Budget Transfers Topic

deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Yep. That's what he wants.
10/18/2010 3:57 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 10/18/2010 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 10/18/2010 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by deanod on 10/18/2010 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Also, teams with $30M cap space are limited to $35M prospect payroll instead of $50M.  If it's 1 for 1, that's a lot of extra incentive to tank, and makes it nearly impossible for good teams to re-stock their farm system with $20M for IFA's, since tankers can outbid them twice.
Then set minimums (as Mike said) and maximums.  I don't care.

But let's say I have $20mil in my prospect budget and $90 in my player payroll, and I want to make a trade for a player at the deadline who is a salary dump for someone else. I have $4mil in player payroll left and he's a $7mil player.  I shouldn't have to pay $6mil in order to move $3mil from prospect to player. 
So you want a free way out of a situation in which you want a player who costs more than you budgeted for?
You're missing the point.  The only reason I "budget" that money is because I'm forced to. It's "my" money, so I shouldn't have to pay a mysterious penalty if I later decide that some of that money would be better spent on X instead of Y
10/18/2010 4:36 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by Jtpsops on 10/18/2010 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/18/2010 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 10/18/2010 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by deanod on 10/18/2010 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Also, teams with $30M cap space are limited to $35M prospect payroll instead of $50M.  If it's 1 for 1, that's a lot of extra incentive to tank, and makes it nearly impossible for good teams to re-stock their farm system with $20M for IFA's, since tankers can outbid them twice.
Then set minimums (as Mike said) and maximums.  I don't care.

But let's say I have $20mil in my prospect budget and $90 in my player payroll, and I want to make a trade for a player at the deadline who is a salary dump for someone else. I have $4mil in player payroll left and he's a $7mil player.  I shouldn't have to pay $6mil in order to move $3mil from prospect to player. 
So you want a free way out of a situation in which you want a player who costs more than you budgeted for?
You're missing the point.  The only reason I "budget" that money is because I'm forced to. It's "my" money, so I shouldn't have to pay a mysterious penalty if I later decide that some of that money would be better spent on X instead of Y
That's where you're wrong.  It's WIS's fake money.  You're free to do what you want with their money within a handful of predefined restrictions.
10/18/2010 4:40 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
I think you're missing a basic fundamental concept of the game.
You have a day of budgeting.
There are categories for which you need to slot in an amount.
Budgeting period ends, those amounts are locked in.

In the old days, that couldn't be budged. There was a change that allowed movement, but with a penalty. The masses rejoiced and agreed.

What you are arguing for is no categories. That would make it a different game, and fundementally so. I think you would only get approval from those that would like to have a $3M payroll budget and dump $100M into prospect, thus perpetually never having to bid on free agency and staying forever young and talented.
10/18/2010 4:43 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
I just said, have a min and max.  eg: you have to have at least $6mil in your prospect budget, so set a max of $30-35mil in order to prevent manipulations.

Real life ML teams set budgets.  You always hear "we want to keep the payroll below $60mil this season". So if an opportunity for a player comes along that will put them over that, does MLB step in and say "sure, you can do that, but since you said $60mil before the season, for every million you go over, you have to pay us an equal amount in tax"?

I'm not advocating for cheating, etc.  I'm talking about people who set reasonable budgets and find out late in the season they have more left in one than they thought, and could use a couple million in another.

10/18/2010 5:30 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Within the confines of the game:

What is the purpose of having a budget if you can just move money around without penalty after budget day?
10/18/2010 6:43 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
That's my point...I understand scouting, medical and training budgets.  But player, prospect and coach payrolls should not be budgeted, IMO
10/18/2010 7:06 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Why not?  Are they not three separate entities?
10/18/2010 7:11 PM
bigal888
Posts: 390 (0)
Hall of Famer
116 4 3 1 15 77
Prospect
I'm not sure what the problem is if you set maximum and minimum values. Say prospect is hard capped and has to be between 0 and $20 (no more high payroll transfers to pay $30 mil for that IFA). Coaches have to be between $7 mil and $15 mil. Eliminate the tax and how is this so fundamentally different than what we have now? Those people who have way too much player payroll are just screwing themselves unless they sign a bunch of FA.
10/18/2010 7:34 PM
bigal888
Posts: 390 (0)
Hall of Famer
116 4 3 1 15 77
Prospect
I guess my question is how is that abusable?
10/18/2010 7:36 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bigal888 on 10/18/2010 7:34:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure what the problem is if you set maximum and minimum values. Say prospect is hard capped and has to be between 0 and $20 (no more high payroll transfers to pay $30 mil for that IFA). Coaches have to be between $7 mil and $15 mil. Eliminate the tax and how is this so fundamentally different than what we have now? Those people who have way too much player payroll are just screwing themselves unless they sign a bunch of FA.
I could live with that for the mere fact that prospect would be hard capped at $20m, which I've been advocating for a while.
10/18/2010 7:43 PM
bigal888
Posts: 390 (0)
Hall of Famer
116 4 3 1 15 77
Prospect
If you wanted a soft cap, you could even say that every dollar spent on prospect payroll above $20 million counts twice and we would then have almost the exact same situation we have now.

I think this saves those people that budgeted a bunch for FA and missed out.  They can then refocus up to $20 mil into their future and not be screwed (and the double tax after $20 mil).  I don't think you should be penalized because you went aggressive into free agency and ended up losing out here and there.  At least have the opportunity to build something.  You could even add the double tax to any move FROM prospects TO player payroll.
10/18/2010 9:38 PM (edited)
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Devil's advocate here:

Why do the people that budgeted heavily for FA and missed out need to be saved?  Shouldn't there be a risk for deciding to play for the big names?  Perhaps if there were no "second chances" for unspent payroll, i.e transfers back into prospect above $20m, there would be less competition driving the max salaries we often see for the big ticket FA's.  Trickle down effect is lower salaries for the big names, and also a smaller likelihood for a user dumping $110m into a 35 year old pitcher's contract which will be unmovable during the last two seasons.
10/18/2010 10:44 PM
nymetman
Posts: 20 (0)
All Star
15 29
Prospect
On the flip side of this whole argument about over-budgeting, should there be no 50% penalty for the owner who under-budgets and leaves themselves without the player payroll to promote minor leaguers or sign prospects or to pick up injury replacements?
10/18/2010 10:57 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Under-budgeting in one category means you've over-budgeted in another.  You can't say "but this is different!".  It's the same thing.
10/19/2010 7:43 AM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
Budget Transfers Topic
△Top△Bottom

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.