Or a recipe to simply leave the world when your talent pool is limited to aging players past their primes.

But that's off-topic.  Convincing someone pay your players because you can't afford them is a fine example of budgeting meaning very little in the grand scheme of things. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2010 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Or a recipe to simply leave the world when your talent pool is limited to aging players past their primes.

But that's off-topic.  Convincing someone pay your players because you can't afford them is a fine example of budgeting meaning very little in the grand scheme of things. 

And that's where we differ.

We seem to agree that getting $ included in deals comes at the expense of talent, we just differ apparently in how that talent fits into the grand scheme of things.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2010 10:07:00 AM (view original):
There is no penalty if you acquire a 4m player and get 4m in cash thrown in.  Had you wanted/expected to acquire a 4m player, you could have left 4m cap space.

The penalty comes in the form that you'd have to give up more to get the Player + the money, compared to just the player himself.

I think this is what I said before, how little or much that budgeting means in the grand scheme of long term dynasty building is what's at stake here.  Rather than simply "scrap it" as suggested by this thread and all the +1s being thrown around, I think WIS could tweak it to make budgeting matter more....which would improve the game.

I agree.  But you need to tweak other aspects along with it.   Cash in trades and budget transfers to name a couple.

I agree.  But you need to tweak other aspects along with it.   Cash in trades and budget transfers to name a couple.

Stop with your doubletalk!

It needed to be said twice.  For effect.

Posted by nfet on 6/20/2010 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I think you're using the term "correct their mistakes" too loosely.  They can make up for their mistakes...but as you describe it, they don't correct their mistakes without penalty.  I think the issue here, is if the penalty is big enough.

agreed...

in most leagues there is generally a large surplus of money leftover at the end of each season (totaling all 32 franchises' unused money)

let's say as an owner i have 1.5 million left over at the end of a season and nothing to use it on (too little to make a budget transfer to prospects). it makes sense for me to get some utility out of it...if an owner needs a 800K to make a budget transfer to sign his first rounder and we're working out a trade i have to decide what that excess budget is worth to me...the answer is not much

you can't take it with you at the end of the season so if the other owner includes a good minor league shortstop with no ML potential (let's say an 80 guy across the board defensively who is 30 across the board offensively) who can fill out my system and strengthen my system defensively (thus enabling my pitching prospects to get more IP for their pitches, slightly helping development) then i'll probably take it

i only have to weigh what i get out of the extra money included (minor league filler) versus what the other owner gets (the ability to sign his first rounder).  unless we're in the same division and especially if we're not in the same league it's not really a big deal, unless this draftee is a potential superstar.  additionally if he doesn't get the money from me there is a good chance he can get it from someone else (because there is so much excess money floating around at the end of the season)

i have an economics background and i think that is why i tend to view these types of transactions a bit differently...i don't really look at it as bailing the other owner out, it's just 2 different owners valuing a commodity (my excess budget) differently...it is when owners value a commodity differently that you get mutually beneficial trades...

i think owners get worked up when they see one owner getting more out of a trade than the other, even if the trade is win-win for both sides it bothers owners if one franchise wins "more" than the other....

Posted by schuyler101 on 6/21/2010 8:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nfet on 6/20/2010 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I think you're using the term "correct their mistakes" too loosely.  They can make up for their mistakes...but as you describe it, they don't correct their mistakes without penalty.  I think the issue here, is if the penalty is big enough.

agreed...

in most leagues there is generally a large surplus of money leftover at the end of each season (totaling all 32 franchises' unused money)

let's say as an owner i have 1.5 million left over at the end of a season and nothing to use it on (too little to make a budget transfer to prospects). it makes sense for me to get some utility out of it...if an owner needs a 800K to make a budget transfer to sign his first rounder and we're working out a trade i have to decide what that excess budget is worth to me...the answer is not much

you can't take it with you at the end of the season so if the other owner includes a good minor league shortstop with no ML potential (let's say an 80 guy across the board defensively who is 30 across the board offensively) who can fill out my system and strengthen my system defensively (thus enabling my pitching prospects to get more IP for their pitches, slightly helping development) then i'll probably take it

i only have to weigh what i get out of the extra money included (minor league filler) versus what the other owner gets (the ability to sign his first rounder).  unless we're in the same division and especially if we're not in the same league it's not really a big deal, unless this draftee is a potential superstar.  additionally if he doesn't get the money from me there is a good chance he can get it from someone else (because there is so much excess money floating around at the end of the season)

i have an economics background and i think that is why i tend to view these types of transactions a bit differently...i don't really look at it as bailing the other owner out, it's just 2 different owners valuing a commodity (my excess budget) differently...it is when owners value a commodity differently that you get mutually beneficial trades...

i think owners get worked up when they see one owner getting more out of a trade than the other, even if the trade is win-win for both sides it bothers owners if one franchise wins "more" than the other....

This is the problem with cash in trades(I'll explain why):
"let's say as an owner i have 1.5 million left over at the end of a season and nothing to use it on (too little to make a budget transfer to prospects). it makes sense for me to get some utility out of it...if an owner needs a 800K to make a budget transfer to sign his first rounder and we're working out a trade i have to decide what that excess budget is worth to me...the answer is not much"

I fully understand that the 1.5m isn't worth much to you.   However, you're dealing it and giving someone who screwed up with their budgeting the ability to sign a first round pick.   For all we know, the player is a future Hall of Famer.  In a dynasty game, that's a horrible way to play the game.   What you do today can have HUGE effect on tomorrow.   Trading a future Hall of Famer, which is what you're really dealing in my example, for a defensive specialist is insane.  

Your thought process is short-sighted at best.

miket - no i'm not giving up the future hall of famer in the deal, on the contrary i gain something in the deal

this isn't black and white either, i mention that it should be considered if this is just a typical late first rounder or a potential superstar top overall pick...

i'll quote my original post  "it's not really a big deal, unless this draftee is a potential superstar"

and as i additionally said alot of teams have excess cash at the end of the season, if i don't "bail" the owner out, someone else most likely will

so i've passed up an opportunity to make my team better (however marginally), and for what?  to let another owner take that same opportunity

unless the league expressly prohibits cash trades (which makes this whole scenario moot) i have no reason to think someone else won't make a deal with the underbudgeted owner unless A) he is widely despised and there is an effective boycott of him, B) the league culture is such that no one else will include cash in a deal or C) i am the only owner left in the world with excess cash (and in these cases i would seriously rethink my position)

You've dropped a future Hall of Famer on the world that otherwise wouldn't be on that team.  But, if you insist you wouldn't do it with a future HOF, a first rounder should still be a legit BL player.    Rationalize it however you want.

Doing something you find objectionable(although this doesn't appear to be the case) because "someone else most likely will" seems to be a lack of conviction.   I'm not judging you, I just think it's a short-sighted viewpoint. 

The question, schuyler, is whether a budget surplus should be treated as a commodity at all.

I mean, why stop there? Why not treat preseason budget adjustments as commodities too? "Hey, I'm not going to use my +/-4 in International Scouting this season, so I'll trade it to you for a future big league middle reliever, and you can then bump your Int'l Scouting by 8."

How about treating projected ratings views as a commodity? "I'll trade you the projected ratings on the top 25 college kids, based on my $20m College Scouting, for $6 million and that second baseman."

It's all just about how different people value assets, right?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2010 8:43:00 AM (view original):
You've dropped a future Hall of Famer on the world that otherwise wouldn't be on that team.  But, if you insist you wouldn't do it with a future HOF, a first rounder should still be a legit BL player.    Rationalize it however you want.

Doing something you find objectionable(although this doesn't appear to be the case) because "someone else most likely will" seems to be a lack of conviction.   I'm not judging you, I just think it's a short-sighted viewpoint. 

i don't see why i need to insist that i wouldn't do it with a hall of famer, i said it before and i'll say it again, but this time i will insist! haha

i do find it objectionable...in a perfect world of course i don't want rival owners to sign their first rounders, it is a dynasty game after all and they have those guys under team control for at least 6 or 7 ML seasons...but that's not really relevant because the owner will almost certainly find the salary relief somewhere, it's going to happen...

conviction does not play into it, only cost/benefit analysis

if i didn't think the chances were good it would happen through another owner we'd be talking a whole different ball of wax

Posted by antonsirius on 6/21/2010 11:38:00 AM (view original):
The question, schuyler, is whether a budget surplus should be treated as a commodity at all.

I mean, why stop there? Why not treat preseason budget adjustments as commodities too? "Hey, I'm not going to use my +/-4 in International Scouting this season, so I'll trade it to you for a future big league middle reliever, and you can then bump your Int'l Scouting by 8."

How about treating projected ratings views as a commodity? "I'll trade you the projected ratings on the top 25 college kids, based on my $20m College Scouting, for $6 million and that second baseman."

It's all just about how different people value assets, right?

anton, that's a very interesting point

we really can't trade International Scouting budgets so it's tough to think about as a thought experiment...i don't even know how that could be executed

even more interesting is the projected ratings thing though...i simply don't think a world would allow this to be done, but apart from that it's hard for me to pin down the exact reason why projected ratings information shouldn't be treated as a commodity and let loose on the open market...although i'm quite certain it should not be, maybe it just boils down to the fact that it is information while budget surplus is money, which by definition is exchangable

I do think budget surplus should be treated as commodity though...it's completely fungible and can be used in many different ways after the initial budgeting (transfer to prospects in 2million dollar chunks for either draft picks or IFA's or for taking on salary)...i don't see why owners shouldn't be allowed to use it in deals...