Franchise Budget Question

[sink4ever]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

What factors impact weekly revenue?

I believe it changes based on team success. More specifically (and this is just a hunch), I think it's team success versus expected (or prior) success. For instance, the Giants have one of the largest revenue increases during the year despite being a .500 team. However, they're coming off a horrible 2017 so even .500 is probably a step in the right direction.

It would be interesting to track it over several years.

[Kalkano]

You know, I really thought this was the sort of thing they were trying to clear up with "Phases", but it doesn't seem any better than previous years. I think I may just throw in the towel, and turn off budgets. Sure, it won't be realistic, and may be too easy, but maybe I can just restrict myself with my own rules.

At least then, and most importantly, I may be able to have some fun with it.

[Unlucky 13]

Thanks for the hard work guys. I have not yet played or simmed a whole season in 2018, so I'm eager to eventually see it for myself.

Over the years, the amount added to the budget at the end of the season has seemed to have gotten smaller and smaller. A few years ago, a good season would often net an increase of 5-7% many years. In 2016, even winning the WS would only lead to an increase of 1-2%.

[sink4ever]

Alright, I hesitate to put this up because I haven't gathered much data yet, but hopefully it will at least give us a start. I've tried tracking the amount of money the game forces you to keep in reserve based on a number of factors. The variables that seem to matter right now are: Open 90-man spots, Open 40-man spots, # players arb eligible, # players renewable, and weekly cash flow.

The following analysis is based off only 11 data points so small sample and all that.

Spoiler

Some questionable p-values but we're looking at ~$1m for each open 90-man spot, ~$2m for each renewable player, ~$3.5m for each open 40-man spot, and ~$3m for each arb eligible player. Each additional $1m in weekly cash flow opens up about $16m to be spent on free agents.

I do believe the phase also matters. The analysis seems much more accurate when I restrict it to only Phase 2. In Phase 1 (exclusive FA), you can pretty much blow your whole budget. Again, though, not enough data yet to say definitively.

If anyone else is going through the off-season at all, please feel free to chime in with your numbers and I'll add them to the data set. I'll do some more simming of my own, hopefully this week.

[Unlucky 13]

Quote: Originally Posted by sink4ever

Alright, I hesitate to put this up because I haven't gathered much data yet, but hopefully it will at least give us a start. I've tried tracking the amount of money the game forces you to keep in reserve based on a number of factors. The variables that seem to matter right now are: Open 90-man spots, Open 40-man spots, # players arb eligible, # players renewable, and weekly cash flow. The following analysis is based off only 11 data points so small sample and all that. Spoiler Some questionable p-values but we're looking at ~$1m for each open 90-man spot, ~$2m for each renewable player, ~$3.5m for each open 40-man spot, and ~$3m for each arb eligible player. Each additional $1m in weekly cash flow opens up about $16m to be spent on free agents. I do believe the phase also matters. The analysis seems much more accurate when I restrict it to only Phase 2. In Phase 1 (exclusive FA), you can pretty much blow your whole budget. Again, though, not enough data yet to say definitively. If anyone else is going through the off-season at all, please feel free to chime in with your numbers and I'll add them to the data set. I'll do some more simming of my own, hopefully this week.

I totally believe you and your data, but man those numbers seem high for the 90 man and renewables. I've long built my franchises around keeping anyone who's not yet on the 40 man below 150k, and those not on the MLB roster below 600k. As for guys who are on the MLB roster but renewable, then generally below 1m, and often below 700k also. Arbitration has always been a mysterious animal.

[Unlucky 13]

A question for those who have gone through an offseason:

Are we now able to trade guys who ARE under team control but who are NOT under contract now? Obviously it wasn't possible before, but the bullet point notes from EA made it seem like it might be the case (like real life) now.

[sink4ever]

Quote: Originally Posted by Unlucky 13

I totally believe you and your data, but man those numbers seem high for the 90 man and renewables. I've long built my franchises around keeping anyone who's not yet on the 40 man below 150k, and those not on the MLB roster below 600k. As for guys who are on the MLB roster but renewable, then generally below 1m, and often below 700k also. Arbitration has always been a mysterious animal.

Yeah, need more data to really have any confidence in this but it's kind of interesting. I have pretty much the same strategy as you, which means that the game is probably overestimating how much I need in reserve. I'd prefer to keep aside whatever amount the arb players filed for + league minimum for each renewable player + some small amount for each open 90-man spot.

Quote: Originally Posted by Unlucky 13

A question for those who have gone through an offseason: Are we now able to trade guys who ARE under team control but who are NOT under contract now? Obviously it wasn't possible before, but the bullet point notes from EA made it seem like it might be the case (like real life) now.

I tried this the other day while simming and I'm about 95% sure you still cannot do this.

[Unlucky 13]

Quote: Originally Posted by sink4ever

Yeah, need more data to really have any confidence in this but it's kind of interesting. I have pretty much the same strategy as you, which means that the game is probably overestimating how much I need in reserve. I'd prefer to keep aside whatever amount the arb players filed for + league minimum for each renewable player + some small amount for each open 90-man spot.

I agree, and that makes perfect sense. Its a mystery as to why what you laid out ISN'T what you are forced to set aside. Even that would be erring on the side of caution.

I did not play 17, but I will say that as a big market club in 2016, using real life salaries that I adjusted, that I didn't have all that many problems, though they still did pop up. I'm curious to see how the bank and budget rollover play into that now. I currently have about 35 mil in budget room in May of year one.