|
Post by Commish_Ron on Sept 20, 2022 13:36:58 GMT -5
A proposal was made to allow the option of using excess cash to buy down contracts.
My initial take. I kind of like this. Watching tens of millions go into the owners pockets (essentially just setting it on fire in a dumpster) has always been a pet peeve of mine. Also, it can be very difficult to spend playoff revenue and that is often just given over to the owner. I would always prefer to see revenue invested back into the club.
I think for this to work the following would have to apply.
1. No option year could be affected. 2. The reduction would have to be spread evenly over all of the non option years. 3. Changes would have to take place in the sim after playoffs complete and before roll over to the off season. 4. The available amount would be based on the Season Profit/Loss line on the Accounting screen for the Projected Current Season Balance. 5. Current season profits would be reduced by increasing Misc. Player Expenses.
Example. A team ends the season with a project profit of $15M. They have a player under contract of 10M/10M/10M/10M(TO)/10M(TO) They could use $12M of that profit to apply to the contract and leave $3M to roll over to the next season as cash. Resulting contract would be 6M/6M/6M/10M(TO)/10M(TO)
Related reminder, max cash is set to $10M. Anything over that in profit (sometimes more) is always lost to the owner.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Sept 20, 2022 14:39:40 GMT -5
As the Yankees GM I love this idea! My concern would be does this put lower revenue teams at a disadvantage?
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Sept 20, 2022 17:37:44 GMT -5
I think it will also help small market teams. If a team is planning out a run then this would allow them to sign a good FA piece or two just before the young players are coming up and buy down their contracts in order to maintain them through the run. I think it will allow for some real creativity.
|
|
|
Post by Brian_Twins on Sept 20, 2022 17:42:40 GMT -5
Initially, I think I'm against this one. It seems a little "the rich get richer"... and doesn't feel very realistic
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Sept 20, 2022 19:12:46 GMT -5
You negotiate an agreed amount to sign a player. You must balance your committed salaries to sign more and better players. And owners are part of the process in PBL. At this time of course.
|
|
|
Post by Jared_Carolina on Sept 20, 2022 19:13:19 GMT -5
I am against. Favors rich teams with way more generous owners.
|
|
|
Post by metsgm6986 on Sept 20, 2022 19:13:19 GMT -5
I like it but is there a limit to % of each contract and # of reduced contracts?
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Sept 20, 2022 19:17:10 GMT -5
I would go no, this seems very odd
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Sept 21, 2022 11:11:50 GMT -5
Apologies I did not do more research up front on this. I did not realize until just now how hugely impactful this could be.
Currently there are 11 teams that would be able to leverage over $20M this season. Two teams are over $60M!
Those numbers are way too high. I shudder to consider the impact of $400M salary wiped off the books. To implement something along these lines we would have to nerf the possibilities substantially. At some point it begins to violate the keep it simple principle if there is too many or too complicated calculations.
Maybe we could salvage it by setting an arbitrary cap number. Like $10M as a starting point?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Sept 22, 2022 11:09:15 GMT -5
I am going to keep this conversation going and possibly get something more concrete ready to vote on next off season, but for now I don't think we have a well thought out proposal to vote on, so no pole on this one.
|
|
|
Post by markblakemore on Sept 24, 2022 15:12:43 GMT -5
This feels unrealistic to me so not a fan. I also feel it would benefit the richer teams far more and create further competitive advantage for them.
|
|