I would love to see a few changes to the budgeting model. It's hard if not impossible to switch strategies during the season. Losing out on an expensive free agent shouldn't mean getting stuck with a bunch of hard to use $.

1. Put prospect, coaching and player money into one big pot.  Miss out on a top free agent... pour more money into intl or try to sign hard to sign guys out of the draft.

2. Allow intl, HS and college to be changed up until the first day of spring training. Sign a type A free agent? cut your budget for scouting.

3. Allow jump of $6 million per year instead of $4 million

-1

+1

There are several long threads on this. A lot of the more vocal long-time players like it the way it is.  IMO, they know the tricks of the current game. What you propose would add more strategy to the game.  If that happened, maybe they wouldn't be as successful.  You're not likely to change any minds or get a lot of positive feedback.

+1 to #3

I'm sure I'm one of the #3.   But that's incorrect.  In the last long thread, I said I was leaning more toward one budget for coach, players, prospects with a floor on each so owners can't screw themselves.   

That said, it's a big game change and I think those that know the "tricks of the current game" will have an even bigger advantage.

I think limiting the amount that a budget can be increased / decreased season-to-season is realistic.  Maybe after the +/- $4, we could pay $2 for $1 to go beyond that.  As you said, it would be realistic that it would cost more to try to make up ground quickly.

If you budgeted $X for coaching & didn't spend all of that, that amount should be available to spend on salaries or prospects. I agree that adding amounts to scouting would be less realistic.