(the new) player development budget

[ike121212]

I don't understand the resistance. If you want a more realistic, challenging financial system, isn't this exactly the kind of change you'd want to see? It adds a significant missing expense in a non-cumbersome way, and you can turn it off.

[mm7607]

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

Otherwise you just settle with the limitation OOTP places on you by having a financial system an 8 year old could have dreamed up and implemented.

How much financials is enough? It never will be because someone is always going to want to micromanage a little more. Turning it off is fine but its still in the game taking space that could be used elsewhere. I don't use financials so you can see where I could care less for them but I don't have a problem with them. There is stuff people have been asking for for years and keep getting ignored so maybe Markus could get that 8 year old to help him with some of that other stuff.

[kehowey]

I am looking forward to this new feature. I am glad there is a way to completely diable it if I don't like it. I jst read an article on "The Biz Of Baseball" site that said player development costs the average MLB team about $20M per year. Out of that $20M.....$11.5 goes toward minor league player salaries. They also said $20M is about 6 percent of a team's annual revenue.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Carplos

Yes, in the sense that I don't think it's actually measurable. Human beings react differently when they're in more stressful situations. Some people probably do handle being a closer better than others, but there's very little statistical correlation over long periods of time. Probably because skill and talent balances it out.



I'm not saying it doesn't help and I agree with you here--except it doesn't HAVE to be a veteran player. You don't think any Giant hitters could learn something from Buster Posey about hitting? I know Panda swings at everything, but maybe he could give some tips of plate coverage.

My point is there's no way to put a single rating on it. Now, if you want to suggest maybe players can pick up traits from other players (pitchers picking up pitches, for example) then I'm all for it.

Mike Sweeney is a guy who hung around at least five years longer than he should've because he was a nice guy with "veteran presence," but I see no evidence that he actually helped any individual player in the long run.

I agree there is no way to put a single rating on the "mentoring skill". However there is no measurable way to put a single rating on the coaching skills that are already included in OOTP yet we have coaches with ratings that "help" develop players. I would simply look at any player mentors as being a quasi-hitting or pitching coach and an extension of the current coaching model.

Players picking up traits or skills (new pitch, ability to cover the plate and become a better hitter etc) is exactly what I think a mentor would be good for and is really no different than what the coaches do. IE teach and develop. Mentors are not going to take Mark Belanger and develop him offensively into Cal Ripken. Like most OOTP modifiers the effect will be subtle to the point you wonder if it is even there, kind of like real life. You add another layer of decision making to building your team. Is that established, career long hard working, veteran leader worth adding to the club? Am I better off just filling the slot with a young guy?

I don't really care if this gets added or not. I understand the arguments against. Its just IMHO we already have coaches with ratings that are really immeasurable IRL that influence development. I don't see this being much different if its done as a subtle boost.

I would regard Posey as an exception to the rule. Most vets aren't going to a rookie or 2nd year player for advice on how to handle "game situations" or to improve their hitting or pitching. I'd look at it this way, in 1980 an established point guard in the NBA might take advice from the rookie Magic Johnson after a good part of the season was under way. The same vet isn't going to give any other rookie PG the time of day.


IMHO mentoring could be done in a sensible way ala Front Office Football and Football Manager. IE Players teaching players. I also think you are right that a player doesn't have to be old to be a mentor. Any established "good to star" player could have mentoring skills even at a relatively young age. Again I would think the Poseys of the world would be the exception only being a 1st to 2nd year man but, a young guy with 4-5 consecutive good years and an established reputation could be a mentor at 25-26 years old.

Anyway getting a bit off topic for this thread so I'll let it go here understanding we may just have to agree to disagree.

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by mm7607

How much financials is enough? It never will be because someone is always going to want to micromanage a little more. Turning it off is fine but its still in the game taking space that could be used elsewhere. I don't use financials so you can see where I could care less for them but I don't have a problem with them. There is stuff people have been asking for for years and keep getting ignored so maybe Markus could get that 8 year old to help him with some of that other stuff.

how about enough that it is at least as advanced as any other part of the rest of the game. You really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to "stuff people have been asking for for years and keep getting ignored" since a better financial system has been on that list since 6.5 or earlier and is the only part of the game that has been summarily ignored since the re-roding in 2006. The fact is I think any time put towards historical replay or online leagues is a complete waste of time, since I'm not interested in them. Of course i'm not narcissistic enough to assume what I want is any more important than what anyone else wants. Which is why you don't see me going around crying about Markus implementing a feature I may or may not use.

[mm7607]

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

how about enough that it is at least as advanced as any other part of the rest of the game. You really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to "stuff people have been asking for for years and keep getting ignored" since a better financial system has been on that list since 6.5 or earlier and is the only part of the game that has been summarily ignored since the re-roding in 2006. The fact is I think any time put towards historical replay or online leagues is a complete waste of time, since I'm not interested in them. Of course i'm not narcissistic enough to assume what I want is any more important than what anyone else wants. Which is why you don't see me going around crying about Markus implementing a feature I may or may not use.

Well how about editable accomplishments, league associations, better playoff format? i don't play historical either so stop bitchen at me about it. Your crying just as loud as every one else so don't even go there. Like I said "I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE FINANCIALS". I would just like to see some other stuff in the game besides fixing hot dog prices.

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by mm7607

Well how about editable accomplishments, league associations, better playoff format? i don't play historical either so stop bitchen at me about it. Your crying just as loud as every one else so don't even go there. Like I said "I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE FINANCIALS". I would just like to see some other stuff in the game besides fixing hot dog prices.

And I don't want to argue with people who have to resort to hyperbole to try and make a point but here I am, doing that which I most don't want to do.

[Henry]

This argument is amusing. You can't relate this addition to hot dog prices - it's not the same thing at all. And as far as "taking up room", why don't we leave that to the guy that understand what room there is and isn't (like Markus?).

As far as all the other things you mentioned, it should be obvious Markus priority list is driven by two things, time and difficulty. To us there's no difference between adding minor league financials and adding league associations - but to Markus it very possibly is the difference between a weeks coding and a month's coding.

What makes this discussion amusing is some of us go around talking like we know what's involved in effort - when in reality we don't have a clue.

Let's chill out, be happy with what we get, and make sure Markus doesn't forget our pet add-ons ; all without trying to act like we know what's best for OOTP, ok?

[mm7607]

Yea go ahead guys and continue to bash me over my opinion. Tell me how stupid mine is and how superior yours are. I've been playing ootp for 10 years just like everyone else here but my 300+ posts don't match up to your daily ones. How is Markus supposed to know what people want if everyone only posts 'yes sir thats great' comments?

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by mm7607

Yea go ahead guys and continue to bash me over my opinion. Tell me how stupid mine is and how superior yours are. I've been playing ootp for 10 years just like everyone else here but my 300+ posts don't match up to your daily ones. How is Markus supposed to know what people want if everyone only posts 'yes sir thats great' comments?

Not to interrupt your temper tantrum I never said your opinion was stupid or that mine was any more superior. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop putting words in my mouth. That is my 2nd biggest pet peeve after arguments based on hyperbole.

Although I do see the irony of someone complaining about their opinion not being taken seriously when their opinion has so far amounted to "I think it's a stupid feature so it shouldn't be included."

[BusterKing]

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

Don't care anymore. People who like to complain will complain about anything. I'm just going to accept it and move on.

Wow, that would be very nice.

Complaining about the complainers isn't that interesting either.

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by BusterKing

Wow, that would be very nice.

Complaining about the complainers isn't that interesting either.

Well I had to put something. What was there before that probably would have made Jesus a little sad. But you can't see it so you can't really know that.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Carplos

Keep in mind that roster sizes in the rookie leagues are bigger, especially once you get down to the complex leagues where active players versus players at the complex probably changes daily.

Note I used the maximum active roster size for Short-A and Rookie (30 and 35, respectively). Short-A only allows 25 players to be used in any game, and Rookie leagues allow 30.

Originally Posted by Carplos

It could also include extended spring training time where sometimes you have more experienced players staying working their way back from injuries/time off. Though since they list instructional league separately they made not include this.

The thing is, Short-A players spend time in extended spring training too since their leagues don't start until mid-June. Although a good theory it doesn't seem to fit. The lack of signing bonus expenses listed anywhere else in the document leads me to believe those are attributed in some degree to Rookie league salaries.

[rudel.dietrich]

I welcome this move and wish there were even more financial options. I also support the option to turn them off for those who do not wish to use it.
Why would you complain about an added feature that can be switched on and off

If you want the game to more closely resemble professional baseball then more financial options are needed.
This game does not even have 5% of what a real life baseball team has to contend with.
You can't negotiate TV deals, no sponsorships, no loans, no negotiating with cities about stadium construction or renovation, no opening youth academies in other nations or setting scouting budgets for regions of the world or regions of the United States, ownership takeovers are very simplistic.
There are no situations like the Dodgers or Mets where a team bleeds money. No teams are taken over by MLB or moved. No situations like the Yankees where the team gets cash injections and can spend over and beyond it's revenue.
You do not have to deal with agents in contract negotiations.
There is not a player transfer system when you sign foreign talent.

OOTP is an A+ baseball simulator but is still almost back in the stoneage when it comes to simulating what surrounds baseball off the diamond.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by mm7607

Yea go ahead guys and continue to bash me over my opinion. Tell me how stupid mine is and how superior yours are. I've been playing ootp for 10 years just like everyone else here but my 300+ posts don't match up to your daily ones. How is Markus supposed to know what people want if everyone only posts 'yes sir thats great' comments?

Just to be clear, no one has bashed you for your opinion. If there was any bashing, it was because you expect us all to accept that you hate the option, therefore we must bow to your superior intelligence and do without the feature as well. It's your "royal positioning" we're reacting too. You don't like it? Fine, post you don't like it and turn it off. But stop telling us and Markus that your vision of the game is the only one that counts.

[Carplos]

Note I used the maximum active roster size for Short-A and Rookie (30 and 35, respectively). Short-A only allows 25 players to be used in any game, and Rookie leagues allow 30.

Hmm. I thought the NWL and Pioneer leagues were allowed 30 per game, but 35 on the roster? Or is that they're allowed 30 active per day, but can only use 25 of those in a game (which is kinda silly if you think about it, though I guess it forces teams to not always de-activate starters until it's their turn again.)

I would assume the costs of any of the minor leaguers would be pro-rated by the time they spent at that level, not to mention the # of players who would go on the DL or in the lower leagues include players that would come and go as active/inactive, but still be under contract. Especially in the complex leagues, since they still need full rosters before all the new draftees sign.

A simple total/roster limits probably doesn't work, although it's a decent estimate. That said, since these are leaked documents, we'll probably not know how they really get the totals.

[Carplos]

Originally Posted by Henry

Just to be clear, no one has bashed you for your opinion. If there was any bashing, it was because you expect us all to accept that you hate the option, therefore we must bow to your superior intelligence and do without the feature as well. It's your "royal positioning" we're reacting too. You don't like it? Fine, post you don't like it and turn it off. But stop telling us and Markus that your vision of the game is the only one that counts.

Also, it's absurd that he responded to matt's post with these:

Well how about editable accomplishments, league associations, better playoff format?

The latter two are probably the top 2 most wanted (and discussed) and I'm sure editable accomplishments is up there too. LGO has made pretty detailed proposals to Markus on the latter 2. If I'm not mistaken, Markus has commented on them at various times as well.

He's certainly not "ignoring" them so he can add whatever financial options you deem unnecessary.

As Henry said, time and difficulty plays a big factor. If not the key factors behind which popular ideas are included. I really doubt Markus will put in hot dog prices, but say he did, it wouldn't be because he thinks it's a better idea than anything else.

I shouldn't have to repeat it, but remember the last time he took the time to do a massive re-write was when he had SI's support and financial help.

[mm7607]

So I went back and re-read my posts. I dont see any pushing of anyone to accept my opinion. Or anyone to bow down to my superior intelligence or "royal positioning". I never once said my vision of the game is the only one that counts.

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.

Dont see anything wrong here, just agreeing with the OP.

Originally Posted by mm7607

I don't want to play 'the business' I want to play 'the game'. The way the game is progressing now eventually its going to so full of financial crap the game itself is going to be lost in the shuffle.

Whats wrong here? The word crap? Just stating my opinion and trying to move on.

Originally Posted by mm7607

How much financials is enough? It never will be because someone is always going to want to micromanage a little more. Turning it off is fine but its still in the game taking space that could be used elsewhere. I don't use financials so you can see where I could care less for them but I don't have a problem with them. There is stuff people have been asking for for years and keep getting ignored so maybe Markus could get that 8 year old to help him with some of that other stuff.

After another post blasted at me, I tried to make the point that even if you turn it off its still there taking room. Like it or not thats true. The 8yo was Megawhatevers SA remark not mine.

Originally Posted by mm7607

Well how about editable accomplishments, league associations, better playoff format? i don't play historical either so stop bitchen at me about it. Your crying just as loud as every one else so don't even go there. Like I said "I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE FINANCIALS". I would just like to see some other stuff in the game besides fixing hot dog prices.

This was another reply to a pounding from that same guy. Just showing some things others want thats not there. But I'm the one in the wrong. Why?

Originally Posted by mm7607

Yea go ahead guys and continue to bash me over my opinion. Tell me how stupid mine is and how superior yours are. I've been playing ootp for 10 years just like everyone else here but my 300+ posts don't match up to your daily ones. How is Markus supposed to know what people want if everyone only posts 'yes sir thats great' comments?

Yea this one could be taken as offensive but at this point my buttons where getting pushed.

Now there is no need to continue this further, I wont respond unless it gets really ugly and I have to defend my self.

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

One this is certain: one doesn't play minor league baseball for the money. Because there's little to be made. (Which is why signing bonuses matter so much: it's the only real money most drafted players will ever see for quite a few years.)

While this is true major league clubs do get a portion of ticket sales from minor league clubs that is taxed by the minor league governing body. These clubs have huge differences in revenues. It is really no surprise TB has one of the biggest ticket revenue AAA affiliates. Teams with smaller budgets have more incentive to get teams that can better offset the cost and less incentive to have a GCL/AZL team hence the Rockies just now getting one.

It would take major recoding but expiring minor league PDC agreements and teams bidding for these affiliates would be a major plus. You look at the higher revenue generating minor league teams and these are almost all in the hands of the lower revenue teams so they can offset these cost easier.

Player development budgets don't really seem to capture the full cost of the minors but we don't get the revenue aspect either. For smaller clubs having Buffalo compared to maybe Scranton can make a big difference in freeing up some money for draft picks or major league players. For the Yankees and Red Socks it is not really significant.

In the end, I think the new system is more about how much you spend on roving instructors and instructional leagues than it is about player salaries. I think if we want to include minor league contract cost we need the revenue from minors as well so the Pirates, Royals, etc don't get killed by it. It may mean little to big market clubs but there is definitely a trend of smaller clubs going after bigger revenue minor league clubs.

One example of the attempt to offset revenue is the Houston Astros creating new minor league teams to get some revenue out of the system. Corpus and Round Rock were created to get a team in the Astros network area. Now that Ryan owns the Rangers this has not worked as well as Round Rock went to the Rangers but the concept is there. No you don't play minors to make money but what minor league club you affiliate you choose often is a decision of which one can offset your costs the most. You also find AZ with Reno, a bigger ticket seller, TB with Durham, and Pittsburgh with Indianapolis. It is no coincidence the highest revenue minor league teams are affiliates with some of the lowest revenue major league teams.

[waltwa]

First of all if it can be turned off that's great. Anybody can make their own decision on how to play the game.

Now if this is a way to allow teams an option to increase their revenue by running a better minor league system - well i guess that can happen. But if it is a system which means that the more $ you pour into the system the faster and better your prospects develop then it simply does not reflect modern day baseball.

How many studies would there already have been written about how different teams develop talent and how some are much better at developing then others. It would be an absolute kiss of death in any sport if it could be proven statistically that a team has cut corners in developing talent. Players simply would not sign with such a team.

In the world of baseball expenses the amount spent on actually developing talent is pretty small when compared to the salaries of the best ML players. Roving instructors etc just aren't that expensive so no one is going to cut corners.

Hypothetically let's add another option to the game and that is the potential draftee can look at the development expenditure of all the teams and then contact the frugal spenders that there is no point in drafting them because they won't sign with that team.Don't think for 1 second that that would not happen particularly with the top choices.