(the new) player development budget

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Is that setting for each team or league-wide?

League-wide.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

Ok, so there'll be no checkbox to disable like other things? Just a 0 setting?

Yes, like the salary cap basically, where an '0' disables the feature as well. The description of the setting indicates this, so it's tough to miss...

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

League-wide.

That works for me then.

Thanks, Markus.

[Neags23]

I kind of like the idea of this, but it does seem like one of those things like the scouting budget... just throw money at it and hope it works. There's not really much strategy involved.

I'd rather see a sliding mechanism similar to how the scouting budget is allocated.

You have a set amount of money, and you can choose to put percentages of it toward certain things, such as... minors development, coaching improvement, stadium/field maintenance (maybe something like if you neglect stadium repairs, you lose some of your seating capacity... if you neglect field maintenance, there are more errors. I'm just making stuff up as I go along), clubhouse amenities (to help player morale), transportation for road games (bus vs. train vs. plane), advertising (increases attendance), scouting, etc.

There are a ton of these you could do. Obviously no one would agree on what should be included, but at the very least this requires strategy... you don't just say, "throw $20 million at player dev" without it really costing you anything but $20 million. Having a system like what I described above means that if you max out player dev, other parts of your organization are going to suffer. You have to decide on the trade offs.

[tigey75]

I like the sound of this new feature and it makes perfectly logical sense to me. Teams with a high cash flow can obviously spend more money developing players than poorer teams. This feature further adds to the realism that big market teams have an advantage over small clubs.

[fintach]

Does this strictly affect Overall rating versus Potential rating development, or will it affect things like:

* How fast players learn new positions?
* Fielding ratings like Range or Error?
* Baserunning ratings like SB skill?
* Likelihood of a pitcher adding a pitch?

This sounds like a feature that could either be really cool or irritating, depending. I'm looking forward to playing with it. I especially like the other aspects of the screen, such as the graphical look at the depth chart.

Still, I'm glad there's a way to turn off the money side of this, just in case.

[james17]

I think I like the idea but would like it to be applicable to non-minor league setups where you just have a reserve roster. Would it apply there as well? Also, is there a chance we could get development on the reserve roster influenced by the coaching staff of the active team when we don't have minor league teams?

[mtlcash]

This sounds like a great idea, I'd like to see more financial settings available. Me and my friends enjoy that. That's why this is a SIM. It should encompass all aspects of baseball. Major League baseball is a business, that's the bottom line. A lot of people like myself, want to be able to actually control a lot of financial stuff that baseball clubs are faced with.

Good job on these new additions Markus, keep adding more financial stuff.
I'd like to see some more stuff for revenues/expenses/marketing etc..

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by mtlcash

This sounds like a great idea, I'd like to see more financial settings available. Me and my friends enjoy that. That's why this is a SIM. It should encompass all aspects of baseball. Major League baseball is a business, that's the bottom line. A lot of people like myself, want to be able to actually control a lot of financial stuff that baseball clubs are faced with.

Good job on these new additions Markus, keep adding more financial stuff.
I'd like to see some more stuff for revenues/expenses/marketing etc..

To each their own, but I would rather Markus focused on the game on the field and left business simulations to others.

[Le Grande Orange]

Might as well post some real numbers to put things into perspective. Here is the breakdown of what the Texas Rangers spent in 2008 on player development:

Minor League Administration   $ 1,529,922
Roving Instructors              1,160,131  ($726,432 of which was salaries for 7 instructors) 
Rehab Camp                        100,844
Oklahoma City (AAA)             2,974,145
Frisco (AA)                       922,758
Bakersfield (High A)              627,018
Clinton (Low A)                   668,890
Spokane (Short A)                 519,812
Arizona Rookie                    915,111
Instructional League              289,957
Fall League                        60,654
Minor League Spring Training    1,044,692
-----------------------------------------
Total Player Development      $10,813,934

The costs of running the minor league affiliates were the majority of player development expenses, 61.3% to be exact. (Note that the costs were inflated somewhat due to a high salary player accepting an outright assignment to the AAA affiliate.) The administrative costs of player development (most of which were worker compensation premiums, player health insurance, and worker compensation claims) comprised 14.1% of the expenses. Those aspects which can be considered helping players improve their performance (spring training, roving instructors, and rehab camp) accounted for 21.3% of the Rangers' player development expenses.


I've said for awhile that the costs of the minor league system should be reflected in OOTP, and the newly added player development expense offers that opportunity. The more affiliates an OOTP club has, the more it should be paying since each affiliate comes with its own costs.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Might as well post some real numbers to put things into perspective. Here is the breakdown of what the Texas Rangers spent in 2008 on player development:

Minor League Administration   $ 1,529,922
Roving Instructors              1,160,131  ($726,432 of which was salaries for 7 instructors) 
Rehab Camp                        100,844
Oklahoma City (AAA)             2,974,145
Frisco (AA)                       922,758
Bakersfield (High A)              627,018
Clinton (Low A)                   668,890
Spokane (Short A)                 519,812
Arizona Rookie                    915,111
Instructional League              289,957
Fall League                        60,654
Minor League Spring Training    1,044,692
-----------------------------------------
Total Player Development      $10,813,934

The costs of running the minor league affiliates were the majority of player development expenses, 61.3% to be exact. (Note that the costs were inflated somewhat due to a high salary player accepting an outright assignment to the AAA affiliate.) The administrative costs of player development (most of which were worker compensation premiums, player health insurance, and worker compensation claims) comprised 14.1% of the expenses. Those aspects which can be considered helping players improve their performance (spring training, roving instructors, and rehab camp) accounted for 21.3% of the Rangers' player development expenses.


I've said for awhile that the costs of the minor league system should be reflected in OOTP, and the newly added player development expense offers that opportunity. The more affiliates an OOTP club has, the more it should be paying since each affiliate comes with its own costs.

These numbers are good to see, but unfortunately we don't have all those things in OOTP, like instructional leagues, fall leagues, roving instructors. A lot to add, but if/when it gets into OOTP then I can see the development budget being a much more important part of the game.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

These numbers are good to see, but unfortunately we don't have all those things in OOTP, like instructional leagues, fall leagues, roving instructors. A lot to add, but if/when it gets into OOTP then I can see the development budget being a much more important part of the game.

You don't need them directly. The numbers do illustrate the degree to which minor league affiliates comprise player development expenses. The other costs can be abstracted into one combined other player development expense.

If it were up to me, player development costs in OOTP would be determined by the sum of: (a) the number of minor league affiliates, with a fixed cost for each based on the classification, and (b) a user-adjustable amount representing the money that is being spent on the abstracted roving instructors, rehab camp, spring training, and instructional leagues.

[tejdog1]

Lets put it this way...

no matter how many roving instructors you have, no matter how much they work and work and work with a Jose Coronado, or Wilson Valdez, or pick any scrub you want, he's not going to turn into Hanley Ramirez, or Jose Reyes, or Tulo.

This sounds really good, but it would be better if you could direct where the money goes in some fashion, maybe have the roving instructors target certain players for a specific amount of time (although that DOES sound way too micro-managing-ish).

[SteveV]

I don't see the problem with a player development budget. If you play online and prefer to have equalised team budgets thats one thing, but if you want to actually replicate real world MLB then its by and large the teams that spend the most money that have the most success. This is reflected not just in being able to hoover up the top free agents but in a more comprehensive scouting network, better training facilities at the minor league level etc. Even if you're a purist and want player development to be down to the quality of your coaches you will get better results if you pay more for the best coaches so its still down to how much money you are willing or able to spend.

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by SteveV

I don't see the problem with a player development budget. If you play online and prefer to have equalised team budgets thats one thing, but if you want to actually replicate real world MLB then its by and large the teams that spend the most money that have the most success. This is reflected not just in being able to hoover up the top free agents but in a more comprehensive scouting network, better training facilities at the minor league level etc. Even if you're a purist and want player development to be down to the quality of your coaches you will get better results if you pay more for the best coaches so its still down to how much money you are willing or able to spend.

Really? I'd say the Pirates have had more success developing their own talent than the Yankees in recent years. Does that mean Pittsburgh is spending more money on development?

Yeah, I didn't think so...

[SteveV]

Originally Posted by statfreak

Really? I'd say the Pirates have had more success developing their own talent than the Yankees in recent years. Does that mean Pittsburgh is spending more money on development?

Yeah, I didn't think so...

The Pirates have to develop their own talent because they aren't willing to pay for top Free Agents and have no international scouting department ( note I said 'not willing' rather than 'not able' because despite what everybody thinks they have plenty of money to do this but choose not to)

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by SteveV

The Pirates have to develop their own talent because they aren't willing to pay for top Free Agents and have no international scouting department ( note I said 'not willing' rather than 'not able' because despite what everybody thinks they have plenty of money to do this but choose not to)

Right, which is why there shouldn't be a development budget at all because the Pirates are not spending more than the Yankees and have had more success.

[SteveV]

Originally Posted by statfreak

Right, which is why there shouldn't be a development budget at all because the Pirates are not spending more than the Yankees and have had more success.

'Success' is relative of course, I mean their development system has translated into nineteen consecutive losing seasons so its kind of hard to say the Pirates method is better than the Yankees. If OOTP is a simulation of real world baseball it has to reflect the fact that some teams are at a competitive disadvantage because they are so cheap and/or doomed to play in a small TV market.

However if you want to play in an equalised universe to accommodate a league of expert human players who treat the game more like chess I can understand your concerns. Couldn't online leagues use a handicapping system so that if you want to play with the Pirates or Royals or A's or Marlins for example then finishing at .500 gets you more points than making the playoffs with the Yankees or Red Sox ?

[mm7607]

I agree with the original poster, the last thing we need is more financials when so much more could be added and tweaked.

[Cooleyvol]

Originally Posted by mm7607

I agree with the original poster, the last thing we need is more financials when so much more could be added and tweaked.

My guess is this 'bell' was more easily implemented than that 'whistle'.