Expansion

Scott · 11-27-2010, 02:35 AM

(11-27-2010, 02:33 AM)ezpkns34 Wrote:
(11-27-2010, 02:19 AM)Scott Wrote: Just ran some more tests... It looks as if Vegas and Vancouver had some great results... They had a budget in 65M-75M range, without affecting other markets

65-75M, but how much was being spent on expenses? If they're last in both med & farm with those totals, it could get ugly

I put both expenses 20th.

***AndyP*** · 11-27-2010, 02:42 AM

I guess I'd like to know more about how we're fixing our talent/injury issues first. I find that to be a much higher priority.

dejota · 11-27-2010, 02:53 AM

Fair enough.

Peak start will be increased, how much will have to wait for offseason testing I think.

Injuries will not be adjusted I don't think. The injury frequency and severities have been fully tested and explored on the BBM forums and, while the specific injuries don't always make sense, the overall impact on the game is very accurate. No team is put at any more of a disadvantage than any other under this and if anything helps equalize the playing field since better teams generally have more better players which means they will have a significant injury to a significant player more simply by having more.

I had the setting lowered on my initial file to prevent GMs from getting prematurely discouraged with FCM b/c of untimely injuries. In 2013 (the final season at the lowered settings) the longest injury was 2 months and a season ending injury didn't occur until August. It was only season ending at that point b/c there wasn't enough season left not b/c it was significant. That's bullcrap and directly led to not one single divisional or WC upset (Yanks, Indians, Angels, Royals & Marlins, Astros, Giants, Dodgers) IMO.

If you wish to reply to this post please post in the current peak start discussion, I copied and pasted this post there as well.

PLEASE DO NOT HIJACK THIS THREAD WITH TALENT/INJURY DISCUSSIONS.

***AndyP*** · 11-27-2010, 03:01 AM

It wasn't meant to hijack the thread for another issue and you can delete this if you feel as though I am, but are we sure how those adjustments will work in relation to adding 2 teams to the league?

We've tested to make sure finances aren't affected, have we tested how it affects talent? Will we, for instance, have another several year limbo before things balance out? And do we have an ETA on a more detailed plan about who, what, when, and where?

'PR' · 11-27-2010, 03:04 AM

I agree with Andy about the Talent/injury things, but I would also like to put out there, I'm for expansion as long as it's monitored in the most careful way possible. Quite frankly, this surgery needs to be performed perfectly for it to work, and while I still have my doubts, I think that now since DJ and Stang will be taking those two teams, I'm confident that they will not fall under water. The Astros and Tigers seem to be in a good spot to grow so we could easily find a smart enough GM to get it moving there. I stress that this in no way should be rushed. This thing could and will be great for the league, but what it could also be is the end of it, which is why I urged that every single little detail that will be effected by it should be addressed. As for Cities, I think Texas has enough teams. Vancouver, Montreal, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, New Orleans, Indianapolis, and Sacramento are the cities I suggest. Please try to test them and see what happens. My picks are Vancouver and Montreal as cities who should get a team.

dejota · (This post was last modified: 11-27-2010, 03:14 AM by dejota.)

I want to take it one step at a time. I'll type up a formal proposal when I feel we have the major road blocks addressed. OR, if we can't address them then it's obvious expansion isn't meant to be. I just don't want to try and decide everything in one fell swoop or we'll end up with a clusterfuck of a discussion and 14 more pages of spinning our tires.

My current POV of it's affects on talent is that we're currently a little on the high end of talent. Or at worst it's starting to bottleneck for the better teams of the league. I honestly view the fact that it will redistribute it a little bit as very beneficial and a reason for expansion. Worst case scenario, it will take talent levels too low which we've previously shown we can fix in half a season without upsetting the current balance. I upped the talent during season when we first discovered it was an issue.

***AndyP*** · 11-27-2010, 03:15 AM

Yeah, I'd tend to agree that talent is a bit on the high end, if we're testing it and it turns out that it won't have any dramatic effects, the new teams are being taken over by good GMs, and we've got everything else in place - I'm just fine with it.

***hokeyrules*** · 11-27-2010, 03:47 AM

I don't care anymore.

'PR' · 11-27-2010, 03:49 AM

(11-27-2010, 03:47 AM)hokeyrules Wrote: I don't care anymore.

C'mon....at least give us you thoughts on whether you think its a good idea. We need the support of all GMs in this league for us to accomplish this, if it is to be accomplished.

***hokeyrules*** · 11-27-2010, 04:03 AM

my vote will be for whatever is more popular right now.