Trade offer/Finances bug

[t-bone shuffle]

I cant make sense of the response below, so before I submit a report, I thought I'd put it here first.




For brevity's sake, I'm offering a 40-man/AAA prospect, in his last option year with 22 days ML svc. time to MIL for a veteran, making $6M, who will be a free agent at season's end.

A quick look at MIL's accounting page confirms that they are indeed projected to be well over budget for the next season. While the response might make accounting sense, it makes no real sense. MIL's guaranteed salaries for next season total about 60% of their budget with the rest being Arb estimates and ML minimum's.

There's no way (I don't think) that a team would fail to make a trade for a player, making the minimum, who would put them over what at the current date, is simply an expenses estimate. Particularly given that it improves their current funds situation by almost $3M. Also, FWIW, Milwaukee is dead last on June 25 and going nowhere (.438/10 games out).

Fully patched, this is a league originated from the 2014 roster set in OOTP15, imported to 16 and then 17.

I've never encountered this before, cant really believe it's working as intended.

link to original post, http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-response.html

[Matt Arnold]

I would say this is a bug and not a bug.

It's not a bug in that managing the future finances comes into play, and we can't let the AI essentially go as much over budget in the future as they want. So there needs to be limits in place, and essentially we decide that the projected budget is the limit. We do actually check for future guaranteed contracts only, so they must be really over budget to even have that be the case.

But it is a bug in that we should probably be a little more forgiving for league min guys, since they get paid less if they aren't on the pro team, and even simply promoting a player can add a league min piece to the team, so they shouldn't really care too much about adding one more guy.

[t-bone shuffle]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

I would say this is a bug and not a bug.

It's not a bug in that managing the future finances comes into play, and we can't let the AI essentially go as much over budget in the future as they want. So there needs to be limits in place, and essentially we decide that the projected budget is the limit. We do actually check for future guaranteed contracts only, so they must be really over budget to even have that be the case.

But it is a bug in that we should probably be a little more forgiving for league min guys, since they get paid less if they aren't on the pro team, and even simply promoting a player can add a league min piece to the team, so they shouldn't really care too much about adding one more guy.

Seems as it's working as intended, but, the intentions are failing. The AI should have to worry about/adhere to next season's budget, next season. Wouldn't this prevent a team from making roster moves (trades,etc.) desired during a pennant race? IRL, it doesn't work that way mostly. For example, most teams in a race would not pass on the opportunity to add, say Cole Hamels, simply because his salary would cause them to exceed, their projected budget for the next season. Some (not all obviously) would add Hamels, and deal with the financial ramifications in the off season. Of which the options are many.

It may be working as intended, but it should not work this way in all cases. And it really should not prevent a team from receiving value, in both current season $$, and personnel, in exchange for a player who most likely will be gone at seasons end.

Do with it what you will, but "projected" numbers should not always carry final priority, IMO.