The Brewster

GoldenOne wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:57 pm

tylertoo wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:50 pm

usnspecialist wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:29 pm

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."

woods wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:11 pm

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.)

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:05 am

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 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 1:37 pm

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:05 am

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 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:28 pm

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 1:37 pm

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:05 am

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 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:38 pm

aaronweiner wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:28 pm

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 1:37 pm

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 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:43 am

Trebro wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:38 pm

aaronweiner wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:28 pm

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 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:11 am

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:43 am

Trebro wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:38 pm

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 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:43 am

Trebro wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:38 pm

aaronweiner wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:28 pm

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.

Rubaboo wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:55 am

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:43 am

Trebro wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:38 pm

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 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:01 am

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 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:07 pm

Rubaboo wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:55 am

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:43 am

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.

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:07 pm

Rubaboo wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:55 am

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:43 am

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.

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:07 pm

Rubaboo wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:55 am

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:43 am

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.

Dington wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:22 pm

BaseClogger wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:07 pm

Rubaboo wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:55 am

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.