|
Post by Commish_Ron on Oct 29, 2015 12:52:14 GMT -5
My two cents. Not a fan of minimum budgets. Budgets are a result of revenues. If you don't have the revenue to support the budget you could do some real medium term damage to your finances. One year of a negative 30 million ending balance could take 3 years to recover from.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Oct 29, 2015 15:10:18 GMT -5
A minimum budget is cool. I know this probably won't go over well. I think we should seriously think about instituting a salary cap. The farther we go along in the league, the salaries are just going to get more and more outlandish ( ex. Me with my 25 million dollar rookie, lol). Would this be a way to level out salaries? It wouldn't necessarily have to be a hard cap. Maybe give a 5-10 million dollar leeway. I'm thinking discussing it this season for possibly implementing it next season. It's just something unique for baseball and would add another element of strategy. Sent from my SM-N900V using proboards Correct me if im wrong, but i don't see how salaries can get more outlandish. There is no real inflation built into the game. There is only really so much money around the league in any given year. Basically, the league can't afford salaries going up, so they wont. I hate salary caps. I hate what the NFL and NBA have become. Cap space is more important then talent. Correct me if I am wrong, but the only artificial "inflation" seen in the game may come from Zevin, but certainly not the game. And if you are following a prescribed formula that may not even really be the case. And if Zevin extensions get out of hand, at some point it might be more worthwhile to let a player walk and take your chances in FA?? Dislike salary caps because they simply fight with a lot of what is in the game, in my opinion. PLUS we have all seen how individual GM's adhere to staying within the rules regarding remaining in the GREEN under the former rule. I'm sure staying under a cap would never be an issue...And, in general, I dislike things that are external to the game (unfortunately that would include Zevin) but in the case of Zevin I understand the uniqueness of his role in the PBL, so willing to play with him (mainly be avoiding him in future . Now about that NEW "must be green" rule again? Where do I find those numbers for other teams
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Nov 5, 2015 9:10:48 GMT -5
I wanted to throw my two cents in, even if I've been in the league for a week.
First off, I don't really see the upside of salary floors. The cash max is only $10 million, right? I don't really see the advantage, though it may just reveal ignorance on my part. Owner budget reductions punish teams sucking all over the place.
Regarding the OOTP 15 -> 16 budget cuts, I had an idea, which may be stupid. I am inclined to think that these budget changes are mostly a characteristic of the new version having a different budget generating algorithm than the prior version. So over an offseason there may well be a large budget swing that, as has been pointed out, is well in excess of what is real.
What if we parsed out big changes like that? What if we decided on a fixed amount that was the maximum budget shift an owner would ever consider. $15 mill? $20 mill?
And then we just parse it out in a ledger. Tampa Bay's budget gets dropped by $45 million? If we've decided on $20 million as the max realistic change, then we simply go in and edit the budget to only be $20 million lower than the prior year, with a $25 million budget debt for the future. Next year the next $20 million penalty hits. And so on, until it has been balanced.
If the goal is to:
1) Not invent our own budget algorithm 2) Respect the budget generation of ootp 16, within reason, and 3) keep the budget swings from being wild and crazy, giving GMs a bit of a chance to maneuver with them
then this is a reasonably practical plan. The downside is the bookkeeping and the agreeing on the max budget shift number.
Anyhow, an idea.
|
|
|
Post by kendalld00(GM for hire) on Nov 5, 2015 12:08:14 GMT -5
I have a couple suggestions..
1. Raise the revenue sharing luxury tax. Not sure what it is set at? 2. Put a minimum limit on the media revenue $40,000,000.. That would help 16 teams.. 3. Put a minimum limit on the season ticket sales $20,000,000.. That helps 5 teams..
Example of revenue gained from the increases.. Top 10 teams that it would help Brewers +17M ........ Padres +8.75M Expos +15.25M........ Blue Jays +7.25M Nationals +14.8M .....A's +6.75M Warhounds +9.25M ...Cardinals +6.75M Indians +9.25M ........D'Backs +6.25M
Just food for thought.... Kendall
PS.. What does $17M buy a team in FA market right now... 1 extremely popular player and 5 very popular players = increased gate revenue + increased merchandise sales
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Nov 5, 2015 14:58:47 GMT -5
My 2c...
Less rules the better and nothing calculated outside the game (save for Zevin of course) to change the financials in any way.
Remove the ability to go into the red. As I have said countless times, apparently falling on deaf ears, the altered rule cannot be policed by anyone BUT the Commish - and he has better things to do - so delete it and let people fend for themselves.
When a team does something that the game disallows (as in a trade into the red) then the Commissioner simply reports that trade not going through.
When a team tries to sign someone and the game says it can't be done, that's the final answer.
When the owner adjusts your budget because of something you may or may not have done, that is the luck of the draw of having that team and owner at that point in time.
Again, outside of Zevin extensions AND having common sense rules for crafting free agent contracts so the humans cannot take advantage of the AI when signing players and offering options, less is more IMHO.
I have found that not only do you have to watch your finances more carefully in the latest version, you also have to show a small profit and keep things generally headed in that direction. - If you have wild fluctuations year over year where you make and lose money, you are penalized - If you go into the red (in other leagues of course) then the owner MAY just give you more money to keep things going IF you are also winning - or he may not - If you show a massive profit, NOT utilizing the budget you have, then the owner will happily take the money out for himself, BECAUSE YOU ARE SHOWING YOU DON'T NEED IT, and then reduce your budget to what you've shown you seem to need
There are many things at work in all facets of this game - financially, AI, etc. - that's why it's great.
And there are as many ways to "plan and execute" on behalf of your franchise to not only win, but to be profitable. Not everything happens to work however and you should learn from that and adjust your play style to your franchise, not seek outside help to adjust the franchise to your play style (which a cash injection or more artificial rules).
Just my 2c.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Nov 5, 2015 15:18:53 GMT -5
Do you mean remove the restriction from going into the red?
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 5, 2015 16:42:43 GMT -5
That is fine but for example if Atlanta made trades last season, every one would of went through as he had plenty of money to work with. He played within his budget and got penalized for it.
And " If you show a massive profit, NOT utilizing the budget you have, then the owner will happily take the money out for himself" doesn't really make much sense either for why he got penalized so much. The Braves were 8th in profit margin last year and only +$4m from falling down to middle of the pack in terms of profit made. If you look at the last two years the Braves were a middle of the league team in terms of Profit. The past two years it netted a profit of $30.7m yet the owner kills the budget by $44m.
There is no logic to this. I understand AND agree with a lot of things you say and people say about how to make budgets increase but still something isn't right here.
Looking at the Dodgers who like the Braves are in a rebuild and both have "Generous" owners made the most profit last year (a staggering $68m) and the owner cut their budget too by $22 million so less than HALF what the Braves did. I don't understand!!
That is the case now, there is no signing of FAs behind closed doors. If owner doesn't allow it then its not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Nov 6, 2015 14:12:34 GMT -5
Looking at the Dodgers who like the Braves are in a rebuild and both have "Generous" owners made the most profit last year (a staggering $68m) and the owner cut their budget too by $22 million so less than HALF what the Braves did. I don't understand!! Clearly you can see a lot more than any of us behind the scenes (along with the GM's of the actual teams of course) but this is kind of making my point, if I am understanding your argument correctly. If both the Dodgers and Braves are in a "rebuild" mode - at least how I would define "rebuild", which would be to draft, develop and bring up young "cheap" players first - then they would not NEED a massive budget. The owner could very well cut back on the budget, regardless of the profit they produce as they would be building with cheaper players and developing prospects. When the team begins to win and NEEDS more budget, then the owner should come through for the GM's and give them more, with which to sign some pieces to make a run in a few years. I have been experiencing that in LA with the Angels for years, with a dropping budget (granted LOSING will never help) as I "rebuild" with young talent. Thankfully, REGARDLESS of where the budget is, I did have some CASH with which to sign some key pieces around which I can place my young, primarily pitching, prospects. We'll see if it works, but I am not really focusing on the budget given me by my owner YET. If I win more than .500 this season (which may take this division) then I will expect some money to flow to keep the ball rolling uphill. What the game no longer seems to allow is massive profit, automatically leading to a huge budget, artificially setting rebuild (or even "win now") to manipulate your draft budget, regardless of where you really are with your team, and both bringing up top prospects and also signing mega-deal free agents. I believe you have to more carefully plot the course you are going to take because of the influence of the owner. Those that want their cake and to eat it too - TOTAL CONTROL - will of course find that maddening. Those that see it as yet another challenging part of the game (where each owner adds a different dynamic to each team - much like each ballpark adds a different dynamic to how you build your roster - and how the size of your market and loyalty and size of your fan base also add yet another dynamic) will simply find it challenging. Another unique thing none of us can see (except you and the individual GM) is the "Owner Goals". If you deliberately fly against some of those, then possibly the Owner will punish you for it. For example, you are asked to sign an over-the-hill VET that will cost you big bucks, but will not help your "re-building" team and you refuse, then maybe STEINBRENNER takes that money out of your budget to teach you a lesson?
I have never experienced it myself, but have read that - depending on the Owner traits - the more "hands-on" may very well just SIGN a player, regardless of YOUR actions as GM. After all they ARE the OWNER. I would love to know who might have such an owner, just to watch for fireworks when that happens...
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 6, 2015 15:30:38 GMT -5
Well after giving it more thought and then thinking some more and some more and some more. A decision NEEDS to be made and either way the decision won't be accepted by the group but once again I will make a decision in what I think is the best interest of the league going forward.
An announcement will be made shortly (work pending of course!)
|
|