|
|
Post by mattynokes on Sept 1, 2016 15:20:53 GMT -5
We should lower the Soft and Hard Cash Limits after the playoffs starting this season (2027) and continuing to gradually reduce them over the next few seasons.
Why would this be done?
A: Player asking prices are effected by not just what the Player Demand settings are, but also how much cash is in the game (as well as what other players contracts are). This isn't just how much cash YOU have, but how much cash there is league-wide.
What does the cash limit do?
A: The hard cash limit prevents any more cash that what that limit is from being collected. Basically if you don't use it, you lose it.
EXAMPLE - This is not to condemn those who have done it. This is to show how it effects the file.
Seoul (erick) started the year with over $224M cash. Alaska (incognito) started the year with about $800K. By hording cash, erick has been able to cause a spike in asking prices for others in the league (notably incognito) while erick has been in a rebuild for nearly a decade, where asking prices aren't usually a bother since the blueprint is to generally trade away players before signing them to a big contract.
Now, incognito has been competing and even seeing big losses financially the past few seasons. However, because of erick's cash hording, incognito has had to spend more to re-sign players. Basically you have one person doing things the right way and then another person taking advantage of the system and the person doing things the right way gets screwed.
Again, I'm not condemning erick (and he's not the only one to do this), this was perfectly a-okay in the past. However, this needs shutdown going forward.
Cash Limit Schedule
Post-2027: $175M
Post-2028: $150M
Post-2029: $125M
Post-2030: $100M
Post-2031: $75M (Last and Final drop)
This gives people who have already planned on using their cash piles plenty of time to either deal it away for other assets or use it to splurge on a high payroll. Whichever was their intended plan.
If desired, as an extra thing with this, we can do Team Banks so that teams planning on gearing up for a large payroll can have a little extra cash to work with and not screw out others while a massive in-game cash pile.
Team Banks:
Teams can remove money from the file and place it in their forum Team Bank.
1. Teams must keep at least $50M in-game in order to maintain a Bank.
2. Each Team Bank can have a maximum of $25M.
3. Bank deposits much be made in whole $Million amounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Sept 1, 2016 17:04:33 GMT -5
Since I was mentioned, I'll comment. I'm against it. If what you say is true, and the player with lots of cash starts to contend, then they will end up hurting their own team and get the same treatment. Those arby prices will go up and they will have to eat into the cash, which then lowers it and helps the rest of the league as you say. There is currently an MLB average of $53,000,000 of cash for each team for a total of $954,000,000. Does it really make a difference if 3 teams have $447,500,000 or 46.9% of it? If you took $300,000,000 away from those teams and put it on 6 other teams (not in debt) you get the same numbers, it's just not in the majority of 3 teams. By the way, the $53,000,000 average is as of right now. There are currently 11 of the 18 teams expected to lose cash this year (including 2 of the 3 top cash teams), which in turn lowers the overall league cash amount from the current $954,000,000 total. It should be closer to $864,000,000 or so by season's end.
Also not a fan of the team bank. The cash amount is the bank. I don't like taking it out of the game. The team's cash should hurt them more than the other teams. Besides, $25,000,000 cap in the bank is not much. 5 teams can put that in right now that have over $75,000,000 cash and never be able to use it again, although only 1 of them is making money this season so a couple of them probably wouldn't. Kinda pointless. Let the teams that earn it spend it in the game.
Also, in New Age Mogul, we are in the 2034 season (not far off from here), and several teams are having problems with revenue. I wouldn't want to put a cap on how much teams can earn here, and then end up having problems down the road where we need to raise revenue after putting the handcuffs on teams for what they can earn. I also don't like the "Be sucessfull, but not too sucessfull or you get penalized" part. If you ask any fan, they will likely tell you that winning championships is the ultimate goal of the team. If you ask the owners, they'll say it's about how much money they made first, followed by how many wins the team got, or titles.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Sept 1, 2016 17:23:15 GMT -5
Since I was mentioned, I'll comment. I'm against it. If what you say is true, and the player with lots of cash starts to contend, then they will end up hurting their own team and get the same treatment. Those arby prices will go up and they will have to eat into the cash, which then lowers it and helps the rest of the league as you say. There is currently an MLB average of $53,000,000 of cash for each team for a total of $954,000,000. Does it really make a difference if 3 teams have $447,500,000 or 46.9% of it? If you took $300,000,000 away from those teams and put it on 6 other teams (not in debt) you get the same numbers, it's just not in the majority of 3 teams. By the way, the $53,000,000 average is as of right now. There are currently 11 of the 18 teams expected to lose cash this year (including 2 of the 3 top cash teams), which in turn lowers the overall league cash amount from the current $954,000,000 total. It should be closer to $864,000,000 or so by season's end. Also not a fan of the team bank. The cash amount is the bank. I don't like taking it out of the game. The team's cash should hurt them more than the other teams. Besides, $25,000,000 cap in the bank is not much. 5 teams can put that in right now that have over $75,000,000 cash and never be able to use it again, although only 1 of them is making money this season so a couple of them probably wouldn't. Kinda pointless. Let the teams that earn it spend it in the game. Yes, the few teams with large cash piles does make a difference. There is a great, slimy rebuilding tactic that can be used because of this. A team can go into a full rebuild mode and have a minimal payroll (I'll say $1M per MLB player) for 5 years. So, maybe $27.5M total considering minor league salaries. This will generate about $60-70M profit for this team each year, averaging out to be around $325M total. So while doing this the rise in asking prices doesn't hurt them one bit since they're going to just sign FAs for small deals. Though everyone else competing feels the effects of having to pay more because of their cashing hording. Now armed with $325M in cash, they can offer ridiculous amounts of money for picks and prospects to the teams hurting financially before having to pay many of their players they acquired for the rebuild. |
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Sept 1, 2016 18:31:16 GMT -5
Since I was mentioned, I'll comment. I'm against it. If what you say is true, and the player with lots of cash starts to contend, then they will end up hurting their own team and get the same treatment. Those arby prices will go up and they will have to eat into the cash, which then lowers it and helps the rest of the league as you say. There is currently an MLB average of $53,000,000 of cash for each team for a total of $954,000,000. Does it really make a difference if 3 teams have $447,500,000 or 46.9% of it? If you took $300,000,000 away from those teams and put it on 6 other teams (not in debt) you get the same numbers, it's just not in the majority of 3 teams. By the way, the $53,000,000 average is as of right now. There are currently 11 of the 18 teams expected to lose cash this year (including 2 of the 3 top cash teams), which in turn lowers the overall league cash amount from the current $954,000,000 total. It should be closer to $864,000,000 or so by season's end. Also not a fan of the team bank. The cash amount is the bank. I don't like taking it out of the game. The team's cash should hurt them more than the other teams. Besides, $25,000,000 cap in the bank is not much. 5 teams can put that in right now that have over $75,000,000 cash and never be able to use it again, although only 1 of them is making money this season so a couple of them probably wouldn't. Kinda pointless. Let the teams that earn it spend it in the game. Yes, the few teams with large cash piles does make a difference. There is a great, slimy rebuilding tactic that can be used because of this. A team can go into a full rebuild mode and have a minimal payroll (I'll say $1M per MLB player) for 5 years. So, maybe $27.5M total considering minor league salaries. This will generate about $60-70M profit for this team each year, averaging out to be around $325M total. So while doing this the rise in asking prices doesn't hurt them one bit since they're going to just sign FAs for small deals. Though everyone else competing feels the effects of having to pay more because of their cashing hording. Now armed with $325M in cash, they can offer ridiculous amounts of money for picks and prospects to the teams hurting financially before having to pay many of their players they acquired for the rebuild. That could happen, or they could use the cash every year and buy the draft picks. Maybe they don't like a draft or whatever. However they will also lose fan lotalty and support if they don't win. It takes a while to build that back up, especially if they sucked for several years. I have had a good team for a few years and my fan loyalty is only 83. I had a lot of poor seasons. Cal is at 95 fan loyalty. Longer success and more championships. Australia, with all the success they had are at 81 fan loyalty. So tanking will hurt, and take a long time to get back up. |
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Sept 1, 2016 19:35:46 GMT -5
That could happen, or they could use the cash every year and buy the draft picks. Maybe they don't like a draft or whatever. However they will also lose fan lotalty and support if they don't win. It takes a while to build that back up, especially if they sucked for several years. I have had a good team for a few years and my fan loyalty is only 83. I had a lot of poor seasons. Cal is at 95 fan loyalty. Longer success and more championships. Australia, with all the success they had are at 81 fan loyalty. So tanking will hurt, and take a long time to get back up. The differences in Payroll Budgets are very slight with equalized cities. At the start of the 2027 season... Lowest Fan Loyalty: Leipzig (63) w/ 86.0M Budget Highest Fan Loyalty: California (95) w/ 101.0M Budget Middle Ground Loyalty: Reykjavik and Shreveport (78 and 80) w/ 91.0M Budget And the lowest overall Budget being Seoul, was only roughly 10M under league average. |
|
s6x
Draft Wrangler 
Posts: 72 
|
Post by s6x on Sept 1, 2016 21:24:35 GMT -5
um, i don't like the fact that you have to maintain $50M cash in game (with a max limit of $75M in-game), in order to utilize the bank. the floor should be like, $10M or $5M
|
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Sept 2, 2016 8:26:41 GMT -5
I see both sides of the argument, and agree with both lol.
I think a bank is a good idea but 25-50M is silly and pointless. Make it 100M. 50M is more a cap s6x. I think you keep whatever you want in game UP to 20M over your Payroll.
If you want to sign a guy to a giant contract like the 49M that is floating around, than that's fine. So you build up 150M cash after tanking (much like they do in a way in MLB but more with prospects since cash doesn't carry over) and then you splurge and blow up your payroll. Who cares? Aside from larger contracts overall, it helps keep guys going into f/a which helps keep the league active. I understand it sucks to lose a player because you cant afford him but it happens every year in the majors too, that's why you trade them for prospects or other pieces you need.
I think the Bank should have a cap of 100-150M and in game cap should be 50M. If you want to go below that, that is fine but cash will NOT be added in season so plan accordingly(maybe we can work something out for the trade deadline also) but it will NOT be added before resigning's. If you go into the negative, and cant do your resigning's that is on you. I am thinking 2x a year.
Cash can be removed (for those over 50M) maybe before the WS and will be added to AFTER resigning's, in that 1st f/a file. Then the ST sim we can add, and the trade deadline we can add. This keeps it simple and keeps cash (and asking prices) low during signings periods.
I think that is a good middle ground. I personally, always thought the Bank idea was a good one, but 25M is not worth taking the time to do. If you are going to do a bank, let teams actually use it. This would eliminate a ton of cash in the league, and lower the overall asking prices somewhat. I have said before, I do NOT want to see us try and artificially deflate f/a asking prices because I see that as a fast death to the league. Next thing you know, it just becomes a "who bids a max contract 1st" and then you start having to do a LOT more work figuring out how to make THAT fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by midmissourians on Sept 8, 2016 12:47:26 GMT -5
I know we've talked, but I don't like rules if they are not truly needed. Again this remains a situation in which we are just trying to limit what players are asking for financially.
I'm a firm believer in the free agent market. If you don't want to pay what they are asking, release them and sign them cheaper in free agency.
That is always my opinion, don't try to manipulate the system to get better prices.
I hate team banks.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Sept 8, 2016 14:03:37 GMT -5
Something is truly needed to be done.
1. The far discrepancies in some teams running a tight ship each year, spending the money that have and other teams hording in the cash - which causes those tight ship teams to pay players even more is not fair.
2. Another big problem is how the league contradicts it's own mantra - to require teams to pay up when re-signing players.
The cash issues are what the suggestion will mostly tackle, but it'll also help with the player demands issue. It doesn't make sense for players to ask for erroneously high demands and then get only a small fraction of that on the market. An example I used in the past (not sure if in another thread here or on the old site):
2B Cal Martin (now on Medford)
- I would have liked to have offered him Arbitration for the 2025 season, but I wanted him at around $4M, but couldn't get him any lower than $7M. I would've then likely been happy to pay him $5-7M the next 2 seasons of Arbitration if his production was still up to par.
- As a result, he went to FA and signed for just $3M per for 3 Years.
- He'll now make $9M over 3 years when he could've gotten that in 2 years and possibly up to $16M had his Arbitration prices been better.
If things like this were to happen in real life at the rate they do in GBA, agents would be fired for far out-pricing their client's worth. So, while it's wanting to see players re-sign for a little less, it's also wanting player salaries to logically meet in the middle ground instead of usually signing for considerably cheaper on the FA market.
|
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Sept 9, 2016 15:22:05 GMT -5
I lean more with Matty on this one. The easiest fix, without having to tinker with anything is banks. it is a simple solution that changes NOTHING in the game except the silly cash mechanic that should be an option. Something DOES need to be done I agree. Changing f/a is going to do nothing as far as stopping teams from tanking. But it will help the teams that are trying to build a team and are say .500 and getting better but need to keep a couple pieces and those pieces are asking, like Matty said, WAY more than their value.
|
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Sept 9, 2016 23:23:51 GMT -5
Adding banks doesn't fix it. Sure, you can get some cash out quickly, but once teams have their bank account filled, then you are back at the same spot. Then what? Raise the limits again and again? It solves nothing. Your issue is what mogul is asking for, and a lot of times, it's too much. Yes, some players sign for cheaper in FA. That's part of the game. Some players decline the qualifying offer, then accept less when they find out their value isn't as in demand as they thought. Then they try again the next year. Think Kendrys Morales and that SS that sat out till June in 2014. Tim Lincecum? Players settle for less as well, but may not sit out that long. Also, teams shouldn't have to pay players lots of money just to avoid earning money. Rebuilding teams won't want to pay lots to players they really don't want when they know they will lose. What do you want to do make a minimum payroll? For us, we want to win. However, the point of owning a team is to make money. Some small market teams to several years rebuilding before they finally try to win. Then they make a lot of money. I just don't agree with team banks.
Offer signing bonuses if you want when players sign for at least 3 years and over $10 mil a year, but no banks.
|
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Sept 10, 2016 12:18:23 GMT -5
No... once you hit the limit in the bank (I am thinking 100M) than you lose everythign over whatever the hard cap is. Say 50M.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Sept 10, 2016 13:39:00 GMT -5
Adding banks doesn't fix it. Sure, you can get some cash out quickly, but once teams have their bank account filled, then you are back at the same spot. Then what? Raise the limits again and again? It solves nothing. Your issue is what mogul is asking for, and a lot of times, it's too much. Yes, some players sign for cheaper in FA. That's part of the game. Some players decline the qualifying offer, then accept less when they find out their value isn't as in demand as they thought. Then they try again the next year. Think Kendrys Morales and that SS that sat out till June in 2014. Tim Lincecum? Players settle for less as well, but may not sit out that long. Also, teams shouldn't have to pay players lots of money just to avoid earning money. Rebuilding teams won't want to pay lots to players they really don't want when they know they will lose. What do you want to do make a minimum payroll? For us, we want to win. However, the point of owning a team is to make money. Some small market teams to several years rebuilding before they finally try to win. Then they make a lot of money. I just don't agree with team banks. Offer signing bonuses if you want when players sign for at least 3 years and over $10 mil a year, but no banks. We can do without them, but it will change up the suggestion on fixing the money/asking prices issues. FAs: You can't try to minimize the problem by acting like FA signing for FAR under their in-game re-signing isn't all that common. It's quite common. The example I gave (Martin) signed for less than half of what I could've gotten him through arbitration. I did the same with Denis Clark. I did the same with Nick Tavieso. I plan on doing the same with a few more players this upcoming off-season. It's also bad for the league when solid-to-good starting options aren't worth offering Arbitration since you can get them for pennies on the dollar in FA (Martin and Clark). That highly effects trade value and trade activity is what keeps leagues running. If it's just; submit a team file, download the file, make changes, and then rise/repeat leagues get stale and people lose interest. Trades seem to be either rather large (because top-tier players are always worth offering arbitration) or rather minimal. The mid-tier players don't see to be dealt too often since people understand that you can send guys like Martin and Clark to FA and get them at a much discounted price. So why give prospects for them and have to pay them a salary twice as much as what you could sign them for in FA and get them for 2-3 years well? Mogul will always be terrible with asking prices on part-time players or backups. It shouldn't be that outrageous for legitimate starting, useful players. Getting those quality players to re-sign for something reasonable benefits the league more than them asking for outrageous price and then going to FA and signing shit burger contracts. Real Life MLBers: First off we don't have compensation, so I'm not sure how those are comparable to GBA. Even I pretend they are, those guys had an offer sheet and declined it. That is completely different animal than normal re-signings. Lincecum had a hip injury. His off-season interest would have been much different and he'd have been signed to Spring Training had he been healthy. Markets: We have NO small market teams. GBA has cities equalized. As we stand right now, the smallest budget is $88.8M while the highest is $108.6M. That's not even $20M. What would the difference be if we used real MLB teams without cities being equalized? The differences from Tampa Bay or Pittsburgh to the New Yorks or Boston would be monumental. In Mogul, it's tough to get either TBR or PIT much further than $100M while NYY or NYM have $150M budgets in poor seasons and can easily expand up to $200M. |
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Sept 10, 2016 15:18:12 GMT -5
I am currious as side note. Do any of the newer mogul's have a better handle on it?
|
|
|
|
Post by midmissourians on Sept 10, 2016 20:42:22 GMT -5
I know it's not much help, but I completely disagree with most of what MattyNokes says.
If trading is what keeps interest in a league, then you're dealing with a bunch of low attention span gms (which is what a lot are, but usually doesn't mean you have the quality anyway). Long term plans need not involve trading.
|
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Sept 10, 2016 21:16:12 GMT -5
Adding banks doesn't fix it. Sure, you can get some cash out quickly, but once teams have their bank account filled, then you are back at the same spot. Then what? Raise the limits again and again? It solves nothing. Your issue is what mogul is asking for, and a lot of times, it's too much. Yes, some players sign for cheaper in FA. That's part of the game. Some players decline the qualifying offer, then accept less when they find out their value isn't as in demand as they thought. Then they try again the next year. Think Kendrys Morales and that SS that sat out till June in 2014. Tim Lincecum? Players settle for less as well, but may not sit out that long. Also, teams shouldn't have to pay players lots of money just to avoid earning money. Rebuilding teams won't want to pay lots to players they really don't want when they know they will lose. What do you want to do make a minimum payroll? For us, we want to win. However, the point of owning a team is to make money. Some small market teams to several years rebuilding before they finally try to win. Then they make a lot of money. I just don't agree with team banks. Offer signing bonuses if you want when players sign for at least 3 years and over $10 mil a year, but no banks. We can do without them, but it will change up the suggestion on fixing the money/asking prices issues. FAs: You can't try to minimize the problem by acting like FA signing for FAR under their in-game re-signing isn't all that common. It's quite common. The example I gave (Martin) signed for less than half of what I could've gotten him through arbitration. I did the same with Denis Clark. I did the same with Nick Tavieso. I plan on doing the same with a few more players this upcoming off-season. It's also bad for the league when solid-to-good starting options aren't worth offering Arbitration since you can get them for pennies on the dollar in FA (Martin and Clark). That highly effects trade value and trade activity is what keeps running. If it's just; submit a team file, download the file, make changes, and then rise/repeat leagues get stale and people lose interest. Trades seem to be either rather large (because top-tier players are always worth offering arbitration) or rather minimal. The mid-tier players don't see to be dealt too often since people understand that you can send guys like Martin and Clark to FA and get them at a much discounted price. So why give prospects for them and have to pay them a salary twice as much as what you could sign them for in FA and get them for 2-3 years well? Mogul will always be terrible with asking prices on part-time players or backups. It shouldn't be that outrageous for legitimate starting, useful players. Getting those quality players to re-sign for something reasonable benefits the league more than them asking for outrageous price and then going to FA and signing shit burger contracts. Real Life MLBers: First off we don't have compensation, so I'm not sure how those are comparable to GBA. Even I pretend they are, those guys had an offer sheet and declined it. That is completely different animal than normal re-signings. Lincecum had a hip injury. His off-season interest would have been much different and he'd have been signed to Spring Training had he been healthy. Markets: We have NO small market teams. GBA has cities equalized. As we stand right now, the smallest budget is $88.8M while the highest is $108.6M. That's not even $20M. What would the difference be if we used real MLB teams without cities being equalized? The differences from Tampa Bay or Pittsburgh to the New Yorks or Boston would be monumental. In Mogul, it's tough to get either TBR or PIT much further than $100M while NYY or NYM have $150M budgets in poor seasons and can easily expand up to $200M. It is common that FAs sign for less than arby. You could have resigned Martin for the $4 mil. that you wanted in arby, in FA, but you didn't. The problem isn't FA, it's mogul. Taking cash out isn't going to drastically lower the resigning values. Go ahead. Go back to last year's end of season file and take away everyone's cash except $1,000,000 and see if the values are really any different. I highly doubt they will be anything significant. Mogul bases it's values more on what the player does and their vitals more than the amount of cash in the league. 2B and SS usually get treated very well in mogul, as well as closers and good SPers. Also the big power guys usually get high asking prices. That stuff won't change. No, we don't have compensation. I know. I meant it as people thought their value was more than it ended up being. Similar to hear. The player asks for arby/resigning price that's high. Team doesn't value that player as much so the player tests FA. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by mattynokes on Sept 11, 2016 12:12:00 GMT -5
I know it's not much help, but I completely disagree with most of what MattyNokes says. If trading is what keeps interest in a league, then you're dealing with a bunch of low attention span gms (which is what a lot are, but usually doesn't mean you have the quality anyway). Long term plans need not involve trading. Yes, let's put what I said into a hyperbole  of, "If you aren't trading all the time, then you're not active." GMs should be interested in trading. Will they always want to trade? No. Will there always be the few GMs who rarely trade? Sure. But when quality players stop having trade value, it's a concern for the league. How many teams in MLB have not made a trade in the last calendar year? In the end every team is doing one of two things; competing or rebuilding. So, there's always a reason to at least entertain trade talks. Maybe in certain situations, teams are sitting put. But, that's to determine whether to go for a playoff run or tear down for the rest of the year. Again, in the end that type of team will eventually be competing or rebuilding. It is common that FAs sign for less than arby. You could have resigned Martin for the $4 mil. that you wanted in arby, in FA, but you didn't. The problem isn't FA, it's mogul. Taking cash out isn't going to drastically lower the resigning values. Go ahead. Go back to last year's end of season file and take away everyone's cash except $1,000,000 and see if the values are really any different. I highly doubt they will be anything significant. Mogul bases it's values more on what the player does and their vitals more than the amount of cash in the league. 2B and SS usually get treated very well in mogul, as well as closers and good SPers. Also the big power guys usually get high asking prices. That stuff won't change. No, we don't have compensation. I know. I meant it as people thought their value was more than it ended up being. Similar to hear. The player asks for arby/resigning price that's high. Team doesn't value that player as much so the player tests FA. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Real MLB non-tender candidates have something wrong with them. Injury concerns or poor play is the reason for an arbitration eligible to hit the open market. Not like Martin, who performed well and was still starter worthy. MLB teams don't non-tender guys who are valuable and can start to get them cheaper on the market. Because, that realistically won't happen. Someone would actually pay up. The only reason I didn't beat out Chuck's offer for Martin is because I wanted to go just one year and that would have taken too much salary. |
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Sept 11, 2016 22:44:24 GMT -5
It is common that FAs sign for less than arby. You could have resigned Martin for the $4 mil. that you wanted in arby, in FA, but you didn't. The problem isn't FA, it's mogul. Taking cash out isn't going to drastically lower the resigning values. Go ahead. Go back to last year's end of season file and take away everyone's cash except $1,000,000 and see if the values are really any different. I highly doubt they will be anything significant. Mogul bases it's values more on what the player does and their vitals more than the amount of cash in the league. 2B and SS usually get treated very well in mogul, as well as closers and good SPers. Also the big power guys usually get high asking prices. That stuff won't change. No, we don't have compensation. I know. I meant it as people thought their value was more than it ended up being. Similar to hear. The player asks for arby/resigning price that's high. Team doesn't value that player as much so the player tests FA. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Real MLB non-tender candidates have something wrong with them. Injury concerns or poor play is the reason for an arbitration eligible to hit the open market. Not like Martin, who performed well and was still starter worthy. MLB teams don't non-tender guys who are valuable and can start to get them cheaper on the market. Because, that realistically won't happen. Someone would actually pay up. The only reason I didn't beat out Chuck's offer for Martin is because I wanted to go just one year and that would have taken too much salary. Good players will get arby yes. Some average players may not keep getting arby if the team wants to call up a similar type player if they think that player can give them the same production for the minimum. However if a team thinks an arby price will be too high, instead of releasing the player, they will trade them if they are good. Usually only the smaller market teams or rebuilders however. |
|
|
|
Post by midmissourians on Sept 12, 2016 7:37:23 GMT -5
Also quality players don't stop having trade value... the definition of quality changes.
I stand again, let the free market decide what is quality and what is player value. Quit trying to arbitrarily make it so.
|
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Sept 12, 2016 9:34:25 GMT -5
Go back to last year's end of season file and take away everyone's cash except $1,000,000 and see if the values are really any different.
This is an interesting point. I will try and do that tonight, and post both files. |
|
|
|
Post by thenamelesspoet on Oct 13, 2016 9:16:08 GMT -5
This is an interesting point. I will try and do that tonight, and post both files. I am going to try this out this weekend. I think if we see more than a 10% variance we should go to the bank option. How does everyone feel about this. I am thinking a cap of 25M ingame + whatever your over your budget (ie, if your budget is 100M and your payroll is 125 than you would get 50M.)
IF we decided to do a bank:
I will update it after the ST sim, and after the WS sim in the resigning's sim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Oct 13, 2016 12:51:37 GMT -5
I still personally think it's not necessary. Teams will add and lose cash over the course of several seasons. California and Seoul should both be under or close to under $100 mil. by the end of the season. Rio plans to spend a lot in FA and could join them if they go crazy. Cal & Seoul alone are projected to lose about $100 mil. combined in cash. That's a big chunk of change being taken out of the league pool. That doesn't figure what others like me will lose that can't afford it.
I think that by putting a maximum on what a team can earn in game, and in the bank, you're going to have teams throwing big money at players that don't need it and end up getting in financial trouble because they can no longer have the cash reserve to justify it. That would open a new can of worms and be the exact opposite of what you are trying to implement.
|
|
of, "If you aren't trading all the time, then you're not active." GMs should be interested in trading. Will they always want to trade? No. Will there always be the few GMs who rarely trade? Sure. But when quality players stop having trade value, it's a concern for the league.