|
Post by Commish_Ron on Oct 9, 2021 11:53:33 GMT -5
I have been chipping away at the league governance for awhile now and I am down to one final relic from the previous administration I would like to address.
"Trades with Financial Implications
No trade can be made by a GM whose team player payroll budget is in the red unless it is a trade that reduces salary. Teams in the red are not permitted to make salary neutral trades."
I like the spirit of this rule. If you are way over extended there should be ramifications and you should not be able expand the problem by trading for a $30M player.
But honestly as written it has always been a little ambiguous to me. What exactly is "player payroll budget"? When exactly does this apply?
I propose we use "Total Money Available" to determine if salary can be added via trade. Total Money Available is Budget + Cash - Projected Expenses. I also propose that salary neutral trades continue to be allowed and that we only prohibit trades that will add salary.
How does this sound? "No salary can be added via trade if Total Money Available is $0 or less."
Of course this does put all of the focus on the current season. Nothing here stops me from adding salary next year regardless of any contract extensions I already have in place. I think I am ok with this though. It is potentially exploitable but the exposure seems fairly minor.
Or.... Maybe someone can help to clarify the original intent as it is written.
Feedback welcome. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Oct 9, 2021 12:48:11 GMT -5
As OOTP allows everyone to access the trade page now, maybe refine the rule to allow only trades able to be processed in the game? I recall the original intent was not to allow trades that would put a team deeper into the red. And generally "Projected Budget Room" determined that. The two most obvious issues: Financial and NTC If the game does not allow it when you try and set up a trade with the other GM, then restructure until it does. Or can't be done. The Commissioner has always had to do this in past/ Now anyone can try and create a trade (only INT players excepted, but neither money or an NTC would factor into that - just leave them out while you try and create the transaction).
|
|
|
Post by oaklandgm on Oct 9, 2021 13:11:34 GMT -5
If we allow trades in game then teams that don’t have the available money the owner would reject the deal? Or am I missing something about the in game trade ?
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Oct 9, 2021 13:24:09 GMT -5
If we allow trades in game then teams that don’t have the available money the owner would reject the deal? Or am I missing something about the in game trade ? That is true. I just do not understand the in game calculation. I cannot define explicitly what the game is basing the decision on. Yes, I agree that one option could be just to remove this rule from the governance completely and let whatever in game calculation that refuses trades govern this. It is not critical that I understand it. We can just let the game do it's thing. I am liking this option. Less is more. The more we can let OOTP do it's thing the better.
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Oct 9, 2021 14:22:14 GMT -5
If we allow trades in game then teams that don’t have the available money the owner would reject the deal? Or am I missing something about the in game trade ? That is true. I just do not understand the in game calculation. I cannot define explicitly what the game is basing the decision on. Yes, I agree that one option could be just to remove this rule from the governance completely and let whatever in game calculation that refuses trades govern this. It is not critical that I understand it. We can just let the game do it's thing. I am liking this option. Less is more. The more we can let OOTP do it's thing the better. Agree 💯
|
|
|
Post by PadresGM on Oct 9, 2021 14:54:16 GMT -5
I agree as well with less is more.
|
|
|
Post by markblakemore on Oct 9, 2021 16:00:25 GMT -5
I'm OK with letting the game determine this one although it will come down to the whims of the individual owner. But in general I'm OK with that.
|
|
|
Post by Will - Cubs on Oct 10, 2021 9:57:14 GMT -5
I am all for this change.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Oct 10, 2021 15:48:24 GMT -5
I'm OK with letting the game determine this one although it will come down to the whims of the individual owner. But in general I'm OK with that. I believe the owner is more concerned about signing free agents and extensions and will nix deals you cannot afford (with a message to that effect). If you visit the trade window, it's all about the Budget Space Available number. And if yours is red, any deal (and you can try a number of them - including cash, including a contract from your side you want to dump, having the other team retain dollars on a player, etc.) MUST decrease that red number (which is basically the spirit of the existing rule).
|
|