Team budget

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:38 pm

This is another thing that I am sure I have seen discussed but came up with nothing in the search. I seem to be having an issue (using the TBL 1.2 or 1.3 database) where I take over a team that has a budget less than the salary cap and the board never increases this budget year to year. For example, I played 2 years as the Capitals with their 42.9m budget. The cap is 50.3m and some of the teams have budgets up to 58m, so I was being squeezed big time. Both years, I ran a few million over budget, alot of which is because the team was over budget to begin with when I took it over. Budget was never increased and the "increase budget" request in board confidence never appeared as an available request.

Then I opened a save game where I was playing as another team 2 years into the game and just to see what happens with the AI controlled teams, tried adding a GM and taking over the Caps. They had their budget up to 52m. I have had the same issue with taking over the Pens, Blackhawks, Blue Jackets and Coyotes. I never can get the budget increased.

Is there any way around this, or is this something specific to the TBL database? If I use the default database, I can get the increases up to at least the cap without a problem. Is there a resolution, or is the only way I can get full budget flexibility to choose a team that has the full budget from game start?

Post by **Tasku** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:50 pm

I don't see how it could be a TBL Roster Update related issue, the "rules" by which budgets are determined are hard coded in the game and we haven't or even can't do anything about it. It's propably just coincidence that you can't get them up while playing this database.

The best way to get your budget up is not to spend it all. If the team makes a good profit financially, the board will be more likely to increase your budget. Simple as that.

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:22 pm

I was always under the impression that if you don't spend your allocated budget, the board will not bother increasing it because they think you don't need more money; if you are way under budget the board confidence gives a statement like "the budget set by the board seems to be more than adequate for your needs"

Most of the teams that you take over that have a low end budget are already over that budget when you take them over, so the only way you can go under budget is to do a bunch of salary dump trades, which I don't like doing when I first take over a team

When I get a chance, I may do a test theory of this by taking over a team, trading all of the salary so it basically is a roster of scrubs making the minimum and just setting on vacation to sim the entire year. Because I would be paying like 10 million for the whole team, theoretically, there should be a big profit even if attendance drops. I will then see if that causes the budget to be increased.

Post by **Tasku** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:36 pm

Makes more sense game-wise this way, although perhaps in the real world your theory would be more the way it goes.

If you have a big balance at the end of season, your board might increase the budget, especially if you are also making good results on the rink. If you are making the team loose money and still not having success on the ice, the effect may be the opposite.

Then again, you might never get increased budget no matter how well you do with how little money.

I personally don't pay too much attention to it for that exact reason: most of the time no change happens. I just try to keep a mil or two below budget (most of the time that doesn't happen though) and see what, if anything, goes down as the new season starts.

Goldberg · Post by **Goldberg** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:14 pm

With the Kings, my budget went from roughly 45 millions in year one to 60 millions in year two. And why would you care if its raised or not if you are not using all your budget space anyway?

Personally, I don't worry much about the budget. I go over it multiple times. What really matters is the cash reserve to pay the cash dividend at year's end. If the previous year's dividend was 13 million, then you simply make sure you will have at least 20 millions in the bank to pay whatever they ask.

The board refuses to allow you to make huge offers to FA's if you are over budget by too much but you can go around that by offering a huge signing bonus. They don't consider that as part of the deal.

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:46 pm

However, it's been my experience that what you offer as a signing bonus to a FA or resigning player seems to make no difference whatsoever. In almost any case, if a player asks for $X and $X bonus and you remove the bonus completely, they don't care. Adding like a $3 M signing bonus also seems to have no impact on their willingness to accept the deal either.

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:59 pm

I also find that if you come even remotely close to the team's budget, it's usually almost impossible for the team to make a profit even with a decent playoff run. The only exceptions are if you play as a Canadian team or a big hockey market team like Detroit or the Rangers. Otherwise, attendance is all over the place even with a winning team I find.

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:59 am

It seems that there are just certain teams that no matter what you do, you can't get to make a profit with this database. My theory on it is it probably has something to do with the updated (higher overall for the league) contract values and higher salary cap. That means the teams are basically forced to spend more money with the updated database but still take in income from season tickets, TV rights, etc at the 2006 rate. Which means that a lot of teams that were barely breaking even with the default database now are constantly losing money and needing cash infusions, which means they never get the budget increases.

I just tried this same theory by playing through a season with the Islanders. They had a 43.2 budget, and I dumped a bunch of salary to get them to around 40.0 in total player salary and 36.5 in cap usage. The team was competitive all season, finishing with 88 pts and just missing a playoff spot by a few points. Yet, it was regularly getting terrible attendance, like 11,000 fans even for pivotal games. I figured it might be because the Isles roster decidedly lacks star power, so I acquired Olli Jokinen (star status) in midseason, while at the same time dumping off the same amount of salary. This had no impact on attendance, and the team continued to lose money to the point it had to get a 12M cash infusion toward the end of the season. By the end of the year, the balance was positive, player salaries were just under budget, but the board did not increase the salary.

It's really annoying because it basically forces you to go with a team with a high initial budget or a team with a good initial prospect set. Because the first 3 drafts are very weak and then become much stronger in 2010 and later with the regens coming in, I have always found the best way to win is spend and play the FA market fairly heavily the first 4-5 years, and then settle into a prospect development mode. Trying to develop prospects for the early drafts, especially 2008 and 2009 (except Tavares) is a big waste of time.

Post by **Tasku** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:20 am

It's not only who you have in the team, but there's also such a thing in the game, as Fan Support ("average", "passionate" etc). This will effect your attendance ratings also.

I'm also thinking, that you're making way too many conclusions on only one or two seasons played. This game is a long term project, you can't expect to turn the whole team around in the first couple of seasons. There are many variables in the game, some teams have it better and some worse, which to my opinion makes it so much more exciting.

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:34 am

I think what I am going to do is edit the database to give every team the maximum budget. The idea is not only do you not get frustrated when it doesn't go up, but I think setting all AI teams with the same resources should theoretically increase the difficulty somewhat. I will report back once I have a chance to see how that works out.

Post by **Shadd666** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:15 am

No star, playoffs missed, and you expected an increased attendance and budget? Let's be serious

TW Triton · Post by **TW Triton** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:52 pm

I notice if you do very well with the budget that they give you and that you win many games, go to playoffs every year, win the cup during that a few times and have great attendance.

They will always give you the bigger budget if you ask for it.

I know they won't increase it if you are working under the budget and doing well. That is just the basis of real life stuff. Why increase if you have no use for the extra money? You know what I mean?

Don't get me wrong, would be nice to have that extra money, because then you can try a few new things here and there, but in all reality, you have to ask most of the time.

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:30 pm

Shadd666 wrote:No star, playoffs missed, and you expected an increased attendance and budget? Let's be serious

Well, the team was only a few points out of a playoff spot and in the hunt right into the final 2 games. I would expect more than 11,000 fans to show up for a do or die game, but maybe it's just that Islanders fans are pathetic. I did bring in Regehr and Jokinen midseason, but the Islanders roster almost completely lacks talent aside from RDP so they were insane if they expected a Cup run in year one. They also have almost a total lack of prospects too plus no 1st or 2nd rd pick (thanks to the Ryan Smyth trade last year), so you don't really have much trade bait.

Post by **Shadd666** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:57 pm

Lack of talent + lack of prospects = no-one in the building. Then if you don't have a high budget, it probably means that your board prefers to see you rebuild the team through draft or with prospects, or youngsters ready to contribute. You already have your future first line center star (O'Marra), probably still have your lifetime goalie (DiPietro), so you should focus in landing your future n°1 defenseman. Marc Staal is usually the easiest option in season 1, but being with the Rangers while you're with the Isles, he's forbidden

Btw, 2007 entry draft has many good to great defensmen prospects

Simple as that. If you have no talent and no money, it's time to rebuild from within. It takes time, but it's certainly a really interesting challenge

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:15 pm

Yeah, it is pretty hard to do much rebuilding right away when you start with no 1st and 2nd rd pick in year one, and no 2nd round pick in year 2 because Garth Snow just had to have 2 months of Ryan Smyth last year. You are right that the 2007 draft has lots of great D prospects. Petrecki, I have never seen him be anything less than a 3-4 d-man, and he often becomes a franchise guy. He is who I will always take even as high as 3rd/4th overall if Gagner and Couture are off the board. Ryan Wilson and Nick Pageau are also both guys that can be drafted round 3 and later and turn into excellent NHLers. The 2008 and 2009 drafts are always almost completely barren though, especially outside the 1st round. I almost think it's best to trade all of your high picks in those drafts for prospects or existing young talent unless you want the picks to trade up for Taveras in 2009.

I did a test of taking the Thrashers, editing the save game to bring every team to a 58m budget, trading for enough high priced guys to bring the team to right at the maximum budget, and then going on vacation to simulate the year. It seemed to work well, with even the small market, low budget clubs (Panthers, Predators, etc) trading for higher priced talent and building up their roster while contending. The Thrashers lost a lot of money, and the board actually decreased the budget to 52m after year one. I have never seen a budget get cut back in the game before, but it obviously makes sense that it would happen if the team is bleeding money left right and center.

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:02 pm

I think I am going to try using just the unfaked database without the roster updates. With the regular database, I never had trouble at least breaking even with even naff revenue teams like the Pens if I had a decent winning team. I really like the updated rosters and it adds a new element to the game.

However, I think the higher salary cap, as well as a lot of contracts being way higher to go along with it breaks the revenue model built into the game, because the revenues, ticket prices, etc. aren't adjusted for the higher salaries. Basically, it makes teams outside of the big market teams lose money constantly.

Post by **Shadd666** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:46 pm

jdh79 wrote:However, I think the higher salary cap, as well as a lot of contracts being way higher to go along with it breaks the revenue model built into the game, because the revenues, ticket prices, etc. aren't adjusted for the higher salaries. Basically, it makes teams outside of the big market teams lose money constantly.

That's basically what will probably occur in real life too

Ticket prices can't be raised as fast as salary cap stupidly is, and so small market teams will loose money. Bettman in action...

Back on topic, having so few top pics is certainly not the best way to rebuild as soon as possible...

Building a struggling team at low cost and wait 2009 for Tavares may be an option then

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:51 pm

You would have to turn human sackings off then, because there is no way Wang would wait that long. After year one, they set the expectation to make the playoffs despite a budget 10M below the salary cap.

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:09 am

Shadd666 wrote: That's basically what will probably occur in real life too Ticket prices can't be raised as fast as salary cap stupidly is, and so small market teams will loose money. Bettman in action...

I think that this issue is probably why SI decided to leave the salary cap fixed even as you get later in the game. Because, unless the tickets and revenue also go up at the same rate, it will cause a mess later. I also think that having the cap higher causes issues with resigning players; because they seem to have their values coded in as if you were at a 44M cap. Therefore, they still sign and resign for less, letting teams have more actual talent under the cap. In real life, as the cap gets higher, the star players will start expecting correspondingly higher salaries. In the game, you generally don't see even the top stars demanding more than around 6.5 M/year.

In short, basically I have concluded that I will not use any more databases that change the salary cap, because I think it causes real problems with the game balance.

Goldberg · Post by **Goldberg** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:10 am

The signing bonus does make a difference. I use it very often.

As the Kings, I was restricted by my board to a max of 250K per year for scouts. The scout I wanted asked for 1.25 over four years (over 300K per season). So I offered 1m over four years and a 800K signing bonus (1.8m total). He is now on my scout team.

Often I get under the budget (but not the cap) by offering 80% of what they want and a big signing bonus which gives them roughtly 125% in total of the money they asked. My board loves me since I am always under budget, I always turn in a profit, and I always make the playoffs. But I'm a big market team. That helps, no doubt.

TW Triton · Post by **TW Triton** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:42 am

It's fun to take a team and make it grow. I know that you can't make it work every single time, but it's fun to try.

Plus, you shouldn't set yourself up in the game to want to make playoffs the first few years and win the cup, you know?

If you take a team that that is having many problems with prospects, draft picks and just about everything else you could think of, then it's hard to do well.

Personally, just build the team and have fun. Take your time and make it fun for yourself, if you win year after year, trust me, you will get tired of playing the game and you will want to start over.

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:11 am

Alright, I just did a test using the default database and I stand corrected; the issue has nothing to do with the TBL database.

I took the Thrashers again with the default database and 44 M cap, and they start with a 35.4 M budget, which they were way over from the very start. I got the team to the #8 seed in the playoffs, and went to the conference finals. At the end of the year, they made a small profit. However, still no budget increase, and no availability to request one through board confidence. Not only that, but the board set their expectations that they expect to win the Stanley Cup this year. Talk about unrealistic!

I think I am just going to take the Leafs and roll with them because that way I should no longer have to worry about anything but staying under the cap. I have avoided trying them in the past, because they are such a freaking mess to start out with: all kinds of bad long term contracts, no decent prospects, etc, but at least they used to be my favorite team (before JFJ made them unbearable to root for).

My preferred style of play is to go all out with free agency in the first few years and maybe hit a rebuilding phase in 3-4 years when the regens start hitting and the prospect pool is sweeter. I have tried taking over prospect laden teams like the Panthers and Blackhawks but I find them unsatisfying because while they have great young players that develop, ultimately they aren't my picks so it feels like I am piggybacking of the good drafting of the previous regime.

TW Triton · Post by **TW Triton** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:58 am

Crazy to see what they expect from you after having one good season.

Post by **Shadd666** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:52 am

jdh79: Rebuilding the Leafs should be a challenge, knowing how this team is a mess

Btw, nice to hear that the problem you faced has nothing to deal with the TBL:DB

Oh and board expectations are sometimes ridiculously high, and sometimes ridiculously low (ie improve the team when you just won the Cup and strengthened your roster in the off-season). Depends on the board you have. By the way, they won't automatically fire you if you don't reach the expectations, especially when they're asking for the Cup. And if they want the Cup while allowing you a small budget, be right under the budget, try to get the best out of the team, and if you fail to win, they may consider a bigger budget for the next season

At least, if they really want the Cup...

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:05 pm

So, after spending all last night playing, I think the higher cap may make it way too easy to win.

Taking the Leafs, here is how season 1-offseason went.

I got Regehr from the Flames for Raycroft and a 2nd round pick, mainly because of Regehr's juicy long term contract. It may sound stupid for the Flames, but I guess it's not that unrealistic because they don't have a competent backup G, and have a stacked blueline. Then, I picked up Shaone Morrison and Johan Holmqvist when WAS and TB were basically giving them away. I also signed free agents Scatchard (3 yrs, 1.2 M/yr) and Dingman (minimum), and Vaannen for a transfer after the season and acquired the rights for Ilya Nikulin from Atlanta for a 2nd-3rd line prospect (forget his name) and signed him to come over for next year too.

I played about 20 games into the season, and Blake just was not clicking with Sundin and Bell for whatever reason and was stinking it up. I sent him back to the Islanders for Trent Hunter, who I think is a younger, cheaper and slightly less talented version of Blake, clearing 2.5 M in cap space in the process.

Other than that, I didn't make any real changes during the season and just went with what I had. The team surprisingly finished at 98 pts and the #5 seed. Goaltending was the main nightmare, with Toskala being ridiculously inconsistent and losing the job to Holmqvist for 5 game stretches several times. He finished with a 2.60 GAA but 0.878 SV%, which tells me the defense supported him fine, but he just didn't get it done. He also had a regular habit of losing games while only facing 15 shots when my team had 45-50 shots on goal. In the playoffs, Toskala had 3 shutouts as I won round 1 4-1 against the Thrashers, but then lost to the Capitals 4-1 in round 2 despite outplaying them and outshooting them 2:1 for the series, mainly because Toskala reverted to his previous awful form.

In June, for whatever reason, the Habs failed to sign Carey Price to a contract before his rights expired, and suddenly almost every team was sending him offers. I also made him an offer, which he accepted, presumably because of Toronto's high reputation and the fact that I don't have a franchise goalie that would be ahead of him.

My initial plan was to resign Sundin for 1 year at a reasonable 4 M, trade Kubina for a draft pick or prospect to clear 5 M in salary, and then go after a big free agent winger. However, that changed when Florida started shopping Olli Jokinen around (didn't put him on the block, but there were all kinds of trade offers going around involving his name between AI teams). I made a bid for him and was able to get him by sending them Kubina, Pogge, Ian White and my 2008 1st round pick. Jokinen's contract is the same as Sundin's, so he basically will replace him as 1st line center and captain.

Then, I wanted to do something about goalie, since Toskala had lost my confidence. The free agent options were going to be Theodore, Lalime and Kolzig, none of which I think are significant upgrades, so I approached Colorado about Budaj. They wanted Wellwood for Budaj. I didn't want to give up Wellwood, but signing a top free agent winger would bump either him or Ponikarovsky out of the top 6, and I preferred Ponikarovsky's 2 way game to Wellwood's defensive shortcomings, so I pulled the trigger. I then set Toskala on the block, and the Wild were all over him, which makes sense because Harding wasn't ready and Backstrom is a 3 M waste of money. They gave me prospect James Sheppard for Toskala.

Then, in free agency, Hossa signed with me for 6 M/year for 3 years. The Flyers matched my offer sheet to Mike Richards, and I was sitting with about 4 M in cap room and wasn't comfortable going with Stajan or Steen as a 2nd line center. Just because I had the money to do it, I signed Holik for 1 year and 3.6 million. I also signed Matvichuk for 600,000/year as a #7 D-man.

So that leaves the following lineup for year 2:

Bell-Jokinen-Hossa
Hunter-Holic-Ponikarovsky
Dingman-Scatchard-Hagman
Stajan-Steen-Tucker

Regehr-McCabe
Kaberle-Morrison
Vaannen-Nikulin

Budaj-Holmqvist

Antropov, Battaglia and Matvichuk are the bench players.

Is it just me, or does it seem a little overpowered that I can have a 3M 4th liner in Darcy Tucker as well as Stajan and Steen both making around 1M on the 4th line, a 2M bench player in Antropov? I am just wondering if the higher cap just makes ot too easy because the cost of signing players hasn't risen accordingly. For example, in real life if Atlanta lets Hossa go as a free agent next year, does anyone really think he would sign for only 6 M? After the Briere, Drury, Gomez deals last year, I couldn't see a guy of his calibre going for less than 8M in real life.

This just seems way too easy. You could argue that you can limit yourself by not spending all your cap room, but is it really realistic to expect a Toronto GM would not spend all his available cap if there were players available that could help him? I think I might have to go back to my Atlanta game using the old default database with a 44 M cap and 35 M budget