Financials On or Off? Thoughts.....

boblight24 · 03-30-2010, 08:58 PM

I've been toying with the idea of restarting my fictional league and turning the financials off. I am the GM of a "tiny" market size team with a very small budget, I think my payroll was $26M and the league's highest was $130M, therefore I can't hold on to the prospects once they realize they can cash in elsewhere and I can't lure any free agents to my club either. So I am always finishing at the bottom of the standings. Now I know that I can go in and manipulate the financial settings, but my team is based in NC and it IS a small market so that wouldn't be "realistic."

My question is should I restart and turn financials off? That way each team stands an equal shot at getting decent players through both the draft and well-timed trades.

Those of you who have financials off, please let me hear your experiences with them and those who have them on, please chime in as well.

Thanks!

Curtis · 03-31-2010, 11:52 PM

I always play with financials. When I do historicals I'm the Mets, which is the largest market in the NL, but when I play fictional I'm Nippon Ham, which is (if I'm remembering this correctly) tied for ninth/tenth largest market in the twelve team Nippon League.

I spend a lot of time working the waiver wire and picking free agents up on minor league contracts. I also spend as much time on my minor league system as I do on the parent club. (I'm using two levels of minors for the Nippon League.) I get as much satisfaction out of winning AA and AAA championships as I would out of winning in the parent league.

knockahoma · 04-01-2010, 07:03 AM

I almost always play in God-mode and usually with finances off. I usually just pretend its pre-free agency and the scenario remains very "realistic" for me. Milwaukee was a small market and they kept guys like Hank Aaron, Eddie Matthews and Warren Spahn on their payroll for years. For a decade from the mid 50s to the mid 60s they usually finished in the top 2 or 3 of the league. Not sure that would have happened with free agency. And the Braves apparently had enough money to spend on scouting and developing hall of fame level talent.

Curtis · 04-01-2010, 12:06 PM

For pre-free agency play, that's very realistic. People usually think of the Oakland Athletics when listing teams destroyed by free agency, but the Cincinnati Reds was another one.

On the other hand, the Connie Mack era Philadelphia Athletics was a team that twice had to demolish dynasties because they couldn't afford their players, even back in the days of indentured servitude. And the Kansas City Royals were so small market that the only way they could survive was by annually selling off their best players to the Yankees.

In fact, having to share insufficient markets was why half of the early relocations took place (As, Braves, Orioles — but not the Twins, Giants and Dodgers). Still, playing with finances off is a reasonable approximation of a pre-free agency universe. It's also easier and less general manager oriented, for people who'd rather play a managerial game.

knockahoma · 04-01-2010, 06:00 PM

Very true. And I guess the Curse of the Bambino fits, too. Ruth threatened to sit out and pursue other interests unless he got double his salary. And so, the sale.

Actually, I try to "imagine" these financial issues in my God-leagues. I tried to play with financials once, but I was totally overwhelmed when handling 16 teams, as you can imagine. I'd probably put on financials if I could eat all on my plate.

So, when a small market gets a big star, I try to introduce that issue into the equasion. Should they trade this big time star for a few really good prospects? I try to imagine the scenarios.

I've mentioned this before, but I use a couple of dice. Makes me feel better. For example, if I have a star player too big for his market, I'll make a determination. 2-9 means the player and team couldn't work it out. 10-12 means they did. Basically, I set the odds and let the dice be the hand of fate.

lawrence97 · 04-01-2010, 06:15 PM

on, but edited, as i was finding trading impossible with virtually no one being able to afford anyone making half decent amounts.

Curtis · 04-01-2010, 08:49 PM

…and another good point about the editing. I always edit the starting financial situations in my universes, though I try not to interfere again after Day One. I'm always annoyed when the New York teams get rated as 'tiny' and Cincinnati gets 'godzilla'.

Kuttner · 04-02-2010, 05:03 PM

I've been playing fictional leagues with financials off for a few years.

Some things I love:
*Tendency for some teams to become dominant... like over the course of 7-10 years, then eventually the floor bottoms out from the constant picking at the end of the draft, and rebuilding can take awhile. Parity be damned.
*In playing a fictional universe, I find I get to "know" the players a bit more. I can allow some of the younger players to hang out in the minors a bit more, and allow some of the aging stars to hang on a bit longer without financial constraints burdening me. (In other words, fewer hard, cold decisions to make

)

Some things I'm not crazy about:
*Too many trades. Since the AI isn't restricted by financials, it can trade based on need and I often find, what I think are too many trades, even with the setting on Low / Value Prospects.
*Leagues started with financials off, cause all news reports of trades to list the traded players as "Minor Leaguers" even when they're not (BZ 1518). It's a pain and prevents me from keeping accurate history of dealt players. I really hoped it's fixed in 11.

03-30-2010, 08:58 PM	#1
boblight24 All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Beyond Is Where I Roam Posts: 554 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	Financials On or Off? Thoughts..... I've been toying with the idea of restarting my fictional league and turning the financials off. I am the GM of a "tiny" market size team with a very small budget, I think my payroll was $26M and the league's highest was $130M, therefore I can't hold on to the prospects once they realize they can cash in elsewhere and I can't lure any free agents to my club either. So I am always finishing at the bottom of the standings. Now I know that I can go in and manipulate the financial settings, but my team is based in NC and it IS a small market so that wouldn't be "realistic." My question is should I restart and turn financials off? That way each team stands an equal shot at getting decent players through both the draft and well-timed trades. Those of you who have financials off, please let me hear your experiences with them and those who have them on, please chime in as well. Thanks! __________________ "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda "Good is not good enough, when better is expected." ~Vin Scully

04-01-2010, 06:00 PM	#5
knockahoma All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 792	Very true. And I guess the Curse of the Bambino fits, too. Ruth threatened to sit out and pursue other interests unless he got double his salary. And so, the sale. Actually, I try to "imagine" these financial issues in my God-leagues. I tried to play with financials once, but I was totally overwhelmed when handling 16 teams, as you can imagine. I'd probably put on financials if I could eat all on my plate. So, when a small market gets a big star, I try to introduce that issue into the equasion. Should they trade this big time star for a few really good prospects? I try to imagine the scenarios. I've mentioned this before, but I use a couple of dice. Makes me feel better. For example, if I have a star player too big for his market, I'll make a determination. 2-9 means the player and team couldn't work it out. 10-12 means they did. Basically, I set the odds and let the dice be the hand of fate. Last edited by knockahoma; 04-01-2010 at 06:02 PM.

04-02-2010, 05:03 PM	#8
Kuttner Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Arlington, MA Posts: 293	I've been playing fictional leagues with financials off for a few years. Some things I love: Tendency for some teams to become dominant... like over the course of 7-10 years, then eventually the floor bottoms out from the constant picking at the end of the draft, and rebuilding can take awhile. Parity be damned. In playing a fictional universe, I find I get to "know" the players a bit more. I can allow some of the younger players to hang out in the minors a bit more, and allow some of the aging stars to hang on a bit longer without financial constraints burdening me. (In other words, fewer hard, cold decisions to make ) Some things I'm not crazy about: Too many trades. Since the AI isn't restricted by financials, it can trade based on need and I often find, what I think are too many trades, even with the setting on Low / Value Prospects. Leagues started with financials off, cause all news reports of trades to list the traded players as "Minor Leaguers" even when they're not (BZ 1518). It's a pain and prevents me from keeping accurate history of dealt players. I really hoped it's fixed in 11. __________________ Baseball Haiku: The Best Haiku Ever Written About the Game

03-31-2010, 11:52 PM	#2
Curtis Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Watertown, New York Posts: 4,567	I always play with financials. When I do historicals I'm the Mets, which is the largest market in the NL, but when I play fictional I'm Nippon Ham, which is (if I'm remembering this correctly) tied for ninth/tenth largest market in the twelve team Nippon League. I spend a lot of time working the waiver wire and picking free agents up on minor league contracts. I also spend as much time on my minor league system as I do on the parent club. (I'm using two levels of minors for the Nippon League.) I get as much satisfaction out of winning AA and AAA championships as I would out of winning in the parent league.

04-01-2010, 07:03 AM	#3
knockahoma All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 792	I almost always play in God-mode and usually with finances off. I usually just pretend its pre-free agency and the scenario remains very "realistic" for me. Milwaukee was a small market and they kept guys like Hank Aaron, Eddie Matthews and Warren Spahn on their payroll for years. For a decade from the mid 50s to the mid 60s they usually finished in the top 2 or 3 of the league. Not sure that would have happened with free agency. And the Braves apparently had enough money to spend on scouting and developing hall of fame level talent.

04-01-2010, 12:06 PM	#4
Curtis Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Watertown, New York Posts: 4,567	For pre-free agency play, that's very realistic. People usually think of the Oakland Athletics when listing teams destroyed by free agency, but the Cincinnati Reds was another one. On the other hand, the Connie Mack era Philadelphia Athletics was a team that twice had to demolish dynasties because they couldn't afford their players, even back in the days of indentured servitude. And the Kansas City Royals were so small market that the only way they could survive was by annually selling off their best players to the Yankees. In fact, having to share insufficient markets was why half of the early relocations took place (As, Braves, Orioles — but not the Twins, Giants and Dodgers). Still, playing with finances off is a reasonable approximation of a pre-free agency universe. It's also easier and less general manager oriented, for people who'd rather play a managerial game.

04-01-2010, 06:15 PM	#6
lawrence97 All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: England Posts: 550	on, but edited, as i was finding trading impossible with virtually no one being able to afford anyone making half decent amounts.

04-01-2010, 08:49 PM	#7
Curtis Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Watertown, New York Posts: 4,567	…and another good point about the editing. I always edit the starting financial situations in my universes, though I try not to interfere again after Day One. I'm always annoyed when the New York teams get rated as 'tiny' and Cincinnati gets 'godzilla'.