i have no problem with it. it doesn't change the fact that you will either get the guy you're after or not. i don't see any advantage to knowing stuff like that.

Transferring funds and/or bidding up the player to make sure the max is spent. 

In other words, I could not transfer funds to get him(if I had enough) or I could stop bidding at 11m(if that was the value I placed on him) but will bid more to make sure my rival spends his budget so I'll have the most for the next guy. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/1/2010 8:19:00 AM (view original):
This has always seemed "odd".   Maybe it's something we shouldn't be able to do. 

As an example, a high cost IFA just popped up in one of my worlds.  What did I do?   I checked to see how high my leaguemates could bid.  This included money they could transfer if they choose.    So I now know who I can beat, who I can't.   Not just for this player but for any future IFA.  Should I really know this? 

Thoughts?

+1, good points.

I'm pretty sure that MLB teams don't open their books to each other.

Posted by sergei91 on 9/1/2010 8:24:00 AM (view original):
i have no problem with it. it doesn't change the fact that you will either get the guy you're after or not. i don't see any advantage to knowing stuff like that.

How can you NOT see an advantage?

The biggest advantage goes to the guy with the most.   He knows exactly how much he has to spend.   He can bid that and drop out if another, better IFA shows up before this one is signed.  But he can force the rest to spend their max.

Posted by moosep on 9/1/2010 8:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sergei91 on 9/1/2010 8:24:00 AM (view original):
i have no problem with it. it doesn't change the fact that you will either get the guy you're after or not. i don't see any advantage to knowing stuff like that.

How can you NOT see an advantage?

are you going to list the advantages and the times that you used this info to your own advantage?

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/1/2010 8:43:00 AM (view original):
The biggest advantage goes to the guy with the most.   He knows exactly how much he has to spend.   He can bid that and drop out if another, better IFA shows up before this one is signed.  But he can force the rest to spend their max.

right, but the bottom line is the same. everybody knows what they have and what they're willing to spend on a ifa. if you have the cash and the guy seems 'worth it' to you, you will outbid whoever else if you're willing to go that far (or are the person with the most $ available).
i guess the only advantage i can see is knowing that you only have to bid a certain amount and nobody else could beat your offer. so it may save you some money depending on what increments you use to raise your offer usually.

Again, the owner with the most can push the 2nd/3rd owners to the max.   It's not like he'll get "stuck" with a bad player if they back off. 

IOW, if he has 22m and #2/3 have 14m, he can bid 13.9m to make sure their max is spent.   If another good one shows up, he can do the same.   If #4 has 10m, he can get the last 2 for 11m each.  Maybe that many good IFA won't show up over the last 90 games or maybe they will. 

right. but it only really helps the owner with the most. and chances are that will be a different owner as the good ifa's get signed. not that big a deal to me

For the leagues that have rules around budgets (e.g. max $105MM player or $20MM prospect) there would have to be some way to enforce it. 

You'd know when someone violated it.   I wouldn't change this screen:

Kansas City Swing Kings (AL)
Owner: MikeT23		Ballpark: Kauffman Stadium
ML: 91-71	AAA: 92-52	AA: 111-33	Hi A: 111-33	Lo A: 70-74	RL: 21-55

Players:	$78.9M
Prospects:	$19.2M
Coaches:	$8.0M

True, you'd know when they actually spent too much, but you wouldn't know if they've budgeted too much.  The enforcement would have to be reactive to a signing that actually exceeded the max budget rather than reactive to making the illegal budget adjustment.

I'm not sure there's much you can do either way until they actually violate the limits.   I doubt WifS would allow a commish to boot an owner for budgeting, but not spending, more than the world allows.

I suppose it would depend on the rules of the world.  After all, you are more about the "letter of the law" than the "nature of the law."

In any event, it seems like an easily workable issue if WifS felt hiding budgets was a valuable change.  You could just make the rule in the world to be, "You can't spend more than..." rather than, "You can't budget more than..." as it would seem to only be a disadvantage to that team if they budgeted $28MM in prospect payroll while only being able to spend $20MM.