MLB 14 The Show Patch 1.11 Available Now - Details Included

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Quote: Originally Posted by Heroesandvillains

But are these teams like the Marlins and Pirates that are aquiring these bigs contracts through trade at least in playoff contention? I can't imagine Houston especially standing strong enough near the deadline to make such a move unless they were well in the race. How's the overall amount of teams using rebuild strategy looking?

I think it has more to do with teams that are in rebuild mode to be honest. They just dump for the sake of dumping. Here is the CC trade. Now the worst part is they received just a RP in return. I can't imagine that HOU was too deep in a playoff push in May in the 2014 season.

Rebuild mode needs to happen later in the season. I tried swapping the entire Yankee roster with the Braves roster then start a franchise. The Yankees started that franchise as normal and the Braves as rebuild. So I think the system is taking the age into consideration and not necessarily the talent when determining to rebuild or not. Then I believe it looks at overall after age. So a team can be trapped in rebuild for sometime. They dump there talent then have a weak overall. The team then doesn't want to spend in the offseason either.

I can tell you now. Using SCEA rosters all have started Min., NYM, NYY and Phi as rebuild. Even with a record 20 games over .500 the best I can get the Yankees to move is normal. I have yet to see them change to playoff push.

[KingV2k3]

Quote: Originally Posted by tabarnes19

I think parity is a good description. Without a budget constraint I also see players being traded that were never traded in mlb13 due to salary. Pujols to the Pirates or Marlins. CC to the Astros..in the past with tighter budgets teams couldn't swing deals for a $10 million plus player. Now any team can and they do. Small market teams do not have to make decisions on who to keep. Teams can keep everyone that they want. Usually the only free agents that hit the market are ones the CPU doesn't value. I wouldn't mind the budget increases if salaries moved north relative with the increase. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Could this be minimized with a custom roster that had adjusted salaries?

So far, it SEEMS that the way to go would be a Hybrid (based off OSFM) that has the yearly pitch edits and these adjusted contracts, correct?

Thanks!

[tabarnes19_SDS]

I'm curious to see how the strategies are with OSFM. Unfortunately you cannot edit salaries.

The old way of raising a players overall in the editor and then doing the free agent swap no longer works. When you start a franchise the contracts are reflected based off the players current overall and potential.

Even with the old way budgets would adjust proportionately to the higher salary, so teams wold always have the same budget room available.

[Cavicchi]

One solution to this budget problem is turning Budgets Off

[KingV2k3]

Quote: Originally Posted by tabarnes19

I'm curious to see how the strategies are with OSFM. Unfortunately you cannot edit salaries. The old way of raising a players overall in the editor and then doing the free agent swap no longer works. When you start a franchise the contracts are reflected based off the players current overall and potential. Even with the old way budgets would adjust proportionately to the higher salary, so teams wold always have the same budget room available.

Ah, didn't know that salaries can't be edited...

I'm sure if there was a "workaround", you guys would have figured it out by now!



Worth a shot...

Thanks for the detailed reply!

[bcruise]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cavicchi

One solution to this budget problem is turning Budgets Off

Yeah...I suppose that would be the nuclear option. If they don't work as they should (meaning they have little or no impact on the CPU's roster strategy) that might be the best thing for non 30 team control as it stands right now.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

I don't think budgets off, for this type of problem, will impact it either way. Budgets off just allows all teams to play as if they had an unlimited budget, the teams don't have an issue with not having money, so it won't impact their strategy at all.

That was a solution a few years back when teams were going OVER budget.

[Cavicchi]

Quote: Originally Posted by bcruise

Yeah...I suppose that would be the nuclear option. If they don't work as they should (meaning they have little or no impact on the CPU's roster strategy) that might be the best thing for non 30 team control as it stands right now.

I use 30-team control and budgets off, and I'm okay with that. After all, it is fair to both sides.

Let the best team win!