Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican
To make life easier, I would suggest hitting up your owner for some dough-re-mi to use on scouting. All MLB owners are wealthy. He or she has the ability to help out. In Commissioner mode, you can simply add the cash. Is this cheesing or cheating? No moreso than acquiring four OF at the trade deadline. Okay, if you are a wealthy team like the Yankees or Dodgers or Braves, enough is enough! But if you are a small-market team, or structured like one, why not level the playing field a bit? I don’t lose any sleep over giving the perennial also-ran teams like the Pirates and Rays some extra funding. Maybe next year I will impose a hard cap and see how Atlanta and St. Louis fare in a socialist system.
|
Two ideas:
1) If you are interested in more medium-term parity, instead of arbitrary budget hikes it may be a good idea to adjust how financials work. Some options are reducing gap in market sizes between teams, or assigning a bigger weight for national media contracts in relation to local media contracts.
2) If you start a 2022 save, I think it would be reasonable to raise the budget of teams that start over budget.
For example, the Marlins start 2022 as being overbudget and get hit with the penalty that reduces the scouting and development budgets, but in reality, there is no indication that the Marlins went into the season needing to shed salary because they were overspending. In fact, they didn't really try to shed salary at the deadline even though they are not in contention.
The case for the Tigers is even more extreme. They may be losing money, but they shouldn't start the game as being significantly above their budget. If ownership decides to set a budget that is above expected revenues, that is their problem and the game should allow for it when you are starting with real finances.