Stiffs on 1/11/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/11/2010
Allow transfer from coaching and prospect into payroll. Not the other way around.
with no minimum and no penalty.
or at least no minimum.


I think there has to be a penalty of some sort. And, unless they change the drop down menu, there will be some sort of restrictions. Maybe move 100k at a time then repeat the process. That would leave a 200k minimum(assuming 50% penalty). And would require multiple transfers to move a substantial amount.
1/11/2010 3:43 PM
Transfrreing cash should not be banned. THere are times when you need an extra million for some pain in the *** draft pick who wants 500k more than his slot price. Or maybe an extra million for your payroll to make a trade to acquire a vet for a playoff run, or to replace an injured player, etc...the ceiling on transferring should work enough, no need to get rid of that part of the game.
1/11/2010 3:43 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8...34 Next ▸
Eliminate Prospect Budget Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.