|
Post by bravesgm on Sept 11, 2013 20:08:35 GMT -5
restrictions on trading for cash to extend the life of a team Easier option without a rule: Use common sense and don't bail a team out. If you do, make that team pay more than it would ever make sense for them.
|
|
RoyalsGM
New Member
Kansas City Royals
Posts: 4,232
|
Post by RoyalsGM on Sept 11, 2013 20:09:17 GMT -5
restrictions on trading for cash to extend the life of a team Easier option without a rule: Use common sense and don't bail a team out. If you do, make that team pay more than it would ever make sense for them.
|
|
Broph
General Manager ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_red.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_red.png)
Oakland Athletics
Im no longer a shitty GM
Posts: 29,215
|
Post by Broph on Sept 11, 2013 20:15:17 GMT -5
restrictions on trading for cash to extend the life of a team Easier option without a rule: Use common sense and don't bail a team out. If you do, make that team pay more than it would ever make sense for them. you are never going to find that though, board cash is too valuable on the open market, one team is always going to accept that offer
|
|
|
Post by Captain America on Sept 12, 2013 0:32:35 GMT -5
i didn't think anything actually came from the winter meetings
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 15:35:22 GMT -5
There is a ton of useful stuff in here. Just up to Erbes to decide.
Ill bet he wont cap salaries. Luxury tax makes sense though. Something like GABL does. Or even if there is a formula that MLB does.
So Id want it to be simpler and Id want the money to go to a pool that will help the bottom 5 earners.
90-100 = 50% 101-110= 75% 111+ = 100%
Essentially if youre player expenses are 93 million then you give 1.5 million to revenue sharing. Etc.
Total amount is given back to the 5 worst earners. Bottom 5 revenues.
35% 25% 20% 15% 5%
35% to the worst earner. 25% to the 2nd, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 15:36:01 GMT -5
I don't think the franchise rule will change unless Erbes is more specific as to what he doesn't like about it. Its being used though so its helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 15:37:01 GMT -5
I really want more player based cash rewards. Smaller. 100k. But for more things like I posted earlier. Slight tweaks to existing rewards. Think itll promote activity sim to sim because there is even more money to claim each sim.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 15:40:29 GMT -5
AMIRITE!
|
|
Darell
General Manager ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_red.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_red.png)
Houston Astros
Posts: 21,352
|
Post by Darell on Sept 12, 2013 15:45:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 15:46:58 GMT -5
Also the no trading board cash for in game. Seems like its something people want.
|
|
steve
New Member
Ex-GM
Posts: 29,203
|
Post by steve on Sept 12, 2013 15:48:38 GMT -5
Also the no trading board cash for in game. Seems like its something people want. i do
|
|
Darell
General Manager ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_red.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_red.png)
Houston Astros
Posts: 21,352
|
Post by Darell on Sept 12, 2013 15:48:55 GMT -5
AMIRITE?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 15:52:12 GMT -5
Some good ideas. Productive offseason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2013 16:01:20 GMT -5
There is a ton of useful stuff in here. Just up to Erbes to decide. Ill bet he wont cap salaries. Luxury tax makes sense though. Something like GABL does. Or even if there is a formula that MLB does. So Id want it to be simpler and Id want the money to go to a pool that will help the bottom 5 earners. 90-100 = 50% 101-110= 75% 111+ = 100% Essentially if youre player expenses are 93 million then you give 1.5 million to revenue sharing. Etc. Total amount is given back to the 5 worst earners. Bottom 5 revenues. 35% 25% 20% 15% 5% 35% to the worst earner. 25% to the 2nd, etc. it's a drag to implement and it protects against market declines for losing. you should lose your market when you lose. i'm only interested in preventing massive payrolls that most markets can't support even when they're competitive. hard cap.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 16:05:14 GMT -5
There is a ton of useful stuff in here. Just up to Erbes to decide. Ill bet he wont cap salaries. Luxury tax makes sense though. Something like GABL does. Or even if there is a formula that MLB does. So Id want it to be simpler and Id want the money to go to a pool that will help the bottom 5 earners. 90-100 = 50% 101-110= 75% 111+ = 100% Essentially if youre player expenses are 93 million then you give 1.5 million to revenue sharing. Etc. Total amount is given back to the 5 worst earners. Bottom 5 revenues. 35% 25% 20% 15% 5% 35% to the worst earner. 25% to the 2nd, etc. it's a drag to implement and it protects against market declines for losing. you should lose your market when you lose. i'm only interested in preventing massive payrolls that most markets can't support even when they're competitive. hard cap. How would it protect against market declines?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 16:06:51 GMT -5
IMO people fucked up by losing too much. But now they know. They cant lose year after year and bounce back. Its a gradual recovery. I dont think teams will lose hard for too long ever again. Markets get lower after numerous losing seasons not one. AS far I know. Not sure how a luxury tax would prevent market declines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2013 16:10:10 GMT -5
bc they'll get cash to offset the effect of a losing market, meaning they'll be able to support a big payroll as soon as they want to compete. you should have to improve fan interest to generate money, but receiving the luxury tax would give you money to generate fan interest.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 16:17:00 GMT -5
bc they'll get cash to offset the effect of a losing market, meaning they'll be able to support a big payroll as soon as they want to compete. you should have to improve fan interest to generate money, but receiving the luxury tax would give you money to generate fan interest. I dont think that the money will make that much of a difference. The market will still suck, theyll just get a small amount of cash to try and get more talent. But in the end theyll still need to win to get better. And its not like the same 5 teams will always get the money. It should change year to year. While it isnt a HC it should prevent teams from going over 110 mill. If we did consider a HC it shouldnt be at 90. It should be higher. 9 teams make 90+. Thats a 3rd of the league.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 16:17:35 GMT -5
Also Habes when we starte your revenue was 72. Mine was 80. I lost of this problem is because the way we decided to run our teams.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 16:21:13 GMT -5
LImit cash trading? Allow for in game cash to be traded for board cash? If we push the in game cash a different direction itll be harder for teams like me to trade for in game cash whenever I want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2013 16:50:52 GMT -5
bc they'll get cash to offset the effect of a losing market, meaning they'll be able to support a big payroll as soon as they want to compete. you should have to improve fan interest to generate money, but receiving the luxury tax would give you money to generate fan interest. I dont think that the money will make that much of a difference. The market will still suck, theyll just get a small amount of cash to try and get more talent. But in the end theyll still need to win to get better. And its not like the same 5 teams will always get the money. It should change year to year. While it isnt a HC it should prevent teams from going over 110 mill. If we did consider a HC it shouldnt be at 90. It should be higher. 9 teams make 90+. Thats a 3rd of the league. the money will put them in position to support winning payrolls whenever they want to. winning generates fan interest. that's not the hard part -- mine went up 59 points this year. the hard part is building a good team after you've shrunk your market. the tax would remove a major challenge to building a contender after tanking. and I have no doubt my revenue is going to increase as I win, but you have a bigger market, and there are a lot of teams that will never be able to match it. stocking up big contracts and winning with a payroll well above what most teams can support is a cheap way to win. you can say what you want about building a huge market by winning, but youre actually at a payroll you only support by dealing for game cash. 90m is 10 below most teams' maximum possible revenue. that's reasonable. 100 mil i'd say is the absolute max, since that's the most even you can support w/o gaming payroll. most teams will never be able to hit 100m in revenue in the first place so I don't really see any justification for allowing teams to go above it. there's no need to track real life market discrepancies. if Minnesota has the same team SF has, it wouldn't be fair if, bc of some in-game bias, SF would on average win 20% more games. having 20% more revenue isn't fair either, and ultimately is gonna be reflected in wins. just level the playing field. it's not like you won't be rewarded for winning with a bigger market.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 17:05:25 GMT -5
I understand your reasoning, but like Ive said a couple times Im pretty sure Erbes isnt gonna gie us a HC. So why not discuss other alternatives?
Also it seems as though a baseball league with a HC should probably also have equal markets, FI, merchandising revenues, etc. Everything. Which probably shouldve been done from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 17:08:18 GMT -5
Just saying.
Also, Ive never wanted to be in a league like that. I like to keep leagues as realistic as possible. Thats why we came up with the CY or the PG rule or the SG rule.
I prefer OOTP because the financials make things more interesting. It makes winning important. Save cash and buy a new stadium. I mean there are more realistic alternative to evening things out.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 17:14:43 GMT -5
Man those Yankees were a juggernaut this year. best team never to win a title IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 12, 2013 17:15:20 GMT -5
I lold.
|
|