|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 21, 2014 21:59:40 GMT -5
Tomorrow I am going to set up the award voting, import all the trades, sim 2 days to get moving forward. Make a decision on a lot of the topics at hand and think about OOTp15.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 21, 2014 22:00:05 GMT -5
Hoping this is the last night of slow movements and we get going with the off-season after a nice few days off to enjoy the holidays, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Apr 22, 2014 10:17:36 GMT -5
I don't think there are big pressing issues. I'd like to see Cash be traded but that doesn't seem likely but other than I think we just push on and talk 15 as the season goes forward. Still bugs and still patches galore needed. What bugs have you found?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 11:30:08 GMT -5
Did I miss something? Can we not agree to cover a portion of a traded player's salary in upcoming years? If that's the case, doesn't that trump any real issue with trading cash?
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Apr 22, 2014 12:06:17 GMT -5
Did I miss something? Can we not agree to cover a portion of a traded player's salary in upcoming years? If that's the case, doesn't that trump any real issue with trading cash? I do not understand your question. How does a GM agree to cover a portion of a traded player's salary in upcoming years if not by trading cash? And how would the cash be spread over multiple years to offset salary? Perhaps I am the only one with these questions, but I just do not see how these possibilities are addressed within the game. A GM may agree to cover a portion of a traded player's salary in upcoming years, but if the expectation is that the cash will offset a portion of the player's salary and, thus, reduce expenses, the GM receiving the cash probably will be disappointed. The cash will be available to sign free agents, but it will not help to reduce team salary and expenses and, thus, fail to increase projected budget room. For additional background, you may wish to read the following thread: Trading and OOTP Financial PagesI think I will proceed with a couple of similar tests within the same solo league, now converted to OOTP15. My suspicion is that the results will be the same as the tests conducted using OOTP14.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Apr 22, 2014 12:07:12 GMT -5
Did I miss something? Can we not agree to cover a portion of a traded player's salary in upcoming years? If that's the case, doesn't that trump any real issue with trading cash? I don't understand how this can work. Players salary reduce the projected budget. Cash does not have an impact on projected budget. Our current trade rules and budget rules conflict with each other. We are allowed to trade cash to cover the salary but we are also required to keep our projected budget in the green which cash does not help. I believe that cash should be a tradable asset. We currently allow it even in future seasons. I think this is fine. The GM receiving the cash needs to understand the impact and be clear that he will still need to make his budget balance on his own. I think the change in the rules needs to be that any player with a negative projected budget can not complete any trade that does not result in a decrease in salary. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Apr 22, 2014 12:34:47 GMT -5
Regardless of what we decide regarding the use of cash, we need to define the penalties - minor, intermediate, major - for non-compliance with our rules. In other words, if the rule regarding projected budget room specifies that each team must be in a positive position during the regular season, what warnings and/or penalties are in place to enforce the rule? Warning: A GM may be provided with a grace period in which he must correct the situation or be subject to a penalty. A grace period could be, for example, four or five PBL weeks, approximately one real-life week. Penalties: Penalties could involve fan interest adjustments, market size adjustments, cash adjustments, etc. Penalties could provide for two or three levels each more severe than the prior one. Once implemented the Commish will have a solid base to use to enforce the rules on a consistent basis. For more information about: a) cash, and b) projected budget room - a dynamic number that changes from week to week - you may wish to read the following thread: Front Office "Cash" Facts
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Apr 22, 2014 15:07:11 GMT -5
If we are not going to turn cash off why don't we just use it?
Only reason I heard why we don't is because some folks don't like having more money in system.
Seems to me if we just decrease the max allowable cash and allow us to use it is a hell of lot easier then not.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Apr 22, 2014 15:27:52 GMT -5
If we are not going to turn cash off why don't we just use it? Only reason I heard why we don't is because some folks don't like having more money in system. Seems to me if we just decrease the max allowable cash and allow us to use it is a hell of lot easier then not. My main argument is simplicity. As far as financials go, projected budget is simple and predictable. Having a rule to keep this number positive is pretty easy to comply with once you understand how it works. That being said there are certainly other options. For instance we could have penalties for a negative final balance. That can be easy to miscalculate if attendance ends up lower than expected. We could throw all financial rules out the window and just spend whatever the game lets us. That could be ugly if a short term owner comes in, signs some long big time contracts and bails. I am sure there are some vets out there that have some other ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Apr 22, 2014 15:39:38 GMT -5
I think in terms of cash, we need to find 2 or 3 popular ideas, have the pros and cons of each debated, and then put up a league poll to decide on what to do with cash so that we have a single concrete rule that everybody can understand and abide by.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 16:26:56 GMT -5
Ok, you guys were scaring me there for a minute. I fought for several seasons to change the trading rules so you could agree to cover portions of a player's salary in future seasons (and thus make it easier to move bad contracts, as in real life). Here is the league rule:
The league has to keep track of these trades and the commish simply alters budgets to reflect these deals in future seasons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 16:42:38 GMT -5
As stated, Commish can alter budgets so cash does not have to be used. However, using Cash for this purpose is a possibility- either commish reduces cash for one team and increases budget for the other, or we simply allow teams to go negative up to the amount of cash on hand which would achieve the same thing.
This is not an endorsement for either option.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 16:44:29 GMT -5
If we are not going to turn cash off why don't we just use it? Only reason I heard why we don't is because some folks don't like having more money in system. Seems to me if we just decrease the max allowable cash and allow us to use it is a hell of lot easier then not. Or we could reduce media contracts to compensate. Again, not an endorsement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 17:07:17 GMT -5
uh oh, we're starting the cash conversation again! My vote would be either: - Keep it as it is, nothing's 'broken' so why change it when we've had issues with too much cash in the game in the past. or... - Allow us to use cash but reduce the max. amount we can take over (from say $10m to $5m) so it has half the impact in terms of lots more money in the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 17:25:45 GMT -5
- Allow us to use cash but reduce the max. amount we can take over (from say $10m to $5m) so it has half the impact in terms of lots more money in the game. The reason I would prefer to reduce the media contract is that the amount of cash that carries over is mostly up to the GM. This means there is strategy (or at least tactics) involved. The more cash involved, the more important the GM decision making.
|
|