I don't think such a change is really needed, but I wouldn't oppose it.

And really, if the game had been set up similarly to how Mike describes from the beginning, I find it doubtful that anyone would have batted an eye, or demanded a change to the current setup.

I don't really think a change is needed either but I can't make an argument against what I suggested.   And I can usually argue with myself for hours on end.

I have to say that is true, but it's because it's easier.

I had no problem with "you can't transfer budget at all".

Really, if dynamic league settings ever happened (and it won't), you can almost rattle them off the top of your head by now.

-cash in trades, yes, no
-budget transfers, no, yes, cap?
-budget amounts cap?
-max contract years/amount?
-max International amount?
-min players per league in minors?

Easier, but also more realistic.

And I did have a problem with the original setup - budgeting should be important, but there's just way too many moving parts in the game to make the system that rigid. And having players in situations where they are in a "use it or lose it entirely" mode with a ton of cash in one of their budgets wasn't really good for worlds.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/19/2010 11:49:00 AM (view original):
jtpop's sucks at arguing his point.   I'll do it for him.

ADV, college, high school, IFA, medical and training are "set" budgets pre-determined at the beginning of the season.  They cannot be changed because their results take effect on Day 1.    Coaching, payroll and prospect budgets are essentially cash budgets that are nothing until applied.   It's not unusual for a team to expect a coach to ask for 3m then end up getting him for less.   The same can be applied to free agents.   Once coach hiring and free agency is over, and they take place much later than Day 1, it's possible for a team to have an excess of cash.  There's really no reason one shouldn't be able to apply this cash to another category without penalty.

Apply the logic to a trip to the movies.  You budget $20 for tickets, $10 for drinks, $6 for popcorn, $4 for Jujubees and pocket a pair of twenties as you walk out the door.   Much to your horror, the theater quit carrying Jujubees right after your last trip to the movies(Rambo 2).  Your date insists upon some candy.  Goobers are $4.  You say "Gimme a box of Goobers".    Sadly, there's a 50% penalty for switching candies and you only have $2 for Goobers.   Your date, angry at your poor planning, throws the drink and popcorn on the ground then storms out.  You're forced to watch Hannah Montana's new movie alone.    All because you didn't know that the theater stop carrying Jujubees.

Years ago a friend of mine went into a bar late at night. He seen a girl in there that he thought he might be able to get a little from. Problem is he didn't want to keep buying drinks for her the rest of the night to find out. So he asked the question,"how about it."He found out the answer was no and he saved himself some money.
May I suggest you apply the same to your scenario and save yourself some money either way!

Realistic is no cap at all, and budgetting based on your revenue. So there is no "more realistic" when discussing how the cap is distributed.

And yea, I didn't really argue against the ability to move budget when I saw the 2-1 tax on it. But look at the unintended consequence in loading up on prospect budget.

Some would say "if they want to do it, let 'em do it". I agree. Then relax the min/max movement in budget changes per year, and increase the cap per category (Mike's 30M works). But there has to be a consequence for not budgeting correctly. That adds to game play.

I don't think "realistic" really needs to be, or is, a factor in budgeting.  For obvious reasons I won't bother to point out.

I think, and it's just my opinion, that budget categories are different and probably should be treated that way.   It still needs to be "fair" and it shouldn't take away from gameplay.    You have 6 budget categories where 18m is 18m.   My 18m is the same as your 18m.   However, you have 3 budget categories that are far different.   I can spend my 18m poorly, and get poor results, and you can spend your 18m wisely with much better results.   To me, pretending that all 9 categories are the same is silly.

But, again, there's no real need to change it.   But change would make perfect sense.

Sure there is "more realistic" - real life teams don't have any restrictions on how they use resources they have at their disposal - if they haven't already spent it, they can use it wherever, regardless of their initial plan. The inherent difference between MLB and HBD is related to how the amount of available resources each team is determined, not in how it's distributed.

As long as the initial "fixed" categories are still around, there will always be some degree of penalty for poor budgeting - the question is simply the nature of it, and the degree of it. I actually think you'd find that greater flexibility between player/prospect/coaching budgets (assuming appropriate min/max levels) would add its own set of strategy/game play elements, and whether they would be better or worse than what we have now would be a matter of preference - which is why I don't think the change is needed, but I wouldn't have a problem with it either.

Did we all just argue but basically more or less argee?

Can we get a "fun" rating for both the current and my proposal?

Depends; is it animated, or just text?

Can't it be both?