What to do with Comp Picks?

[Dington]

I'm guessing it is on the GB forum that us peons don't have access to.

Here's the part that can be declassified and released:

"Like all OOTP worlds, I think we do have a lot of GMs who don’t full think about or utilize the free agency system. They don’t look at the idea of signing a Kenny Hill to a $2M 1-year contract as the opportunity to get a compensation pick if he leaves a year later. Or they don’t think about the fact that trading him later in the year potentially costs them a pick (so any trade of him includes trading away a pick that goes into the ether).

When I signed Alvarado, no one said “hey, that’s a great deal…he’s got the 1-season money, Alvarado is a good pitcher, and if he keeps him all year he’ll probably get a draft pick, so that $8M is for a top-end reliever and an interesting prospect…helluva deal there!" Instead, the reaction was lukewarm and some even saying it was a bad contract.

Growing teams should use this “feature” of our system more often, but really it’s used by the best (most skilled) GMs, who will by definition already have teams who are pretty good. I mean, I could have over-paid Fajardo and kept him. I need a starting pitcher, after all. But the cost of doing that was both the over-pay and the loss of a potential draft pick, so I’ll go a different direction. Almost no one will think of it that way, but they should. Same for Miguel Macias. I’m sure I could have retained him, but I can get another guy and a free draft pick. Blah, blah, blah."

Redacted.

[BaseClogger]

Okay, time to jump into the conversation. I like comp picks, because as a frequent losing team it gives me some leverage in trades when selling off my good players. If I didn't have that, I think there would be less return in trades for sellers, which would make it harder for them to rebuild their systems.

At the same time, there would be a lot more selling, because it would be the only way to recoup any value for departing players. So, we'd have more selling despite less returns, which would all add up to the rich teams staying rich, and the poor teams having a much harder time to rebuild.

I personally don't mind the inflated volume of the first two rounds of the draft. But if you're really concerned with that, do what MLB does, and take picks away from teams when they sign Type A or B free agents. That would keep all rounds the same size. (To be clear, I don't think we need to do that, but if you're looking for a solution to the extended draft rounds, there's one.)

I agree with this. Yes, it’s overly complicated and can be improved. But if it’s removed entirely, another force of parity should be implemented to replace it.

I haven’t figured out how to out compete the teams with budgets tens of millions of dollars more than me. Feels like the crapshoot of the amateur draft is my primary resource.

[bschr682]

Lots of posts here confusing confirmation bias and plain ol’ luck with skill. Keep it simple and get rid of it.

[CTBrewCrew]

The modified one in place now is better - if you make the playoffs - you are ineligible to recieve a comp pick. The spirit of the rule was to help promote more parity and not make a playoff team get multiple picks in the draft before non-playoff teams. Eliminating playoff teams helps simplify the offseason work to determine qualified players.

[BaseClogger]

I’d be in favor of a competitive balance round instead, similar to what they do in MLB. 10 smallest budgets gets an additional comp pick.

[BaseClogger]

I’d be in favor of a competitive balance round instead, similar to what they do in MLB. 10 smallest budgets gets an additional comp pick.

I looked into it further and 10 does seem like the perfect number. There are 10 teams with a budget less than $130M. That seems like a major inflection point, as it’s impossible to spend up to the cap if your budget is that low.

[aaronweiner]

I’d be in favor of a competitive balance round instead, similar to what they do in MLB. 10 smallest budgets gets an additional comp pick.

I looked into it further and 10 does seem like the perfect number. There are 10 teams with a budget less than $130M. That seems like a major inflection point, as it’s impossible to spend up to the cap if your budget is that low.

That is a clever idea. I hadn't considered that.

[Trebro]

I’d be in favor of a competitive balance round instead, similar to what they do in MLB. 10 smallest budgets gets an additional comp pick.

I looked into it further and 10 does seem like the perfect number. There are 10 teams with a budget less than $130M. That seems like a major inflection point, as it’s impossible to spend up to the cap if your budget is that low.

That is a clever idea. I hadn't considered that.

I don't like this idea. It bothers me, even if it's a computer game, to reward a team for not spending money. I realize teams don't have complete control over that, but it just feels really wrong. This isn't saying the real life player isn't using their funds right, BTW. I know it's AI, but I still struggle with is as a concept. (And FWiW, I despise the idea in real life.)

Plus, what if there are multiple teams tied with the same budget? How many tiebreakers would we need?

[BaseClogger]

I looked into it further and 10 does seem like the perfect number. There are 10 teams with a budget less than $130M. That seems like a major inflection point, as it’s impossible to spend up to the cap if your budget is that low.

That is a clever idea. I hadn't considered that.

I don't like this idea. It bothers me, even if it's a computer game, to reward a team for not spending money. I realize teams don't have complete control over that, but it just feels really wrong. This isn't saying the real life player isn't using their funds right, BTW. I know it's AI, but I still struggle with is as a concept. (And FWiW, I despise the idea in real life.)

Plus, what if there are multiple teams tied with the same budget? How many tiebreakers would we need?

Budgets have nothing to do with "spending money". Budgets are tied to revenue. I think you're conflating it with payroll? The only two ways to increase revenue that I'm aware of is to have popular players and win games. It's difficult to acquire either of those two things if you have a small budget. So the cycle continues.

If there are teams tied just flip a coin, it's not that big of a deal. It's one sandwich round comp pick and those teams don't have the smallest budgets in the league.

[Dington]

That is a clever idea. I hadn't considered that.

I don't like this idea. It bothers me, even if it's a computer game, to reward a team for not spending money. I realize teams don't have complete control over that, but it just feels really wrong. This isn't saying the real life player isn't using their funds right, BTW. I know it's AI, but I still struggle with is as a concept. (And FWiW, I despise the idea in real life.)

Plus, what if there are multiple teams tied with the same budget? How many tiebreakers would we need?

Budgets have nothing to do with "spending money". Budgets are tied to revenue. I think you're conflating it with payroll? The only two ways to increase revenue that I'm aware of is to have popular players and win games. It's difficult to acquire either of those two things if you have a small budget. So the cycle continues.

If there are teams tied just flip a coin, it's not that big of a deal. It's one sandwich round comp pick and those teams don't have the smallest budgets in the league.

Consider increasing your stadium’s capacity. Sign popular players. More butts in seats = more revenue.

[BaseClogger]

I don't like this idea. It bothers me, even if it's a computer game, to reward a team for not spending money. I realize teams don't have complete control over that, but it just feels really wrong. This isn't saying the real life player isn't using their funds right, BTW. I know it's AI, but I still struggle with is as a concept. (And FWiW, I despise the idea in real life.)

Plus, what if there are multiple teams tied with the same budget? How many tiebreakers would we need?

Budgets have nothing to do with "spending money". Budgets are tied to revenue. I think you're conflating it with payroll? The only two ways to increase revenue that I'm aware of is to have popular players and win games. It's difficult to acquire either of those two things if you have a small budget. So the cycle continues.

If there are teams tied just flip a coin, it's not that big of a deal. It's one sandwich round comp pick and those teams don't have the smallest budgets in the league.

Consider increasing your stadium’s capacity. Sign popular players. More butts in seats = more revenue.

If I'm not selling out then why would I increase its capacity? That's just added stadium maintenance expense for empty seats.

Popular players are often--but not always--expensive because they are good players. But I did note that above as being one of the ways to increase revenue.

[Rubaboo]

That is a clever idea. I hadn't considered that.

I don't like this idea. It bothers me, even if it's a computer game, to reward a team for not spending money. I realize teams don't have complete control over that, but it just feels really wrong. This isn't saying the real life player isn't using their funds right, BTW. I know it's AI, but I still struggle with is as a concept. (And FWiW, I despise the idea in real life.)

Plus, what if there are multiple teams tied with the same budget? How many tiebreakers would we need?

Budgets have nothing to do with "spending money". Budgets are tied to revenue. I think you're conflating it with payroll? The only two ways to increase revenue that I'm aware of is to have popular players and win games. It's difficult to acquire either of those two things if you have a small budget. So the cycle continues.

If there are teams tied just flip a coin, it's not that big of a deal. It's one sandwich round comp pick and those teams don't have the smallest budgets in the league.

Increasing your budget is as simple as spending PP to do it. That's one of the best ways to control your finances if the game is giving you trouble. There's literally no reason to let a small budget stop you from doing anything.

[GoldenOne]

There is also the possibility of moving your team to a place that might have a larger Market Size. There is more involved to that that just "wanting to move" your team, but its still a possibility.

[BaseClogger]

I don't like this idea. It bothers me, even if it's a computer game, to reward a team for not spending money. I realize teams don't have complete control over that, but it just feels really wrong. This isn't saying the real life player isn't using their funds right, BTW. I know it's AI, but I still struggle with is as a concept. (And FWiW, I despise the idea in real life.)

Plus, what if there are multiple teams tied with the same budget? How many tiebreakers would we need?

Budgets have nothing to do with "spending money". Budgets are tied to revenue. I think you're conflating it with payroll? The only two ways to increase revenue that I'm aware of is to have popular players and win games. It's difficult to acquire either of those two things if you have a small budget. So the cycle continues.

If there are teams tied just flip a coin, it's not that big of a deal. It's one sandwich round comp pick and those teams don't have the smallest budgets in the league.

Increasing your budget is as simple as spending PP to do it. That's one of the best ways to control your finances if the game is giving you trouble. There's literally no reason to let a small budget stop you from doing anything.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s basically converting PP to cash? Even if you could increase your budget it would just reset to a smaller number the next year based on revenue and you’d be screwed with long term contracts.

[BaseClogger]

There is also the possibility of moving your team to a place that might have a larger Market Size. There is more involved to that that just "wanting to move" your team, but its still a possibility.

Basically every team in the league has the “massive” market size. I asked about this on discord and one of the GB members mentioned they think they standardized that across the board a few years ago. As far as I can tell, the only reason to move is for personal taste preferences.

[Dington]

Budgets have nothing to do with "spending money". Budgets are tied to revenue. I think you're conflating it with payroll? The only two ways to increase revenue that I'm aware of is to have popular players and win games. It's difficult to acquire either of those two things if you have a small budget. So the cycle continues.

If there are teams tied just flip a coin, it's not that big of a deal. It's one sandwich round comp pick and those teams don't have the smallest budgets in the league.

Increasing your budget is as simple as spending PP to do it. That's one of the best ways to control your finances if the game is giving you trouble. There's literally no reason to let a small budget stop you from doing anything.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s basically converting PP to cash? Even if you could increase your budget it would just reset to a smaller number the next year based on revenue and you’d be screwed with long term contracts.

Converting Cash to Budget:
- Cost: 10 PP per each $10,000,000 budget increase
- Maximum Reward: $30,000,000 per season.
- Use of this reward will not allow a team’s budget to exceed $130,000,000.

It limits to $130M, but it helps lower tier teams get to that point at least.

[Dington]

Budgets have nothing to do with "spending money". Budgets are tied to revenue. I think you're conflating it with payroll? The only two ways to increase revenue that I'm aware of is to have popular players and win games. It's difficult to acquire either of those two things if you have a small budget. So the cycle continues.

If there are teams tied just flip a coin, it's not that big of a deal. It's one sandwich round comp pick and those teams don't have the smallest budgets in the league.

Increasing your budget is as simple as spending PP to do it. That's one of the best ways to control your finances if the game is giving you trouble. There's literally no reason to let a small budget stop you from doing anything.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s basically converting PP to cash? Even if you could increase your budget it would just reset to a smaller number the next year based on revenue and you’d be screwed with long term contracts.

Rebranding/Change Logo:
- Impact: +3 Fan Interest (max 85)
- Cost: 30 PPTs
Rebranding can only be done once every 5 seasons, and must be approved by the Governing Board. In addition, to use this reward you must have been a league GM in good standing for at least two seasons.

Additionally, you can increase fan interest in other ways. Take a look here.

[Rubaboo]

Budgets have nothing to do with "spending money". Budgets are tied to revenue. I think you're conflating it with payroll? The only two ways to increase revenue that I'm aware of is to have popular players and win games. It's difficult to acquire either of those two things if you have a small budget. So the cycle continues.

If there are teams tied just flip a coin, it's not that big of a deal. It's one sandwich round comp pick and those teams don't have the smallest budgets in the league.

Increasing your budget is as simple as spending PP to do it. That's one of the best ways to control your finances if the game is giving you trouble. There's literally no reason to let a small budget stop you from doing anything.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s basically converting PP to cash? Even if you could increase your budget it would just reset to a smaller number the next year based on revenue and you’d be screwed with long term contracts.

You convert PP to cash, then cash to budget. It's expensive but it should be. Probably the most powerful PP reward available.

[BaseClogger]

Increasing your budget is as simple as spending PP to do it. That's one of the best ways to control your finances if the game is giving you trouble. There's literally no reason to let a small budget stop you from doing anything.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s basically converting PP to cash? Even if you could increase your budget it would just reset to a smaller number the next year based on revenue and you’d be screwed with long term contracts.

Converting Cash to Budget:
- Cost: 10 PP per each $10,000,000 budget increase
- Maximum Reward: $30,000,000 per season.
- Use of this reward will not allow a team’s budget to exceed $130,000,000.

It limits to $130M, but it helps lower tier teams get to that point at least.

Oh snappp. That's not even expensive since you're basically guranteed 20 PPT for writing team news and exporting each season. I will definitely utilize this, thanks. Makes me feel bad there are so many teams not making this obvious move/I've suffered thru three seasons without doing this!

Edit: Also, now that I know this PPT reward exists, I'm less enthusiastic about the competitive balance comp picks (to bring this full circle)

[BaseClogger]

Since I’ve learned the “simple” PP reward Fred described above actually isn’t even possible for me this year and would cost hundreds of PP, I take back some of my conclusions in the previous posts.

Very much in favor of competitive balance comp picks again lol