|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Dec 5, 2013 13:43:37 GMT -5
doesnt the league have to approve new sale (is that just with the sale of a franchise to a new owner?) for a relocation? i would be interested in the league "owners" having a vote on whether you can move the new york yankees to Albuquerque, New Mexico to make it more realistic, and if that is not the case then disregard this comment
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 14:06:15 GMT -5
I don't really like relocation, but for some teams I can understand it. I hope we keep it at one team per season or something close to that. Keep things a little realistic. Everyone who wants to relocate has to send commish a 'bid', commish selects the best one...something like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 14:08:35 GMT -5
Oh and Atlanta Flames sounds lame!
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Dec 5, 2013 14:26:59 GMT -5
Oh and Atlanta Flames sounds lame! Its better than the Atlanta Thrashers. The Flames are an old hockey team that played 8 years in Atlanta prior to being sold to a group that moved them to Calgary. The Flames name came from an event in the Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Dec 5, 2013 14:36:13 GMT -5
As far as feeder leagues... ANYTHING that helps the draft be interesting again, YES! In my other league, I can't wait for the draft, and I'm digging it into late rounds. In this league, there seems to be so little talent... I generally let the autodraft kick in for round that are pretty early. And I've noticed that others do the same. Draft needs more talent, imo.
Regarding raising the minimum salary to 500k, I am ok in theory... however, without a couple seasons notice, my budget is pretty high, don't I run the risk of being multi-millions in the hole all of a sudden next year? Or are we talking upping the minimum salary for NEW PLAYERS, NOT those currently on on 40?
Tim / KC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 14:38:27 GMT -5
It would be immediate for the minimum salary, but the other salary wouldn't change at all, only player's demands for extensions/FAs
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Dec 5, 2013 14:44:14 GMT -5
Yes, but if you have, say.... 15 people making the league min of 400k on your 40-man roster, and all of those guys get a 100k increase this offseason... hey, no biggee. Seems impactful to me without notice, but I recognize without question that my understanding of league finances and inherent complexities is not so great. If y'all like it and think it is good, I will smile and make it work, without problem. Tim / KC
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Dec 5, 2013 14:53:43 GMT -5
Yes, but if you have, say.... 15 people making the league min of 400k on your 40-man roster, and all of those guys get a 100k increase this offseason... hey, no biggee. Seems impactful to me without notice, but I recognize without question that my understanding of league finances and inherent complexities is not so great. If y'all like it and think it is good, I will smile and make it work, without problem. Tim / KC After this year you currently only have 8 guys making min salary (at quick glance 1 or 2 could but released and not be missed) so youre payroll would really only increase 800k. Granted a few more players will be added for the Rule V protection so youd be looking at 1-1.5 mil in increased payroll due to the Min Salary being raised. Derek - Rob and I mentioned raising all salary settings 25%, one option could be to do it in increments. 5% in 2027, 10% in 2028, and 10% in 2029. It would be more gradual way to increase salaries.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Dec 5, 2013 15:55:21 GMT -5
I posted the following comments in the New Budget Ruling thread. Since no one commented, the post may have been overlooked. Of course, it also is possible that no one supports the ideas. Anyway, since we are discussing other financial related issues such as salaries, I thought I would re-post my comments in this active thread.
Does anyone have any thoughts on these topics?
Financial Limit
I believe the "not to exceed" limit should be the sum of the Projected Budget Room value (aka Projected Balance) and the Cash value.
The sum of these two values is directly used to compute the Money for Free Agents amount. It also is used, in effect, to compute the Money for Extensions amount. In each calculation, cash is a consideration.
During the contract extension process, an owner will not allow a GM to exceed the Money for Extensions amount via an in-game message if the offer exceeds the money available. During the free agent signing process, it appears that an owner sometimes will reject an offer with an in-game message if the offer exceeds the money available. I have been testing the conditions under which the offer is rejected, but I have not yet nailed down the specifics. In the meantime, it is clear that some in-game constraints are built in which prevent contracts that result in a violation of the "not to exceed" limit.
The two values (i.e., Cash and Projected Balance) are on display for each team in the league Financial Report, so this constraint would be easy to monitor. Teams should be required to maintain a combined balance that is positive.
Penalties
I believe the Commissioner, on behalf of league members, should void free agent signings and trades that result in a negative Cash plus Projected Balance amount for the team signing a free agent or either of the teams involved in a trade. That, plus the in-game controls, should resolve most potential issues.
Still, it is possible that a team might go negative when required to sign players on the 40-man roster to major league contracts. One approach might be to require a team with a negative balance to reduce the 40-man roster by trading or waiving one or more players until the Cash plus Projected Balance total is positive.
Other possibilities probably exist. And, on occasion, exception situations probably will occur. In these instances, we should use our best judgement. In any case, however, I do not believe we should allow the negative balance situation to continue for too long.
What is "too long"? I believe it is a time horizon of no more than a couple of in-game months, especially if it occurs when regular season games are being played. Then, if the condition persists, penalties with some teeth, such as a reduction in market share or popularity, should kick in.
Summary
In summary, I believe we should use in-game controls, which include cash and available reports, as much as possible to manage and monitor contracts and team limits. Regarding penalties, I have not developed a firm opinion with the exception that I believe every transaction occurring after a team exceeds the spending limit should reduce team salary and/or other expenses. Regardless of our approach, I do not believe out of compliance situations should be allowed to continue without risk of sanctions.
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Dec 5, 2013 17:37:03 GMT -5
i'm on board with what Giants (Tim) is saying, not on board with the being able to be over budget for a couple of months (in-game) before penalty is warranted
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Dec 5, 2013 18:55:35 GMT -5
doesnt the league have to approve new sale (is that just with the sale of a franchise to a new owner?) for a relocation? i would be interested in the league "owners" having a vote on whether you can move the new york yankees to Albuquerque, New Mexico to make it more realistic, and if that is not the case then disregard this comment +1 on a GM vote for team relocation. Commish would obviously have final say, but I like the idea of voting to feel out league support for something like this.
Awesome ideas so far, and I agree with others that an increase in salaries is a good idea to help ease the massive cash on hand most teams have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 8:15:47 GMT -5
I would be in favor of increasing the minimum salary to 500K. In principle, I agree with a 25% increase in salary demand, but I think it should be phased in over multiple years. Perhaps 15% now and another 10% down the road...
|
|
|
Post by Rich - Former GM on Dec 6, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Oh and Atlanta Flames sounds lame! The Flames name came from an event in the Civil War. Its not an event many Atlantians would want to remember with it signifying the destruction of their city, livelihoods and all... I also like the idea of raising the minimum salary now and all other salary demands incrementantly.
|
|
|
Post by Sean..Mariners GM on Dec 6, 2013 9:04:13 GMT -5
The Flames name came from an event in the Civil War. Its not an event many Atlantians would want to remember with it signifying the destruction of their city, livelihoods and all... LOL!! I love American history and I didn't even make the coloration to the Flames name. Frankly my dear.... I agree with everyone else to Tim's sentiment about the budget.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Dec 6, 2013 9:06:24 GMT -5
Its not an event many Atlantians would want to remember with it signifying the destruction of their city, livelihoods and all... LOL!! I love American history and I didn't even make the coloration to the Flames name. Frankly my dear.... I agree with everyone else to Tim's sentiment about the budget. I never said it was a good moment in American history and I guess maybe thats why no one went to Flames games (no one went to Thrasher games either) so maybe it was just a hockey in Atlanta problem.
|
|