I am attempting to trade for a player who is set to make $20 million in each of the next two season.  The trade screen demons tell me that it will violate my payroll in that second season, and that I must drop about $3.5 million before the trade clears.  My current payroll is $53 million.  Next season I have only $20 million committed before arbitration, and in the season after that I have $21 million committed before arbitration.  In neither season will I be handing out huge arbitration awards, as I only have three guys set to hit their fourth or fifth years of arbitration during this time period.

Why can't I take on salary that will essentially bring me back up to my current payroll?  My roster would be more or less set, and with arbitration raises my overall payroll likely will not increase by much more than $5-10 million over the next two seasons to accommodate the $20 million salary.

I know there is some sort of rule about increasing future payroll commitments, but I thought that was expressed as a percentage of your current payroll.  I know I am wrong, clearly, but I don't understand why.

The idea is that HBD is programmed so that you can't hamstring your budget too far into the future.

Each subsequent season's budget is set at a percentage of your current player payroll budget.

It sounds like you're getting hit in either the Season 13 or 20 budget (depending on the world), right?

Right, season 13.

But adding his $20 million to my S13 budget equals roughly $41 million, or roughly 78% of my current payroll.  Why should that be disallowed?  How would planning on being just over 75% of my current budget, two seasons from now, be an albatross? 

This makes little sense.  I could understand not wanting to commit to a significant raise over current payroll, but a reduction?

I believe the intention is to avoid people signing balooning contracts and ditching the team, but yes.  That can be annoying when you are trying to make a legitimate baseball trade.

From the help..."The amount that you may allocate to future seasons is reduced by 80%, 70%, 50% and 50% in order to prevent trashing a franchise for the future. You may not allocate more than this payroll budget for any season."

When you go to the free agent negotiation screen, what does it have for your future payroll budget?

Also, you need to fill our your minor leagues, which are not counted in upcoming seasons, since they are all 1-year deals.

This isn't a free agent signing, this is a trade. 

And, no, I didn't count the minor league budgets, but, just like arbitration raises, they are not figured into future budgets.  Even if they were, I would still only be about 80% of my current payroll, which I now know is too much for two seasons out. 

Thanks for the numbers, so I am roughly 8% over budget.  Can I move money from my prospects budget to increase this season's payroll budget, and then get the needed flexibility?

This kind of cheeses me.  I have a tight budget this season, but it is designed.  If I had dogged my coaches, scouting, health and training budgets, left money unused in my payroll budget, either intending to transfer it into my prospect budget or just let it sit there, I would be allowed to make the trade.  But because I budgeted what I needed, I am limited in the trades I can make.  Frustrating

And, really, you cannot project a budget two seasons into the future that is more than 70% of your current payroll?  That makes little sense.  Two seasons is a short window to require that teams be constantly cutting payroll within.

Yeah, it's a balance between "I should be able to do what I want" and putting certain retraints in place to protect someone from screwing a team long-term.

And I suggested looking at the free agent negotiation screen because you get an easy look at your future payroll limitations.

mhulshult:  Yeah, I misunderstood, and only just now went to look at the free agent screen.  It was the same as my trade screen though.  Thanks for the numbers, I now know the constraints I am working with.  Still trying to figure out whether transferring money from my prospect budget to player payroll will bump my S13 budget up enough.  It should, but I am just uncertain if that is how things work, or if my S13 projected budget will remain 70% of my payroll as budgeted to begin the season. 

I get the perceived need for a balance here, but 70% two years out is pretty darn restrictive.  A lot of teams, particularly when poised to compete, plan on increasing payroll two seasons out, not decreasing.  Obviously what you actually budget for that season can be whatever you want, and this just limits your ability to lock in those numbers, but still.  Mid-season trades like this happen, and often include high salaries.  And here it seems that teams who budget poorly are being rewarded (as in, "boy, it sure is a good thing that you have $10 million in unused payroll, good job resisting the urge to spend in somewhere else"), and I am being chastised for carrying a low payroll and using the saving to invest in training and scouting. 

Yes, it will adjust as your player payroll adjusts.

mhulshult:  Thanks again! 

No problem.  Happy to help.

Posted by mhulshult on 12/14/2010 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it will adjust as your player payroll adjusts.

That's how I've gotten around it in the past, too.

"And, really, you cannot project a budget two seasons into the future that is more than 70% of your current payroll?  That makes little sense.  Two seasons is a short window to require that teams be constantly cutting payroll within."

Honestly, in my... I dunno, 40ish? seasons of HBD, I have never run into this problem. Its just a matter of effectively managing your payroll.

Posted by smoelheim on 12/14/2010 5:56:00 PM (view original):
"And, really, you cannot project a budget two seasons into the future that is more than 70% of your current payroll?  That makes little sense.  Two seasons is a short window to require that teams be constantly cutting payroll within."

Honestly, in my... I dunno, 40ish? seasons of HBD, I have never run into this problem. Its just a matter of effectively managing your payroll.

The only time I can imagine it being a problem is (1) free agent offers with ballooning payments, which, I think, are disallowed anyway; and (2) in-season trades for players with large contracts.

I ran into the second, and I don't think it is a question of effectively managing payroll.  Either you reserve money in player payroll so that you can accommodate such large contracts under the constraints of your future payroll, or you trade away future commitments, or else you reallocate money from other areas, like I will do.  The first doesn't strike me as particularly effective payroll management, as you are essentially sitting on money, waiting to find out whether a trade opportunity presents itself (or else waiting for an IFA to come along so you can blow out your prospect budget).  And the second and third options are just ways of working within the rule's constraints.

Oh, I can think of another time you might run into this problem:  If you have a core group of players who account for 80-some-percent of your payroll, and you want to sign them all long-term.  Can't do it.  As it is right now, at least 20% (roughly) of your payroll commitments must come off the books every year.