|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jun 6, 2019 6:47:24 GMT -5
Where do you set the compensation amount Sean?
The developers said the dollar amount is based on the "star" player setting. I believe that is the case, which would require adjusting the backend value for, at the very least, a superstar calibre player. Probably would have to do it for all, to maintain balance. That might have unintended consequences?
Another option, within 20, would be to check the "Max 1 lifetime QO" box?
And evaluate the 2017 CBA settings at the same time for compensation picks?
Less chance of throwing off the financials.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jun 6, 2019 8:27:42 GMT -5
The developers said the dollar amount is based on the "star" player setting. I believe that is the case, which would require adjusting the backend value for, at the very least, a superstar calibre player. Probably would have to do it for all, to maintain balance. That might have unintended consequences?
Another option, within 20, would be to check the "Max 1 lifetime QO" box?
And evaluate the 2017 CBA settings at the same time for compensation picks?
Less chance of throwing off the financials.
I really don't see a negative of having players want more money. Idk how long this feature of being able to set baseline values for contract expectations has been an option, but it would appear that we could address the issue of players getting extremely team friendly contracts and in a round about way have a Zevin without having a person have to monitor and negotiate.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jun 6, 2019 8:48:49 GMT -5
Pretty sure setting the value of every "type" of player contract - Superstar through entry level - is a foundation principle of the game since the initial version.
I was just trying to address your legitimate concern about qualifying offers. Changing the contract numbers would likely do that, but might do even more league-wide. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jun 9, 2019 11:50:31 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. I have a couple of (minor) concerns with this. 1) Whether or not these players deserve compensation they are getting it. I have not tracked it but I think I have only had to remove 1 comp tag when the draft started in the last 3 or 4 seasons. The past 2 seasons I have not had to remove any. So teams are paying the price for the guys that get it. 2) We have inflation disabled in PBL. I never did well in economics in school but I am not sure what impacts would be of escalating a single figure in the full financial picture. 3) I do like the switch to 20 as an opportunity to consider some changes to the financial. I would LOVE it if a committee of 2-4 GMs wanted to dig into financial options available in 20 and make recommendations.
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Jun 11, 2019 10:21:14 GMT -5
Are we going to the 26 man roster next season?
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jun 11, 2019 17:13:05 GMT -5
Are we going to the 26 man roster next season? I vote yes
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jun 12, 2019 15:58:57 GMT -5
Are we going to the 26 man roster next season? I vote yes Is this the inpiration for a POLL, a "straw" poll, or just some kind of authoritarian proclamation? And YES I am joking. Polls are my friend...
|
|