|
Post by MarinersGM on Oct 9, 2008 18:20:47 GMT -5
I understand what Scott and some others have said about the Braves and Reds being able to then spend their money on Free agents. But I don't feel that will hurt us as much as them having A+ Farms and others with D. I know Scott well enough to know that I won't get in a bidding war with him over a free agent, because he has a ton of Money and play in his payroll.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 9, 2008 19:08:41 GMT -5
I just want to make something clear: I have known from the moment I have started thinking about this issue that, if we were to cap farm spending, that would create another problem which is having teams with too much money to spend.
That's why, among other reasons, I was unable to come up with a definite solution. No matter the plan I could think about, there was always something in it that backfired in a way that I didn't like.
But we're getting somewhere.
As for adjusting teams that have gone through a stretch of careless owners, it's not an idea that I disagree with at all.
Finally (I'm a little short on time, sorry), Scott and I can answer a whole lot of questions and give advice about many aspects of the game, but Scott is right, if we don't have questions asked, we just don't know where to start.
I will try to create a new section on the boards that will serve only for that purpose: guiding owners, giving out tips and advice. I will try to come up with this as soon as possible, possibly even creating a thread for each "subject" we would have stuff to answer to.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Oct 9, 2008 19:08:47 GMT -5
I'd like to just add that I strongly agree that whatever we do it has to be in the best interest of the leauge. I'm also glad to see so many owners taking part in the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Oct 9, 2008 19:17:54 GMT -5
The teams complaining about that they wont be #1 or #2 in farm spending, maybe you should figure out how to place minor leaguers into the system. like 60s and below R...up to 65 a ball...70 and above aaa. Ive noticed some teams that have young talent in the wrong level.
Also, at least this thread has people talking...some of the older archived threads have some in depth discussions and stuff. Maybe teams like the pirates(not calling you out) should post some articles and get that extra 5 million. And other teams like the yankees(i am calling you out) should trade more for the 500k. I wanted to trade for a 34 year first baseman that was barely an 80, and was told only elite prospects, or 1st round pick.....
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Oct 9, 2008 19:33:28 GMT -5
Personnally I dont see any problem with the extra money that some teams could get. If every owner keep their STAR players in their teams, the free-agent pool battle will be a lot less interresting so do the money factor too. Per example, how come Paul Schaal or Johnny Briggs was released to the free-agent? even if you dont have plan for him in your team anymore, just resign him then trade him to get something good. The Reds owner just did that with Menke and I think it's the best way to manage for our own team and for the best interrest of the league. That's my point of vue. For the farm system adjustment to the new owner,did I have to said that I'm in favor
|
|
|
Post by Halos on Oct 9, 2008 19:49:48 GMT -5
It's not like we'll see first place go to $30M and everyone else stay at $13M. There has to be some kind of limitation to balance things out. If people were smart, this would be the case. The limitation has to come from the owners to not be blind sheep. I've already admitted I kinda do this, but there comes a point where you look at your budget and you can't afford anymore. It would be nice if more people noticed they couldn't afford it and stayed around 13M or whatever number and let a couple teams duke it out for the #1 spot at around 30M. I did feel the need to bump my farm a little more than I wanted during that farm spending rush a season or so ago because so many people were passing me in spending it would have hurt my minors. I reluctantly joined in the bidding war, but only within my means. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of others.
|
|
|
Post by Halos on Oct 9, 2008 19:54:18 GMT -5
Also on the write up, that would be awesome. I still dont understand fully how the braves, (hes tried to explain) draft so well. I would LOVE to have a awesome ss in the minor leagues developing as i think thats a very important position. In the draft Gary templeton looked like a scrub. He also never developed that well in my sims. Yet the Braves knew he was solid, and drafted him late in first round. Hes a 94 peak now. I understand he takes a lot of time prepping for the draft, but i thought i invested a decent amount of time last draft too. Also the write up could explain little intricacies that our league has, like how base stealing is pretty much impossible, and if you look at the standings the 1st and second place teams pretty much dont steal at all. Just wanted to add one thing about our pending "How To" guide. I don't think those people gracious enough to write out thorough answers need to give away all their secrects, because that's what makes them great owners. I think we should stick more to the intricacies of BBM 2k8 itself rather than drafting strategy, setting lineups, etc. We shouldn't be able to get all the secrets the Braves have uncovered in his endless hours of work put into TMBL. Not that we need to regulate what kind of questions to be asked in our new forum, but the people answering should not feel the need to give away all their secrets. (Unless they want to, then I'm sure we will all accept!)
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Oct 9, 2008 19:58:52 GMT -5
^^^ I think BravesGM drafts well because he spends so much time doing sims.
|
|
|
Post by reds on Oct 9, 2008 21:01:40 GMT -5
If people were smart, this would be the case. The limitation has to come from the owners to not be blind sheep. I've already admitted I kinda do this, but there comes a point where you look at your budget and you can't afford anymore. It would be nice if more people noticed they couldn't afford it and stayed around 13M or whatever number and let a couple teams duke it out for the #1 spot at around 30M. Exactly. By the way, this is exactly what would happen. I don't believe a team in TMBL has ever bankrupted itself. So I don't know why we are all so convinced everyone will go out and spend beyond their means if there is not a rule prohibiting it.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 9, 2008 21:04:59 GMT -5
Exactly. By the way, this is exactly what would happen. I don't believe a team in TMBL has ever bankrupted itself. So I don't know why we are all so convinced everyone will go out and spend beyond their means if there is not a rule prohibiting it. Oh, there have been a couple that have, but it has been a really long time since that happened. None of those owners are still with us.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 9, 2008 21:26:00 GMT -5
Exactly. By the way, this is exactly what would happen. I don't believe a team in TMBL has ever bankrupted itself. So I don't know why we are all so convinced everyone will go out and spend beyond their means if there is not a rule prohibiting it. We have a rule preventing teams to go bankrupt and allowing the league to step in and take measures in case a team is heading for bankruptcy, and it is for a reason. When I took over the Indians in 1959, the team was in negative cash and some of their players had to be auctionned. Not long after that, one team was dangerously approaching bankruptcy and we even had owners argue that if their team dove at $(minus)20M in the red, then so be it and we should just let them do it. I see you have good faith in each TMBL owner that they won't follow or try to follow any extreme rise. But that's just an opinion based on good faith towards other people. I look at what has happened in the past, at how some teams have been managed through the years and I've seen how each and every single of our owners has reacted when Farm spending started to raise from - what it was, around 6M? - to what it is actually set to. And even if I do admit that some of these teams were in a position that allowed them to follow everyone else, it wasn't the case everywhere. Farm kept being raised and raised and raised, and everyone just kept following and following and following. Like sheeps. We cannot say that all of them did it in full knowledge of the actual impact on their team's financial situation, because it wouldn't be true. Geez, I even doubt that everyone knows we can actually see our "Payroll budget". Brad admitted of not knowing everything about Finances, and yet he's one of our most experienced, veteran and better owners. But for one guy who admitted to this, how many will remain silent about it?
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 9, 2008 21:34:50 GMT -5
Just wanted to add one thing about our pending "How To" guide. I don't think those people gracious enough to write out thorough answers need to give away all their secrects, because that's what makes them great owners. I think we should stick more to the intricacies of BBM 2k8 itself rather than drafting strategy, setting lineups, etc. Yeah, that's what I was thinking about too. Anyway, no one here can claim to know everything there is to know about BBM. But some obviously know more things than others. I still find out stuff about it here and there, and I'm sure others do too. As for the tips and advice given, we probably all have different strategies. For instance, I originally set my drafting strategy on a method Rand told me about. Later on, I got influenced by Johnnyboy's own method. Today, I say it's a mix of the two, which is probably different than Scott's way, but still working to a certain degree - I come to that conclusion by looking at the quality of some players I drafted over the years. So, yeah, I don't think I plan to start telling guys how to do things as if there was one way to do it. The intricates, as you said, as well as tips about a little of anything.
|
|
|
Post by reds on Oct 9, 2008 22:06:25 GMT -5
Terry - why should teams not have raised their farm spending to $13M? The truth is that everyone could afford it. Last season only six teams in TMBL lost money, and none of them lost more than $10M. Four of those six teams still have $50M+ in the bank, and are in no danger whatsoever. When (if) expenses get raised to $30M, not everyone will be able to follow. The market is set artificially low - right now we aren't allowed to reach the breaking point where some teams legitimately can't afford to be #1 in farm system.
Terry, if you are concerned about teams bankrupting themselves, you can always hold the "veto" card. That is, when a team gets close to going into the red, you can step in and freeze their expenses. I would not be opposed to that at all.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 9, 2008 23:19:32 GMT -5
Terry - why should teams not have raised their farm spending to $13M? The truth is that everyone could afford it. Last season only six teams in TMBL lost money, and none of them lost more than $10M. Four of those six teams still have $50M+ in the bank, and are in no danger whatsoever. When (if) expenses get raised to $30M, not everyone will be able to follow. The market is set artificially low - right now we aren't allowed to reach the breaking point where some teams legitimately can't afford to be #1 in farm system. Terry, if you are concerned about teams bankrupting themselves, you can always hold the "veto" card. That is, when a team gets close to going into the red, you can step in and freeze their expenses. I would not be opposed to that at all. Matt, not everyone could afford it. In order to raise its farm to $13M, the Giants lowered their other expenses. The drop in Scouting made little difference financially, but may (or may not) have had something to do in the Giants demise at the end of the year. But something that did have an impact, for sure, was the Giants dropping their medical expenses to $2M. On September 15, the Giants had 3 major injuries: 2B Phil Gagliano (3 weeks), OF Jose Ortiz (five weeks) and SP Ron Reed (five weeks) all went down with serious injuries at a time when the team was holding a six game lead on the Astros. SF crashed at the very end, losing the division by a mere 3 games. Had they not suffered these simultaneous injuries, their fate might have been different. But thanks to a year in which they contended all year long, the team made $6.4M in profits. They weren't getting that much in the sims I ran early on, at least not in the sims they finished third or last. Already running low on cash, the Giants had to choose: farm or medical. They choose farm, and it kinda backfired. And with a D farm, how long will it gets to a reasonnable level so that their rookies can start developing as expected? This is just one team, but there are others. Not wanting to see them is just ignoring a problem that affects the league as a whole. But there are many ways to force richer teams to invest. We're talking about Farm, but let's not forget Medical and Scouting. They might not look as important as Farm to the eyes of most owners, but they exist for a reason, and Medical, as we saw with the Giants, can indeed have a big word to say in a team's contending effort. Take Paul's idea of a "tiers" system. It can be adapted to Farm very well in TMBL. But it could also be applied to the other areas - although the cash spent in there would probably have to be less - and so teams wanting to be #1 in Medical may have to spend $15M in it and $5M (or more) to be #1 in Scouting. Therefore, something like this would probably force richer teams to spend more there (and less in free agency as many feared might happen), as well as forcing other teams to decide where they want to rank in these 3 areas. I'm in no way saying this has been seriously thought about. I'm just putting up numbers. But if we say $20M for Farm, $15M for Medical and $5M in Scouting, that's already $40 in Expenses that a team wanting to be #1 everywhere would have to spend. That's already $16.25M more than the #1 spenders had to spend in 1974. And as I said, those are just numbers. Spend $16M more in Expenses, and that's $16M less for free agents. As for other teams, well, it's decision time. They'll have to decide if they want to be at the Top in farm only, if they want to be near the top in everything else, or average in all three but sign better players, etc... As for teams nearing bankruptcy, we already have rules against it, and I wouldn't hesitate to take action if I saw that a team clearly was going to go below positive cash at the end of any given season.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Oct 9, 2008 23:20:56 GMT -5
I'd like to put some context into this discussion. First - there is great parity in this league. Yes, Atlanta and Cincinati are powerhouses, but how many times have they won the WS in the last few seasons. In my other league we just went through a huge re-balance as we had a single team that was winning 130 games per season, won 5 straight WS, and simmed ahead to win the next 8-10 titles! Now, this is s huge difference than TMBL, but one thing is for sure - just because we have access to commish info, does not mean that everything will pan out as we think. Many GM's simulate ahead several seasons to determine who to draft and who to avoid (because they will be a bust). That being said, I don't think that this discussion is about what one team or another does, it is about what is best for the league. How do we create a "dynamic" within the league that both promotes competition and simulates real life. Yes, guys have to "manage" thier farm systems regardless of thier rankings. If you leave a recent pick who is 52/95 in AAA, they are going to fail - simple as that. But back to spending. TMBL is an equalized league - meaning that the only thing that affects income is fan loyalty - which depends on success. The more successful teams have higher fan loyalty and therefore higher incomes. Do we need something to change this - I don't think so. Do we need a "system" that is more fair and even when it comes to the return on investment for farm spending? I think so - I agree with Terry, why is it that half of the teams spending at the max saw thier farm ratings drop? Not many of you have even commented on my "Tier" proposal, or something like that. I also think that we could use a "winterball" system. In my other league each team gets to send 2 players per year to winterball and there are randomly generated results (best = +2 overall & +2 peak, worst = career ending injury) Now an Idea that has been discussed in my other league is to have the number of winterball spots varry based on final standings, or league participation or some other way to give some teams more spots in winterball. I personally like the idea that you give the bottom 1/3 of the league an extra spot in winterball - to encourage a proper rebuilding process. Just a couple of ideas to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Oct 9, 2008 23:45:51 GMT -5
this league had a winterball thing at one time.......
The tier system wont work on the basis that terry was arguing w/. The teams that would spend a lot of money on farm will want to to be a tier one team still. So were going have 15 teams in tier 1..2 in tier 2...and 1 in tier 4 or something close to that....thats exactly the results we got from the ceiling...maybe im missing something on this tier system
another thing to think of is the expansion of two teams. The braves and reds will have a harder time protecting all of their players vs. a rebuilding white sox...thus expansion will help level out the field a bit.
|
|
|
Post by reds on Oct 9, 2008 23:56:59 GMT -5
Paul - I believe TMBL used to have winterball. It was canceled because the talent level was just too high to be giving players extra boosts. Someone else correct me if I am wrong on this.
I also want to point out that the Giants didn't have to choose between farm and spending. That only happened because they elected to spend $20M+ in Free Agency the past two seasons, and go with the third highest payroll in TMBL even though they only have 72 Fan Loyalty. That is what we want to happen - average teams shouldn't be able to sign the best free agents each offseason, and still have enough cash to rank #1 in spending.
Finally I think the "how to" guide that is being talked about is a good idea and I'd be happy to contribute.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 10, 2008 0:16:37 GMT -5
this league had a winterball thing at one time....... We had, and suffered from it as well. When we decided to stop winterball (what was it, 1961?), the damage had already been done. Winterball improved talent, and even though we had it in such a way that only players with limited skills (there was a maximum predicted stats eligible for Winterball) were eligible for Winterball, it still created way too much talent. The second half of the 60's was directly caused by Winterball: batting averages dropped, pitching dominated at levels that were ridiculous. For instance, my 1969 expansion Expos had a 2.96 ERA, first season in the league! Batting champs in each league barely had .300 averages, and often won the batting title with averages below .300, as low as .284 in one season! And believe me, our Winterball system had been well thought, was better than some used in other leagues (because there was more restrictions to it) and it still caused us problems that we only got rid of when we changed the game version to the actual 2k8. The tier system wont work on the basis that terry was arguing w/. The teams that would spend a lot of money on farm will want to to be a tier one team still. So were going have 15 teams in tier 1..2 in tier 2...and 1 in tier 4 or something close to that....thats exactly the results we got from the ceiling...maybe im missing something on this tier system Not if we do as was suggested by Paul, and limit the number of teams in each tier. Many might want to be in tier 1 in Farm, for instance, but if their finances aren't solid enough, they wouldn't be allowed to. It also might encourage teams to, instead of trying to follow the leaders out of blindness and fear of being out-competitioned, go for a tier 2 or 3 in certain areas in order to better balance their budget and improve their all-around performance. another thing to think of is the expansion of two teams. The braves and reds will have a harder time protecting all of their players vs. a rebuilding white sox...thus expansion will help level out the field a bit. We cannot count only on the expansion to bring a better balance to the league. For one, I cannot count on Scott to make a bad protection plan of his players. The guy has been through 2 expansions with the same team, and believe me, the Braves haven't suffered much from it. I did not draft some of my best players on Atlanta, or Cincinnati for that matter. Also, the dynamics of the 2 expansions we had were different both times. In 1962, we let teams protect too much talent, which resulted in the expansion teams being the worst possible teams for years and years, and a continual pile-up on top picks for most of them. In 1969, we were organized better and had a plan that allowed us to choose among 3 plans of protections. The result then was that there was better talent available, so much in fact that the San Diego Padres picked up on it and won their division in their very first year of existence! Look at the last 4 expansion teams: many of our best players came from that expansion draft (Don Mason and Bob Heise in SD, John Ellis, Gary Sutherland in MON, Joe Lahoud, Tom Griffin, Mike Nagy in OAK, Mike Adamson in MIL and many others I don't remember right now) and still play important roles on our teams. That was not the case on the first expansion. But this time, we're using the 2k8. I haven't looked in depth at how the game takes on an expansion, but it doesn't seem (so far) that we will be able to use plans like in 1969. And last but not least, the next expansion only adds team in the NL, which will have very little impact on the Braves and Reds other than for them to lose a few players. But every other team in the NL will lose players as well, and most of them aren't as covered everywhere as the Reds and Braves can be. So chances are that if the expansion does have an impact on the NL, it's not going to be a serious weakening on the top teams of the league. It could even be, depending of how well or BAD everyone protects their players, exactly the opposite that happens.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 10, 2008 6:17:49 GMT -5
If you leave a recent pick who is 52/95 in AAA, they are going to fail - simple as that. That is not necessarily true. I have had very mixed results when I do that, so I look at it on a player by player level.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 10, 2008 6:27:19 GMT -5
But this time, we're using the 2k8. I haven't looked in depth at how the game takes on an expansion, but it doesn't seem (so far) that we will be able to use plans like in 1969. I haven't looked at this in depth either, but from what I do know so far: I think we will be protecting 15 players each. I believe the game only lets you lose 5 players which were unprotected. There is no restriction on which 15 players you can protect either. If you want to do 15 pitchers or 15 hitters, then you can do it. There are not many ways around what the game does, but we could restrict ourselves who we are allowed to protect and how many because the commish will have to enter who is being protected for each team right before the draft occurs. It is almost like a draft situation.
|
|
|
Post by unklenemz-SFG on Oct 10, 2008 8:37:29 GMT -5
I guess I will have to chime in since the Giants are continously brought up.
I joined the league like two seasons ago and the Giants looked pretty much like a neglected team, in my opinion. I had no farm talent and not much on the roster. This is even though the Giants won the division a year or two ago. I assume there was a reason the team was open?? I had oversized contracts for positional players and pitchers. There was little money in the bank to speak of. The talent that may have been there appears to have been traded away over the years. There was no expansion draft talent. If it was drafted the prospects rotted away in the farm system.
I spend a lot of time playing with my organization to improve and running sims to see what the future holds for the Giants. I have spent a lot of money in the Free Agency. This is an attempt to increase the talent on my team to have somewhat of a chance to compete in the league. I have no farm system to fallback on at the moment. I do have a superstar on my team in Crowley and will have only a small window to do something with him.
Now since my team has not been one of the "top tier" teams in the league, I have gotten a couple of top ten picks the past two seasons. This is my only future at the moment, the draft picks that I have made since joining the league. The only way I see to try and protect these couple of prospects is to spend some money in the farm system. If I allow my small window to compete with Crowley to close and allow my couple prospects not to improve in the farm, then I will have no team and no future. Then being in this league would be a waste of my time.
So while I am here running an inherited Giants team, I will still spend where I see fit to try and compete with teams that have been ran smoothly for the past decade. This is the only way I know how. If that takes spending 20 mil and 2 mil in medical, that will be a decision I will consider. If it takes 11 million to get a player, thats a decision I will consider. Otherwise my time is better spent elsewhere in the world. There was no help given besides the three free releases but the team was already in shackles. I'm not running the Giants in the ground. Simply trying to get them from there.
Lastly, the collapse of the Giants in the last month of the season was not soley due to me lowering medical to two million dollars. Yes I did lose my 2b, rf, and a starter(just traded for before the sim), but I did not make any roster changes that sim. I had guys who could replace them but I missed the opportunity when the three sims-a-week took place. This was the first time I actually competed for the playoffs through the entire season in this league and an error was made by me. But my strategy can't be blamed for my missing the playoffs because it is the same strategy that got me to that point. Because it surely wasn't the team I inherited that did it.
|
|
|
Post by reds on Oct 10, 2008 10:55:42 GMT -5
To the Giants - I was not intending to knock your decision to spend big in free agency. Only pointing out that you did it knowing that it would result in you having to cut back on expenses spending. Where you decide to spend your money is completely up to you (or at least, I think it should be).
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Oct 10, 2008 17:53:57 GMT -5
can we stop talking about teams and focus on the league as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Oct 10, 2008 18:24:16 GMT -5
can we stop complaining about the other replies and focus back on the thread?
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 11, 2008 12:15:00 GMT -5
I guess I will have to chime in since the Giants are continously brought up. To Doug: You have perfectly described the Giants situation. We brought them up - as well as the Tigers - not because of the way you have acted since you came in, but because of how huge a mountain you have to climb in order to make that team competitive again. The Giants are exactly what we wish wouldn't happen anymore. For a long while, the team had an owner, an active one. It doesn't matter how good he was or wasn't: he was active, worked for him team, made trades, drafted, signed players, etc... But one day, he left, and since then, that team has suffered (and the word really is important here) through a series of owners that came, took over them and did absolutely nothing or too little. I don't even have the right number, but really, a bunch of guys have come and done nothing. This has lead to us trusting there was an active, new owner, when there really wasn't, so the team got pick lists when we used to give the worst possible player (when a team timed out) in more than one draft. The list of bad things happening to the Giants in longer than that, but everything you described was caused exactly by that. You're the most active, longest-standing Giants owner they have had in a long time. A long time. Speaking of the Giants in this thread isn't to criticise you. It's to show to everyone how hard it is for some teams to get back in it, how new owners like you can inherit a team that is so bad that despite their efforts, the team still looks bad. But don't worry: you've been not only active, but good. The Giants made money this year, as well as contending. The money you spent in free agency has been paying off. We can see that San Fransisco's future is the brightest it has been for them in over a decade. Still, you have to work miracles to get your team to recover because that streak of bad, unactive owners has put the Giants into the worst possible situation. Good work so far, indeed. But it shouldn't happen this way. It would be better for the league as a whole to welcome new owners with something else than teams in complete disaray.
|
|