What I'm running now I believe is the Nikon 18-140. I'd like something that could reach out a little farther while my daughter plays soccer, and while I'm chasing game. What would you guys suggest to someone on a budget?

All depends on what your idea of "budget" is. Outdoors and kids soccer has 70-300 written all over it, and the plain 70-300 (minus VR) should fit into most folk's budget. With soccer, VR will not help you much. Having said that, the 70-300 VR is a GREAT lens. I've owned it for many years, and even though I can run a 70-200 2.8, I often go lighter with with the little more reach of the 70-300. If your budget can stretch, I'm of the opinion that you just cannot beat a 70-200 2.8 for the type of photography you're doing. It's awesome in every way and will do all you need and more next to the soccer field. But, some people just do not want to spend that money, or do not want to carry the weight. For those, the 70-300 will get the job done. My 2 cents worth.

Oklahoma;

You have a great camera, and your 18-140 lens is a great "walk- around"lens! On a budget, the Nikon 70-300 F/4-5.6 VR may be probably your best choice, or, maybe the newer 55-300 mm lens. For soccer, which is mostly outside, they will do well. I use my 70-300 VR for Auto racing, Airshows, Soccer, Bathing Beauties, gymnastics and wildlife. Iirc, mine cost about $600 when I got it about 6 years ago.

I've never found this to be a problem, but my camera has, as does yours, has a DX format sensor, which is smaller than an FX (full-size, 35mm)sensor. There are lenses designed for the DX sensor, like the Nikon 55-300mm, which is about the same price as the 70-300 VR lens.
MY 70-300 VR and the mentioned 70-200 F/2.8 VR, as well as the newer 70-200 F/4 are all FX (Full size 35mm sensor) lenses.

The practical difference is that you should never use a DX lens on an FX sensor camera. The lens' coverage is not sufficient for the larger sensor. Kinda looks like you're taking pixes through a knothole!

OTOH, FX lenses work very well with DX sensor cameras! The coverage of the FX lenses is much wider than the smaller sensor can use, so the central portion of the projected image is used, which is the most corrected and sharpest area. An additional feature is that the "crop factor" of the DX sensor gives an apparent focal length of about +150%, meaning an equivalent focal length range of 105-450mm for a 70-300mm lens.

As you go up the spectrum, the cost and weight ~double...round figures, $600 for the "consumer" 70-300mm VR, ~$1200 for the lighter 70-200mm VR F/4, and $2300 for the 70-200 F2.8 VR, which is pure quality, built like a tank, and really heavy!

The non-VR 70-300 mm lens is said to be of lesser build quality and sharpness, but I can't speak to that.

Do not be afraid of consumer" lenses...some photographers and reviewers are snide about them, but they are not CHEAP! And they do stunning work!

VR is definitely a goodness! If your budget can't stand the cost of a new lens, KEHcamera.com often has excellent used lenses at lower prices.

I hope I haven't told you how to build the bicycle, when all you wanted to know was how to change a tire, but good luck in your search!

I used a Nikon D300 for my grand-daughter's soccer games and I had two lenses that worked great - the DX 70-300mm and a 70-200mm f2.8 VR. I used the 70-200 for most of my shooting until she hit high school where the games were started after so I bought a Nikon D3S body and I lost the advantage of using an FX lens on a DX body (crop-factor) so I bought a Sigma 120-300mm f2,8 and that along with the high iso ability of the D3S allowed me to shoot under the crappiest of lighting.

Unfortunately she'a plying soccer for an east coast college where she was the starting mid her freshman year.

The 120-300 f2.8 is just about the perfect soccer lens - I will be putting all of the gear up for sale and if you have any interest just shoot me a PM with your phone number and I'll give you a call.

I have a D7000, got a Tamron 18-270 which has been a great all around lens. Aperture limits are a little narrow, so it can be slow indoors and without great light.
At the time, money was tight, and we haven't upgraded it, but a 18-300mm would be the upgraded option.

Review Linky

Of course, if you will keep the 18-140mm then I agree that the 70-300mm is all about long shots and action from afar.

I'm thinking the 70-300 would be a good place to go for what I need. The fields my son plays on are pretty small, but my daughter plays on full size fields and it can get taxed pretty hard for anything close.