|
Post by Incognito on Sept 1, 2016 17:38:23 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 I would like to get rid of the 'No Minimum' part. If the minimum is $600,000, then just say 1 year, $600,000. Maybe I'll start with bids of 1 year $.99 since there is no minimum. Seeing bids of '1 year Min' are really annoying. I'll start bidding 1 year Min + $1. Any bid with Min or anything other than an amount as the amount should be void.
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Sept 1, 2016 17:55:32 GMT -5
I would like to get rid of the 'No Minimum' part. If the minimum is $600,000, then just say 1 year, $600,000. Maybe I'll start with bids of 1 year $.99 since there is no minimum. Seeing bids of '1 year Min' are really annoying. I'll start bidding 1 year Min + $1. Any bid with Min or anything other than an amount as the amount should be void. Then that would refer to the "Don't be a jackass" as Vert put it for the FA bidding guidelines. There is no true minimum because bidding could start out as a Draft Day contract, which is guaranteeing the player nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Sept 1, 2016 18:21:53 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. Except when the 2027 payroll is cheaper than 2014, and you think that is not far off from reality? By 2027 the payrolls should be way more than the 2014 values.
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Sept 1, 2016 19:06:02 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. Except when the 2027 payroll is cheaper than 2014, and you think that is not far off from reality? By 2027 the payrolls should be way more than the 2014 values. We don't have inflation, so no. The MLB 2014 median is more in line for GBA since we don't have crazy outliners like going from the Dodgers to the Marlins. We aren't that far off from that $109.6M and possibly have a higher comparative league payroll when you consider our League Revenue is -10%. Also, Salary Caps is a scrapped issue.
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Sept 2, 2016 9:01:21 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. Except when the 2027 payroll is cheaper than 2014, and you think that is not far off from reality? By 2027 the payrolls should be way more than the 2014 values.IF you had inflation on. I don't see that making a difference, just inflating everything. Then the minimum bids would have to be readjusted every few years. More work for no actual payoff.
|
|