|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jun 2, 2019 14:06:37 GMT -5
We will be wrapping up the playoffs tomorrow night. After which we will take a couple of sims off to catch our breath before launching into another off season. Post here or on direct messages if there are any items you would like to bring up for discussion.
A couple ideas that I have: 1. There was a late poll last season that I felt was rushed so I did not implement. I want to revisit and maybe implement a change on making the Disabled length 7, 10 or 14 days.
2. OOTP used to allow you to pay off all of a salary when releasing a player in the current season if you had enough budget space and cash to accommodate. That functionality has been removed. I am recommending a PBL rule that will allow a team to notify me when that is the case and if it is desired. If so, I can edit the team finances to make that happen.
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Jun 2, 2019 16:11:54 GMT -5
#2 would be awesome!
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jun 4, 2019 8:40:42 GMT -5
Great - Polls.
Against the idea of #2 as it's manually adjusting the finances of the game. Instead I would propose status quo, where we live by what the game allows. That way the math is handled within the game engine/coding and not externally, likely contradicting the coding.
The proposal only really matters if multiple remaining years are involved. And if that is the case, chances are a team with abundant budget made a strategic error in signing (or acquiring) an "albatross" contract. They should live with the consequences. Chances are they can afford it.
Smaller budget teams will not likely be in this position. And even if they too are, they should suffer the game consequences.
Why manually help the "big guys"!?!
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Jun 4, 2019 8:49:33 GMT -5
David I would disagree in that this would actually help smaller market/rebuilding teams in that in most cases unless you are entering your competitive phase (maxing your budgets with salary) you likely have cash sitting around at the end of the year and you can better leverage that by taking an albatross contract with a draft pick and use that extra cash to buy out the contract rather than the owner taking the cash at the end of the year.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jun 4, 2019 9:28:34 GMT -5
David I would disagree in that this would actually help smaller market/rebuilding teams in that in most cases unless you are entering your competitive phase (maxing your budgets with salary) you likely have cash sitting around at the end of the year and you can better leverage that by taking an albatross contract with a draft pick and use that extra cash to buy out the contract rather than the owner taking the cash at the end of the year. 1) Anyone know why the game changed this in the first place? And i will still side with using the game coding to handle this. 2) Speaking for myself only, I would not leave a lot of extra money "sitting around" ( what's that like ) not working for my team in other ways. But I suppose that could be someone's strategy. 3) And if I take your point that smaller budget teams might also benefit from this, I think it's safe to say that larger budget teams would benefit that much more (which was kind of my original point). And... 3) Clarification question for Ron: Will teams need to have the cash on hand to buy out the full amount (given this will be manual)? Or will a team be allowed to go into the red (regardless of the amount)? And just asking, I get that the same could very well happen over multiple years as is. I will cast my vote if/when given the chance. All I can do.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Jun 4, 2019 13:16:55 GMT -5
David I would disagree in that this would actually help smaller market/rebuilding teams in that in most cases unless you are entering your competitive phase (maxing your budgets with salary) you likely have cash sitting around at the end of the year and you can better leverage that by taking an albatross contract with a draft pick and use that extra cash to buy out the contract rather than the owner taking the cash at the end of the year. 2) Speaking for myself only, I would not leave a lot of extra money "sitting around" ( what's that like ) not working for my team in other ways. But I suppose that could be someone's strategy. I mean, no one purposefully leaves money sitting around. But, consider my 2050. I budgeted right to the limit of the money I I was being given, with about 10 mill left over in case I needed to grab someone on waivers or had a big draft expense. Now, if I had had a terrible year, my finances would have broken even, and all would be well. But I had a much better year than anticipated, which means extra money from ticket sales and playoff cash. Great news, right? Well, only kind of. At the end of the year (after revenue sharing) I ended up with 22 million dollars, only 10 of which my owner let me keep. The issue is, there was absolutely nothing that I could have feasibly done with that 12 million that my owner took. The time between the playoffs starting and the end of the World Series has absolutely no mechanisms by which money can be spent. No free agency, no draft, no taking another player in a trade. That is wasted money that could easily have been put towards paying off unwanted contracts, except the code in all its wisdom has decided that this is something that we can't do anymore.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jun 4, 2019 14:33:01 GMT -5
I don't want to blow all my arguments in this thread! An additional Ron question about #2...How will this process work. Are we to understand the Commissioner will be "removing" the designated player (and salary) from the team's payroll and docking the finances page of the team involved with the calculated lump sum (assuming remaining bonus money too of course)? So the GM will not be "releasing" a player as part of this process?
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Jun 4, 2019 15:42:17 GMT -5
David makes some good points.
Maybe by limiting the total amount of salary released to a number that almost all teams can reasonably see as realistic would solve this?
Like 10mil-20mil?
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jun 4, 2019 19:59:26 GMT -5
Great discussion and lots of great points.
I am pretty sure that option has been removed from the game. I had a GM approach me this season asking why he was not getting the option. The amounts were not even close. I do not remember the exact amounts but the team had well over the total amount of the contract available in both cash and budget space. And not by just a little, but like 3 or 4 times as much available in both. If it is still in the game I would love to hear what other criteria would be required to get the option.
The proposal I am considering would be that a team would only be given this option if their cash and budge space BOTH exceed the total amount of the contract. I would not allow teams to go into the red by exercising this option. This is NOT to allow a team to dump tens of millions and nuke their finances in the short term.
As far as the mechanics. I would release the player then edit the team finances. I would reduce the miscellaneous expenses for future seasons by the same amount and length that the release had incurred and reduce cash by the same amount.
I think in different scenarios it can help both small and large market teams. On the whole I feel like it would increase financial flexibility and provide GMs another creative way to invest into their organization.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jun 5, 2019 9:20:37 GMT -5
Update.
Big shout out and thank you to David who spent a bunch of time online with me last night helping to research and troubleshoot this issue. In a super high level summary, we have established two things. 1) this option does still exist in OOTP 19. 2) It is not working in PBL.
This actually strengthens my desire to add the new rule. It SHOULD be a thing.
We will continue to troubleshoot and research. My hope is that there is an undiscovered as of yet criteria or setting that will trigger the option. If we succeed than this discussion and rule will be obsolete. My preference is to let the game handle it.
But I do want to get the poll active (and will sometime between now and when I crash out tonight). For the time being we can proceed on the assumption that we will not find a fix and give people time to vote. If we do find a fix, all the better.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jun 5, 2019 18:06:18 GMT -5
We found our answer! (And by "we" I totally mean David).
This option is disabled for online leagues. Poll is posted.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jun 5, 2019 18:48:37 GMT -5
I'd like to propose bumping the qualifying offer compensation amount up from $11 mil to $18 mil. Current MLB rules have a $17.9 mil for a season, and $18 mil would be a nice round number.
This would cut down on players getting offered arbitration that have no business getting offered it in the first place and narrow the amount of compensation eligible players to only be above avg players.
Once we switch to 20, I'd be open to discuss updating our compensation criteria to match MLB's rule that is based on the contract a player signs rather than just simply signing.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jun 5, 2019 20:01:38 GMT -5
I'd like to propose bumping the qualifying offer compensation amount up from $11 mil to $18 mil. Current MLB rules have a $17.9 mil for a season, and $18 mil would be a nice round number. This would cut down on players getting offered arbitration that have no business getting offered it in the first place and narrow the amount of compensation eligible players to only be above avg players. Once we switch to 20, I'd be open to discuss updating our compensation criteria to match MLB's rule that is based on the contract a player signs rather than just simply signing.
Where do you set the compensation amount Sean?
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Jun 5, 2019 22:13:04 GMT -5
I'd like to propose bumping the qualifying offer compensation amount up from $11 mil to $18 mil. Current MLB rules have a $17.9 mil for a season, and $18 mil would be a nice round number. This would cut down on players getting offered arbitration that have no business getting offered it in the first place and narrow the amount of compensation eligible players to only be above avg players. Once we switch to 20, I'd be open to discuss updating our compensation criteria to match MLB's rule that is based on the contract a player signs rather than just simply signing. Couldn’t agree more with this!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jun 5, 2019 23:50:55 GMT -5
I'd like to propose bumping the qualifying offer compensation amount up from $11 mil to $18 mil. Current MLB rules have a $17.9 mil for a season, and $18 mil would be a nice round number. This would cut down on players getting offered arbitration that have no business getting offered it in the first place and narrow the amount of compensation eligible players to only be above avg players. Once we switch to 20, I'd be open to discuss updating our compensation criteria to match MLB's rule that is based on the contract a player signs rather than just simply signing.
Where do you set the compensation amount Sean?
The developers said the dollar amount is based on the "star" player setting.
|
|