Eliminate Prospect Budget Topic

you're reinforcing my point that the rules, and the fair play guidelines, need to consider public worlds. as i said, they need to consider the impact of rule changes to private words too. the point is that any behavior that's unacceptable in every private world is most likely unacceptable in a public world.

"coming in", i got into the launch of HBD in ruth, just as you did in aaron. i don't blame you for leaving, but i'm happy with my first franchise in one of the initial leagues, and have kept it. without those leagues, there is no HBD.
1/12/2010 9:34 AM
Thinking out loud idea - I admit I have not thought of all of the ramifications. Perhaps the responses here can let me know if the idea won't work, but how about this:

Given that they are going to implement a $30M prospect budget cap, and that it is supposed to 'help' control the amount of tanking, what about also instituting a payroll floor - but with a small twist? (Maybe that's what the limit will do). The floor can be established at some number (say $45M or whatever - maybe 60% of the mean payroll of all teams the year prior since many worlds have quite a difference in average budget structures). Whenever a team's actual payroll is below that amount, their prospect budget or their highest of the COL/HS/IF scouting budget would decrease dollar for dollar for the amount below the floor. It would create a disincentive for fielding completely uncompetitive teams for the purpose of IFA's or for jockeying for top draft picks. Just a thought.

Now I know there are unintended consequences to just about everything, so some of the smart guys who post here can be sure to find 'em. Have at it.
1/12/2010 9:37 AM
Sure, I'll shoot it down. If I have to spend 45m and I want to tank, I'll sign crappy players to hit my 45m.
1/12/2010 9:44 AM
So, to stop all the salary floor talk(hopefully), you can't make people spend money wisely and be competitive. You can make them spend money on payroll, you can't stop them from tanking by doing that.
1/12/2010 9:49 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By patrickm885 on 1/11/2010



We decided that one way to curb the tanking is to limit the amount of money that can be dumped into the prospect payroll budget. That amount is going to be $30M and max contracts will be handled the same exact way that was outlined in the last update thread.

Setting the cap to $25m would be better. A hard cap at $20m would be best. I'm not sure if a $30m cap would provide enough discentive for the tankers.

We also talked about getting rid of the budget transfer page altogether, is that something that you would rather see?

No need to eliminate it completely as long as a reasonable hard cap on prospect is in place.


1/12/2010 10:06 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/12/2010

Sure, I'll shoot it down. If I have to spend 45m and I want to tank, I'll sign crappy players to hit my 45m.



Mike, I was asking for smart guys, but your point is well taken. (j/k of course)
1/12/2010 10:12 AM
Quote: Originally posted by aginor on 1/12/2010Yep the 'Randomizing" of the Draft... is pretty much the dumbest idea there is.....As for the IFA thing, IMO the simple and basic solution....remove the ability to transfer $. Go back the way it was when HBD first came out, 20 mill max for all prospects.   Now there is no benefit to having a low Major League Payroll.... Either that OR separate the Draft Budget and IFA Budgets but again remove the TRANSFER!!  Once your $$ for IFA is gone it's gone.  Separating it, actually makes sure a team has some money to sign their picks.  Transfering was originally put in to help owners correct mistakes or make little changes.  It was not intended for this MASS transfer from the one to another.  So if you don't eliminate the ability to transfer, at least limit it.  Say a max of 4 mill (no penalty); this way an owner can deal with arbritrations etc or other mistakes.   

I agree with this. Transfers weren't meant to be an integral part of payroll strategy.
1/12/2010 11:15 AM
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/12/2010Jeez.  We go thru this about 5 times a year.Randomizing the draft(MORE FIRST ROUND BUSTS AND MORE 16TH ROUND STUDS!!!!) and player development(MO' BETTER DITRS!!!!) is NOT improving the game.   We can't control a 51/58/65/73/58 hitter having a better season than a 62/78/83/81/84 hitter but we can control acquiring players.   Randomizing who gets the better rated players is illogical and stupid.

Its not a matter of "randomizing" the draft. Its about finding that late-round steal.

Check out this list of late-round draft steals. You'll never see a single player like this in HBD (unless you get a triple-DITR):

http://www.dugoutcentral.com/?p=203

I'm not saying that every team should have somewhere from 0-4 of them every season (like the current DITR system). Maybe there are 1 to 2 in each world per season.

And here's a possible side effect... maybe more teams sign more draft picks, hoping they get that "Super DITR"... which means more players signed, less retirement ********, less 30-somethings in Low-A ball, etc.
1/12/2010 11:25 AM
Quote: Originally posted by tedwmoore on 1/12/2010Wow.  I get what you are saying, and that makes sense.  But you don't have to call me illogical and stupid.  And I don't think it is illogical.  You might not like it because it makes the game more difficult, but there was at least some rational thought behind my post.  I am new to HBD, and I admit that I haven't thought through all the potential consequences, but that it why I asked questions in my post instead of making assertions.  I understand that forum posters enjoy being mean, but I don't understand why people feel the need to go straight to the insults.  We didn't even have an argument before you got in my face.  So unnecessary. 

You'll get used to Mike eventually. :)
1/12/2010 11:26 AM
I wasnt advocating for a random draft, not at all, the draft would stay the same as it is now, the thing that would change is the amount and the quality of the DITRs. The factors that affect the DITR process would have to be debated, but I think if done properly it would be another disincentive to tanking, or at least a way for non tankers to take away some amount of advantage to the tankers.
1/12/2010 11:28 AM
DITR is poor in it's current system. That can't be denied. Let's face it, if you get a valuable DITR, it's because he met certain requirements that included low OVR. Which means it's a RP, C or the now useless slugging 1B with bad splits.

However, throwing out a dozen Superstars who were drafted in round 17, 19 and 23 isn't making the game better.

In my mind, and this is sort of killing two birds with one stone, it would be far better if DITR were statistic-based. They'd have to meet certain age, pro years and level requirements but everyone would get up to 6. Maybe they'd still be useless or maybe you'd get someone useful. My idea would be the best hitter and pitcher at each level(LoA/HiA/AA) who had less than one full year at that level with no repeated levels in his past. They would also have to be less than 22 years of age. Coaching, at that level, would have to be above league average(this might actually kill three birds with one stone as hiring good coaches would take on more importance) for the level.

Owners might begin paying attention to their minors, if only to manipulate who their best hitter/pitcher is at each level, in hopes of striking gold. And, of course, because people would manipulate it, the level of improvement would have to be restricted. But, if my pick, the 28th in the draft, could become the equivalent of a top 20 pick, I'd be happy.
1/12/2010 11:42 AM
My skin is plenty thick; I am not upset. But being rude isn't necessary, and calling a person out on that is not thin skinned. In fact, taking the subsequent abuse requires thick skin.

Also, there is little distinction between calling someone stupid and saying that their ideas are stupid. You are still denigrating the person. If you cannot get that, then I kind of feel sorry for you. Would you, if speaking face-to-face with a stranger, say that their idea was illogical and stupid? Or would you soften your response a bit? It is just common courtesy, and I will not let it slide because we are online. Civility is a habit, and behaving poorly online is not excusable because of the distance and anonymity. Respect is important for maintaining peaceful social relations, but for some reason we allow ourselves and others to forget how much it can irritate and sting us when we experience rudeness. We don't know each other, so act like it.

Anyway, your point is well taken, if not well received.
1/12/2010 12:34 PM
Mike, I think you should give the n00b a cookie.
1/12/2010 12:36 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By tedwmoore on 1/12/2010

My skin is plenty thick; I am not upset. But being rude isn't necessary, and calling a person out on that is not thin skinned. In fact, taking the subsequent abuse requires thick skin.

Also, there is little distinction between calling someone stupid and saying that their ideas are stupid. You are still denigrating the person. If you cannot get that, then I kind of feel sorry for you. Would you, if speaking face-to-face with a stranger, say that their idea was illogical and stupid? Or would you soften your response a bit? It is just common courtesy, and I will not let it slide because we are online. Civility is a habit, and behaving poorly online is not excusable because of the distance and anonymity. Respect is important for maintaining peaceful social relations, but for some reason we allow ourselves and others to forget how much it can irritate and sting us when we experience rudeness. We don't know each other, so act like it.

Anyway, your point is well taken, if not well received.

This may be the best post in the whole thread.
1/12/2010 12:39 PM
I'd like to know if instead of changing the prospect budgets they could make the scouting budgets and training mean more. For example if I spend 20 on IFA I get exposed to alot more players than if I spend 5. Also spending 20 on training means maybe I get more DITR's than someone spending 10 or 12. I don't have a way to quantify the difference's but maybe admin can take this into account before making a change to the very grain of how bad teams can get better.

Yes tanking is bad but let's not let the tankers (who can be controlled) ruin it for someone willing to take on a currently bad franchise and try and turn it around.
1/12/2010 12:46 PM
◂ Prev 1...9|10|11|12|13...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.