Budgets Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2010 9:14:00 AM (view original):
New owners should be given the option of retaining the old adjustable budgets or starting new with the 10 +/- 4 defaults.  That should be a no-brainer.

But existing owners should not be able to drastically change their medical/training from one season to the next, or go from heavy/light in draft/IFA scouting to light/heavy the next season.  Managing your budget in these catagories from one season to the next should be a strategic long-term plan, not a tactical "change it on a whim":
The inclusion of cash in trades and budget transfers makes managing your budget from year to year virtually a non-issue with the exception of the +/- 4m change. Budget management is an outdated concept.

However, if anyone wants to get behind eliminating cash in trades and budget transfers, I'm all for that and sticking to the +/- 4m.
6/19/2010 2:25 PM
rebelt
Posts: 61 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 70
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2010 9:14:00 AM (view original):
New owners should be given the option of retaining the old adjustable budgets or starting new with the 10 +/- 4 defaults.  That should be a no-brainer.

But existing owners should not be able to drastically change their medical/training from one season to the next, or go from heavy/light in draft/IFA scouting to light/heavy the next season.  Managing your budget in these catagories from one season to the next should be a strategic long-term plan, not a tactical "change it on a whim":
I don't disagree at all that it should be a strategic long-term plan, but how is starting off at a huge disadvantage contributing to that?

The solution I see is to allow a new owner to set their budgets at whatever point they like, and then from there they can move up/down the 4MM in years after that. New owners don't get killed by low training/medical/scouting, but they still aren't able to make a dramatic shift from one season to the next.
6/19/2010 2:39 PM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2010 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2010 9:14:00 AM (view original):
New owners should be given the option of retaining the old adjustable budgets or starting new with the 10 +/- 4 defaults.  That should be a no-brainer.

But existing owners should not be able to drastically change their medical/training from one season to the next, or go from heavy/light in draft/IFA scouting to light/heavy the next season.  Managing your budget in these catagories from one season to the next should be a strategic long-term plan, not a tactical "change it on a whim":
The inclusion of cash in trades and budget transfers makes managing your budget from year to year virtually a non-issue with the exception of the +/- 4m change. Budget management is an outdated concept.

However, if anyone wants to get behind eliminating cash in trades and budget transfers, I'm all for that and sticking to the +/- 4m.
I disagree, Mike.  Losing cash is a trade or from a transfer is never a complete non-issue.  I think the point here is that such actions don't have as much negative consequences as they should.  They could add in various things to make budget management more signifigant.
6/19/2010 10:20 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by stiller609 on 6/18/2010 4:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/18/2010 4:00:00 PM (view original):
Nobody here sees a problem with being given the ability to go from a 20/20 training/medical budget to a 0/0 budget or vice-versa from one season to the next? Or going from 20/20 draft scouting to 0/0?
NO, I don't. Could you show an example?
Owner X budgets $20M for Adv Scouting in S10, getting the most accurate projections possible on every under-27 player in the World. He records those projections.

The next season, he allots the $20M elsewhere, but because of the S10 advanced scouting, he still has the benefit of $20M advanced scouting for the vast majority of players in the World (with only S10 Int'l and Draft picks) in the dark, as it were.

Whatever else is done, there can't be a separate set of rules for veterans and rookies. We all play under the same rules.
6/19/2010 10:32 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2010 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2010 9:14:00 AM (view original):
New owners should be given the option of retaining the old adjustable budgets or starting new with the 10 +/- 4 defaults.  That should be a no-brainer.

But existing owners should not be able to drastically change their medical/training from one season to the next, or go from heavy/light in draft/IFA scouting to light/heavy the next season.  Managing your budget in these catagories from one season to the next should be a strategic long-term plan, not a tactical "change it on a whim":
The inclusion of cash in trades and budget transfers makes managing your budget from year to year virtually a non-issue with the exception of the +/- 4m change. Budget management is an outdated concept.

However, if anyone wants to get behind eliminating cash in trades and budget transfers, I'm all for that and sticking to the +/- 4m.
+1
6/19/2010 11:19 PM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2010 11:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2010 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2010 9:14:00 AM (view original):
New owners should be given the option of retaining the old adjustable budgets or starting new with the 10 +/- 4 defaults.  That should be a no-brainer.

But existing owners should not be able to drastically change their medical/training from one season to the next, or go from heavy/light in draft/IFA scouting to light/heavy the next season.  Managing your budget in these catagories from one season to the next should be a strategic long-term plan, not a tactical "change it on a whim":
The inclusion of cash in trades and budget transfers makes managing your budget from year to year virtually a non-issue with the exception of the +/- 4m change. Budget management is an outdated concept.

However, if anyone wants to get behind eliminating cash in trades and budget transfers, I'm all for that and sticking to the +/- 4m.
+1
It's a limited way to think.  Why not make budgeting more signifigant, rather than eliminate it?
6/19/2010 11:34 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2010 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2010 9:14:00 AM (view original):
New owners should be given the option of retaining the old adjustable budgets or starting new with the 10 +/- 4 defaults.  That should be a no-brainer.

But existing owners should not be able to drastically change their medical/training from one season to the next, or go from heavy/light in draft/IFA scouting to light/heavy the next season.  Managing your budget in these catagories from one season to the next should be a strategic long-term plan, not a tactical "change it on a whim":
The inclusion of cash in trades and budget transfers makes managing your budget from year to year virtually a non-issue with the exception of the +/- 4m change. Budget management is an outdated concept.

However, if anyone wants to get behind eliminating cash in trades and budget transfers, I'm all for that and sticking to the +/- 4m.
If you think budget management is an outdated concept, then you're doing it wrong.
6/20/2010 12:37 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
I think Mike is being a bit over-dramatic by saying "budget management is an outdated concept", but he is making a valid point.

Too many owners mismanage their budgets to the point where they cannot sign draft picks (because they blew their wad on an IFA) or they cannot do promotions (because they've spent all their payroll budget), and look for other owners to throw in significant amounts of cash in trades as a bailout.  That does lessen the importance of setting a budget and being responsible about managing your franchise within that budget. 

Good worlds should prevent bailouts by vetoing such deals.
6/20/2010 7:57 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
zbrent, I do my budgeting just fine.  I can always sign my picks, make trades without cash inclusions and seldom do budget transfers.   However, some worlds include cash in virtually every deal and have dozens of owners transferring 10-20m in budgeted money.   Because of this, they don't have to worry very long with budgeting because they can always correct their mistakes by either getting cash or transferring funds.   Thus budgeting is an outdated concept.

However, good point about ADV scouting.   That is a legit "problem".
6/20/2010 8:42 AM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
I think you're using the term "correct their mistakes" too loosely.  They can make up for their mistakes...but as you describe it, they don't correct their mistakes without penalty.  I think the issue here, is if the penalty is big enough.
6/20/2010 9:51 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
There is no penalty if you acquire a 4m player and get 4m in cash thrown in.  Had you wanted/expected to acquire a 4m player, you could have left 4m cap space.
6/20/2010 10:07 AM
mitchrapp
Posts: 807 (0)
Hall of Famer
106 20 14 109
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/20/2010 7:58:00 AM (view original):
I think Mike is being a bit over-dramatic by saying "budget management is an outdated concept", but he is making a valid point.

Too many owners mismanage their budgets to the point where they cannot sign draft picks (because they blew their wad on an IFA) or they cannot do promotions (because they've spent all their payroll budget), and look for other owners to throw in significant amounts of cash in trades as a bailout.  That does lessen the importance of setting a budget and being responsible about managing your franchise within that budget. 

Good worlds should prevent bailouts by vetoing such deals.
+2. You need to budget past the start of the season.
6/20/2010 10:33 AM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2010 10:07:00 AM (view original):
There is no penalty if you acquire a 4m player and get 4m in cash thrown in.  Had you wanted/expected to acquire a 4m player, you could have left 4m cap space.
The penalty *should be* and is (in the Worlds I am in anyway) that you give up more talent to get Player X + $4M than you would to get Player X + $0.
6/20/2010 4:02 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
That has absolutely nothing to do with budgeting.  You're giving up talent to fix a mistake(which was not budgeting enough to acquire said player).
6/20/2010 4:47 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2010 4:47:00 PM (view original):
That has absolutely nothing to do with budgeting.  You're giving up talent to fix a mistake(which was not budgeting enough to acquire said player).
It absolutely has to do with budgeting,in that it illustrates that budget management is not an outdated concept.

Poorly managing your budget and so consistently giving up talent to fix those mistakes is a recipe for mediocrity in the long-term.
6/20/2010 4:53 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
Budgets 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.