|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jun 5, 2019 18:05:11 GMT -5
Should the following rule be added to the league governance?
When releasing a player a GM has the option to take a screen shot of the dollar amount and length of the salary spread before confirming the release and submitting that screen shot to the commissioner. Provided that the teams Projected Budget Room and Cash balances both exceed the total amount of the salary spread the commissioner will reduce the miscellaneous expenses in future years by the amount accrued by the release and reduce cash by the total amount displayed in the screen shot.
This is a change so 75% Yes is required to pass. Proxy votes will be cast as Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Rich - Former GM on Jun 6, 2019 13:36:37 GMT -5
Since this is a close vote, I need some convincing on which way to vote. First, let me say that I am on the side of allowing a team to release a player and utilizing their current budget space/cash to pay it all out in the current year rather then spreading it out over the life of the contract as the game does now. I was disappointed when I came back to the league and saw that this is how the game handles it. However, my hesitation with the above proposal is the manual part of the adjustment being the notification by the GM and the adjustment by the commissioner. Now, don't get me wrong, I appreciate the effort that will be put into this by Ron to get this right and I have no doubt it will be executed without a flaw. It shows how dedicated he is to this league by putting in extra effort to get it working the way the majority of the league desires. Additionally, should it be implemented this way a GM would have a choice in how they want to pay out that contract: amortize it by letting the game handle it or pay it out now by telling Ron. I like this, it's a compromise and leaves it to each GM's short term and/or long term strategy. But, I would probably support this proposal more if it were a choice in the game itself. By adding the extra step of notifying Ron outside the game are we setting up a GM to miss the opportunity of paying now, whether its because they don't know about it or forgot? What about new GMs? They go about the game as it allows them and miss this rule in our league governance because there's a lot to read in there. I don't know. Are we setting up active, involved GMs with a way they can manage their finances better that then can be interpreted as an advantage, thereby leading to even less involvement and more turnover in GMs? I really don't know which is better and maybe I am overthinking it. If the game gave us both options, I would be 100% in favor of giving a GM the choice of how he wants to handle a release. But, since this is a manual adjustment outside the game with many more variables, I'm probably only 70% in favor (which isn't enough for a change vote
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Jun 6, 2019 14:30:46 GMT -5
But, I would probably support this proposal more if it were a choice in the game itself. By adding the extra step of notifying Ron outside the game are we setting up a GM to miss the opportunity of paying now, whether its because they don't know about it or forgot? What about new GMs? They go about the game as it allows them and miss this rule in our league governance because there's a lot to read in there. I don't know. Are we setting up active, involved GMs with a way they can manage their finances better that then can be interpreted as an advantage, thereby leading to even less involvement and more turnover in GMs? I can see your point. It is a little frustrating that the game wouldn't prompt you with the option for immediate or long term contract payment. But I have two thoughts on this change's effects for inexperienced GMS. The first being, we do a lot of things outside the scope of the game's code that benefit the experienced over the inexperienced. Trades are a perfect example. Those who aren't involved have their teams suffer and those who are inexperienced become experienced by participation (sometimes after learning things the hard way). In the end, the players who are interested and want to learn tend to do so, and mainly we weed out those who are easily frustrated and often not very dedicated to learning the game. All I can suggest in this case is that we try to make the rule as clear as possible to new GMs. This could possibly be done placing a new thread on the forum where people can post the contracts they'd like dealt with immediately. This was the way we handled the game having a problem with dropping Rule V guys as I recall, and I think it could keep most people informed about their options. And my second thought is that unlike some other newbie decisions (like trades, for example) these could theoretically be changed retroactively. If a new guy drops a player without realizing that he had the budget to pay off the contract, there is no reason why he couldn't email the commish and have it taken care of at a later time. As long as he has the money to pay for it, there's no real time limit. If he spends that money in the interim, it would suck. But again, that's where making the option as visible as possible on the forum comes into play.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Jun 6, 2019 15:23:55 GMT -5
I think I'm going to vote no at this point. I don't think it is an important enough impact to warrant setting up a manual process outside of the game engine.
Tim / KC
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jun 7, 2019 6:55:00 GMT -5
And my second thought is that unlike some other newbie decisions (like trades, for example) these could theoretically be changed retroactively. If a new guy drops a player without realizing that he had the budget to pay off the contract, there is no reason why he couldn't email the commish and have it taken care of at a later time. As long as he has the money to pay for it, there's no real time limit. If he spends that money in the interim, it would suck. But again, that's where making the option as visible as possible on the forum comes into play. Disagree. If the option (lump/spread) were part of the game (and should be as it is in a solo game) then the decision is made as you release the contract. The rule is written that way (or should be clarified) so that the decision happens at release based on your financial situation at the time, not able to be changed days, weeks, months, years in the future as your finances allow.
|
|
|
Post by Rich - Former GM on Jun 7, 2019 8:23:26 GMT -5
I could see an acceptable retroactive change being limited to the current financial year.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jun 7, 2019 8:25:19 GMT -5
As always I am happy to go with however the league votes. I really do like this rule though. If you did not see the previous thread where this was discussed, understand that this functionality is a part of the game. It is disabled for online leagues not because of any problems with the financial engine, but only because there is some difficulty in including the decision made in the export. In this case I am not concerned with any fallout from the manual edits. If it passes I will go one extra step and set up a solo league, replicate the scenario and look at the finances to verify my adjustments exactly match what the game would do.
To the point of advantages to people that have been around or take the time to read the rules.... <shrug>. Our governance is pretty light actually. And it is always available for quick reference via a link in Stats+ and a slackbot response in Slack.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jun 7, 2019 8:30:47 GMT -5
I could see an acceptable retroactive change being limited to the current financial year. Or just wait until you have the financial capability to do a lump sum.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jun 7, 2019 8:46:18 GMT -5
I could see an acceptable retroactive change being limited to the current financial year. Interesting idea. But honestly what I am really trying to accomplish here is to give us the same functionality that solo leagues have.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Jun 7, 2019 10:22:40 GMT -5
KC has changed vote to YES on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jun 7, 2019 12:19:12 GMT -5
Vote yes y'all, this is a good change that can benefit every club, rich or budget-strapped.
|
|
|
Post by Rich - Former GM on Jun 7, 2019 13:24:16 GMT -5
Sounds like you've gone full fledged Texan. I now picture you as an American flag vest wearing cowboy whippin up them votes at a rodeo.
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Jun 7, 2019 17:49:26 GMT -5
Sounds like you've gone full fledged Texan. I now picture you as an American flag vest wearing cowboy whippin up them votes at a rodeo. We’ll proudly accept and approve his Texan application. 😋
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jun 12, 2019 19:56:20 GMT -5
This poll passed. I will update add the rule tonight.
|
|