|
|
Post by mattynokes on Aug 10, 2016 13:32:04 GMT -5
The bid minimums here have always seemed odd. Over at FCM, we have bid minimums that are closer to realism. It's not realistic that you can sign a player to a long-term deal for very cheap. Players will opt for a short-term deal in order to prove their worth. If, you want them to a longer deal, then pay up like they'd have to be in the real MLB.
Minimum Bids Per Years Offered
1yr. - No Minimum
2yrs - 1.0M
3yrs - 5.0M
4yrs - 7.5M
5yrs - 10.0M
6yrs - 12.5M
7yrs - 15.0M
"League Minimum" bids will be $600K so that all non-draft day/minor league deals will be guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Aug 10, 2016 14:28:30 GMT -5
Not a terrible idea. Lets see what everyone else thinks. I am ok either way :-)
|
|
leb
General Managers 
Posts: 1 
|
Post by leb on Aug 10, 2016 16:26:27 GMT -5
I like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by midmissourians on Aug 10, 2016 17:55:46 GMT -5
I'm in favor.
|
|
s6x
Draft Wrangler 
Posts: 72 
|
Post by s6x on Aug 14, 2016 7:17:33 GMT -5
yea i mean we're more than a decade in, it's about time to inflate some numbers =P
|
|
alex
General Managers
Posts: 21
|
Post by alex on Aug 16, 2016 2:26:31 GMT -5
yea i mean we're more than a decade in, it's about time to inflate some numbers =P But inflation hasn't changed the salary cap.It hasn't gone up from the starting $100m, it's actually gone down a bit. Raising the minimums from what they are now is OK if its a small change but 3 yrs-1.5m to 3 yrs-5m is a big jump. If a big player is on the market you know he is going higher than the current minimums. I'm not so sure about raising it this high. |
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Aug 16, 2016 18:09:16 GMT -5
But inflation hasn't changed the salary cap.It hasn't gone up from the starting $100m, it's actually gone down a bit. Raising the minimums from what they are now is OK if its a small change but 3 yrs-1.5m to 3 yrs-5m is a big jump. If a big player is on the market you know he is going higher than the current minimums. I'm not so sure about raising it this high. Hmmmmm, Anyone else feel the same? |
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Aug 17, 2016 10:25:04 GMT -5
yea i mean we're more than a decade in, it's about time to inflate some numbers =P But inflation hasn't changed the salary cap.It hasn't gone up from the starting $100m, it's actually gone down a bit. Raising the minimums from what they are now is OK if its a small change but 3 yrs-1.5m to 3 yrs-5m is a big jump. If a big player is on the market you know he is going higher than the current minimums. I'm not so sure about raising it this high. The problem is the current minimums are far from realistic. MLB players aren't signing for 1.5M for 3 years or 3M for 4 years. Not even close. Backups/Holdover Starters/Whatever they are to you, do not sign dirt cheap for many years. If you want someone cheap, 2 years is plenty reasonable enough. |
|
s6x
Draft Wrangler
Posts: 72
|
Post by s6x on Aug 17, 2016 12:03:36 GMT -5
But inflation hasn't changed the salary cap.It hasn't gone up from the starting $100m, it's actually gone down a bit. Raising the minimums from what they are now is OK if its a small change but 3 yrs-1.5m to 3 yrs-5m is a big jump. If a big player is on the market you know he is going higher than the current minimums. I'm not so sure about raising it this high. that's a good point, 1.5 --> 5.0 is a large jump... also, the higher the salaries, the more players will ask for in Arbitration. i forgot about that consequence... The problem is the current minimums are far from realistic. MLB players aren't signing for 1.5M for 3 years or 3M for 4 years. Not even close. Backups/Holdover Starters/Whatever they are to you, do not sign dirt cheap for many years. If you want someone cheap, 2 years is plenty reasonable enough. our league isn't exactly "realistic" ... i always hate that argument - i think it's one of the worst in Mogul. "realistically," cities aren't equalized and teams have revenues and budgets wayyyyyyy higher than we do... so i'm not really buying into that argument. our economic model is our own and we shouldn't let "real-life" MLB dictate what makes sense for our league's economy.... |
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Aug 17, 2016 17:25:33 GMT -5
We COULD increase the league revenue up from -10 to say +10 or something. But then you are raising 1 thing, because you are raisng another. Kind of changing things just for the sake or raising things.
I think you guys have a point about 1.5-5 is a big jump. how about something like
1yr. - No Minimum
2yrs - 1.0M
3yrs - 3.5M
4yrs - 6.0M
5yrs - 9.0M
6yrs - 12.5M
7yrs - 15.0M
As s6x said, it will increase arbitration requests also, meaning it actually exacerbates the problem.
Lets say we go up 10% on revenue and up 10% (just for even numbers) then we didn't actually DO anything... just inflated all the numbers. If a car costs 10K and you make 30K a year, or the same car costs 15K and you make 45K a year, its the same amount relatively just in larger numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Aug 17, 2016 17:53:09 GMT -5
Realism is a valid reason. Cities are equalized to make things fair across the board. The average MLB Payroll in 2014 was about $121.6M (median being about $109.6M). Our non-inflation league average payroll heading in to 2027 is at $102.9M, so it's not far off from reality.
The bigger cause of spikes in asking prices would be the high ($20M+) salaries players get in FA as well as the number if teams that have cash piles (a few having rather large cash piles). A player going from $1.5M for 3 to $5M for 3 isn't increasing the asking prices as much as teams sitting with over $100M cash when the more than half of our teams have less than half of that.
Salary caps and lowering the hard cash cap would do more for lowering asking prices than keeping minimums closer to what we currently have.
|
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Aug 17, 2016 18:48:26 GMT -5
I wish three was a way to make the cash in the league not matter much in player demands. This is where the game is so far off from real life. Just because you made money this year doesn't mean the money is going to the team the next year. Each year is a totally separate set of books.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Aug 18, 2016 14:41:08 GMT -5
In my experiences, raising anything in Mogul's settings even 10% has a greater effect than just a straight calculation of an extra 10%. So going from -10% to +10% will likely have a much greater impact that a perceived 20% more revenue.
The only hesitance from upping the bid minimums to where I'd like them stems from the potential increasing in asking prices. There's a solution to that. A number of the in fact. Any or all of them together will greatly reduce asking prices going forward.
1. Lower the "Hard Cash Limit" in League Editor:
This puts a cap on how much cash you can have. Ultimately, I think $100M is fine for this league. However, making a sudden limit isn't fair to those with cash piles since they accumulated them under fair circumstances, so a tapering until we get to $100M would be a good plan. $150M AFTER 2028, $125M AFTER 2029, and then $100M AFTER 2030 and going forward.
2. Team Banks:
This would be done on the forum. $50M max would be the limit while you must have $50M in-game in order to use the bank. Why these numbers? You don't want to let the amount for the Forum Bank to get too high or else it's taking advantage of the in-game Cash Limit to have that much money at your disposal. The minimum amount needed in order to pull cash from the game to the Forum Bank is so that you can't take advantage of re-signing a player really cheap when you actually have a lot more cash than the game thinks.
3. FA Salary Caps:
$25M is the top out offer for Free Agency salaries. If you re-sign a player in-game, then there is no cap. You'll have to pay him whatever you can get him to re-sign for.
Additionally, a one-time payoff of Salaries above $25M would be allowed. EXAMPLE - Elmira wants to pay SP John Whittemore down to $25M, so they would get $7.5M removed from their cash since he's owed $2.5M above the cap for 3 more years. Alaska could have $73.65M removed to get SP Ricardo Sanchez down to $25M salary.
|
|
s6x
Draft Wrangler
Posts: 72
|
Post by s6x on Aug 19, 2016 0:41:16 GMT -5
so if there is a FA salary cap of $25M
what's to stop the first team from bidding 5y @ $25.00M for the best FA that year? nobody else could bid on the player, since the salary max of $25M was already reached...
|
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Aug 19, 2016 10:44:53 GMT -5
so if there is a FA salary cap of $25M what's to stop the first team from bidding 5y @ $25.00M for the best FA that year? nobody else could bid on the player, since the salary max of $25M was already reached... Then they could offer a 6th or 7th year. We could also implement an option for signing bonuses if they 25M cap is reached, where cash is taken right out of the game when the player is signed. |
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Aug 19, 2016 17:13:57 GMT -5
NO to F/A caps. ABSOLUTELY NOT. No way, No how... I am out if that's the option. I would rathe rsee some type of franchise/legacy player (old BMO reference there) Again, it't a democracy so if that's what the majority wants, then do it, but I want NO part in it.
I like the team bank idea tbh. those of you that played the old BMO know about the team banks and they worked great. I would say 50M in game, and a 100M bank. Seoul is the only one who would be above it and I am willing to leave them alone for the moment and let them go to 150M because they are walking into a 160MM payroll. But 150MM in the bank and once it goes down below 100M they are capped there. Alex, you are the only other one above 100M and you are fine :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Aug 19, 2016 18:21:58 GMT -5
NO to F/A caps. ABSOLUTELY NOT. No way, No how... I am out if that's the option. I would rathe rsee some type of franchise/legacy player (old BMO reference there) Again, it't a democracy so if that's what the majority wants, then do it, but I want NO part in it. I like the team bank idea tbh. those of you that played the old BMO know about the team banks and they worked great. I would say 50M in game, and a 100M bank. Seoul is the only one who would be above it and I am willing to leave them alone for the moment and let them go to 150M because they are walking into a 160MM payroll. But 150MM in the bank and once it goes down below 100M they are capped there. Alex, you are the only other one above 100M and you are fine :-) No caps is fine, but since the asking prices is the big issue, then Team Banks and lowering the Cash Limit in-game is a must. Though being able to keep less cash in-game than in your bank is way to hide how much money you really have. Seoul's cash will take huge hits in the coming years, so there's isn't much of an issue. I'm pretty much on the same level about the Minimum Bids Per Year as you are with Salary Caps. I feel strongly enough that they are the right decision and if people are concerned about the asking prices, then limiting how much cash can be in the game tackles that issue more efficiently. So we have... 1. Minimum Bids Per Years Offered 1yr. - No Minimum 2yrs - 1.0M 3yrs - 5.0M 4yrs - 7.5M 5yrs - 10.0M 6yrs - 12.5M 7yrs - 15.0M "League Minimum" bids will be $600K so that all non-draft day/minor league deals will be guaranteed.2. Lower the "Hard Cash Limit" in League Editor: $150M AFTER 2028, $125M AFTER 2029, and then $100M AFTER 2030 and going forward. 3. Team Banks: $50M max limit for Forum Bank and teams must keep at least $50M in-game in order to have money in the Forum Bank |
|
alex
General Managers
Posts: 21
|
Post by alex on Aug 20, 2016 3:00:09 GMT -5
I happen to love this league for its rules. I vote for keeping the same. If not, then a small jump is OK. Totally against 3x5m and the other changes. That is just me though. Democracy rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Aug 20, 2016 6:48:06 GMT -5
I am OK with raising them tho I lean towards alex's approach.
How about a compromise of going up 1 3 6?
|
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Aug 20, 2016 7:23:11 GMT -5
What the hell, this seems fine enough.
1yr. - No Minimum
2yrs - 1.0M
3yrs - 3.0M
4yrs - 6.0M
5yrs - 9.0M
6yrs - 12.0M
7yrs - 15.0M
|
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Aug 20, 2016 11:23:24 GMT -5
What the hell, this seems fine enough. 1yr. - No Minimum 2yrs - 1.0M 3yrs - 3.0M 4yrs - 6.0M 5yrs - 9.0M 6yrs - 12.0M 7yrs - 15.0M I like it :-) |
|
s6x
Draft Wrangler
Posts: 72
|
Post by s6x on Aug 20, 2016 16:44:08 GMT -5
holy schnikeys, a compromise!
|
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Aug 21, 2016 9:51:18 GMT -5
I'm always good with compromise. Just like I was with the FA Compensation idea.  |
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Aug 22, 2016 8:40:41 GMT -5
holy schnikeys, a compromise! The joy of Democracy lol |
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Sept 1, 2016 17:28:08 GMT -5
I don't really care about cheap contracts for long term deals. Face it, some players will never make over $1,000,000 a season in the league. They are forever benchies. So what if someone bids $1,000,000 for 6 or 7 years on a player? Is that really any worse than getting them for $600,000 or $700,000 ever year for 6 or 7 years? If someone doesn't go $1,100,000, then he really isn't wanted anyways. The only difference is they get paid a little more, and whoever inputs the FAs every year doesn't have to sign 'that guy' every year, and the team that does sign him, won't have to waste time signing them every year. They could also waste a spot on the team if a better option comes along. Then they have to either stash him, trade him, or eat into the cash and cut him. There's very few FAs signed over 3 years anyways. I think the only thing you are going to do is end up making a lot of players sign for 1 and 2 year deals every year making you guys take longer inputting FA every year. But if you guys want the extra work, go for it.
|
|
