Quote:
Originally Posted by swensobp
Tysok:
While I appreciate your attempt to make a logical argument, you’re talking nonsense. I’m guessing you work in the public sector where that type of backwards logic is prevalent due to a lack of a single power source. Modeling finances this way would make sense for some sort of government sim, where partisan politics makes it nearly impossible to modify a budget, or in some enormous company suffering from excess bureaucracy. However in this game you’re a General Manager of a baseball team who has direct access to the owner, IE the guy with the cash. Now you show me a company owner who would be willing to spend $100,000,000 for an asset that will last 1 year versus $8,000,000 for an asset that will last 2 years and I’ll point out to you a guy who isn’t going to have a business much longer.
A better situation would be to handle it like Football Manager. Where contacts are limited based on the projected role of the player. The fact that the owners in the game allow contracts like that is a joke and completely unrealistic.
|
Now you're talking about something else. Why is an owner allowing you to sign such a ridiculously stupid contract? Perhaps it should limit you there as the next poster said, he'll step in and slap you down if you get stupid. Maybe that's something for next version, or maybe Markus might even put it in for a patch (call it the slap code).
Beyond that, even you admit it's a ridiculous contract... so would you offer it? You're the GM, the financial stability of the team is somewhat important to you as well. The owner has faith in your abilities and gives you the checkbook. If you're stupid enough to offer and sign a 100 million 1 year deal and blow all your cash the owner wouldn't be happy... but he's not standing there looking over your shoulder in OOTP right now.
What my post was about is the difference in $ for free agents and $ for cash. If I could have I'd make the cash be unavailable except in certain circumstances, your star player goes down with a long injury and you need an influx to get this trade done or sign this free agent. Maybe some others... not for just signing any Tom, Dick or Harry you felt like getting in this year... but that was too detailed and was apparently decided against.
The post had nothing to do with the stupid contract. It's this way to mirror an ability to go out and sign an emergency player (or maybe sign that one player you think will put you over the top this year).
So yeah, it's kind of silly that you can offer someone a 100 million 1 year contract... it is however one of those things that we would expect you to be somewhat more intelligent than to do so.
It gets rather complicated to make sure you don't spend your cash many times over... which I was easily able to do in beta testing. The argument went out that you could spend it many times over, and this ended up as the solution.