Please login. You must be logged in for full member access.

An OOTP17 Baseball Sim League

The next sim is: TBD upgrading to ootp17
The current game date is: 10/25/2031...
Congrats to the Las Vegas Blackjacks on winning the 2031 World Series!
The NABL league is currently full
We are starting the 2031-2032 off season....

Latest topics

» NABL OOTP16 Rules (2015 - 2017)
June 21st 2017, 10:43 pm by Rich

» 2031 Regular season Schedule
May 25th 2016, 11:41 am by Rich

» 2030-2031 Off Season Schedule
May 23rd 2016, 10:11 am by Rich

» 2030 Regular Season Sims
April 26th 2016, 9:04 am by Rich

» Form to Join League: Please fill out
March 24th 2016, 3:33 pm by Guest

» Draft update
March 18th 2016, 9:11 am by Rich

» League Website
March 13th 2016, 11:59 pm by WhoDat

» Draft Pool
March 12th 2016, 1:04 am by Rich

» Charming seeks SP
March 10th 2016, 10:02 am by bigrevkev55

Twitter

Who is online?

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 2 Guests

None


Most users ever online was 53 on October 7th 2015, 4:46 pm


Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Share

Poll

Which would you prefer?

[ 7 ]
47% [47%] 
[ 8 ]
53% [53%] 

Total Votes: 15
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 10th 2014, 10:15 am

for this we will leave as if for now- we can discuss more or let it die.


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 8th 2014, 7:53 am

Other than the uneven budgets, I think the finances are working fine.  Long term is an issue but thats more a game issue.  I think no cap would take care of this.  As for as individual teams the fiances look fine to me.  They aren't 100% equal but manageable by keeping the budgets in a range- once we figure out what that range is.  We can't do much about increased trading is the cap is keeping that down.

The Developent budgets range from 8mil - 18 mil.  Tacoma is currently close to dev budget and scouting budget.  So they don't appear to be at a disadvantage in these budgets.  They also have money to spend in both free agents and extensions.  Way more than I have- which is correct because my payroll is at the cap and Tacoma is below the cap.  To run with a payroll at the cap, you need to win and run you team well.  Have a good fan interest and bring in the fans.  That will give you the highest revenue streams.  Ticket process are capped and seats are capped.  This leaves only a few factors that determine if you can run a high payroll or a low payroll. This was by design and it working to plan.  If you think your team is at a disadvantage - please let me know and I will check the individual finances to make sure the game is running the way we want it.  But everything looks fine.  If you got money to spend, you need to do it smart and sign good and popular players.  This should bring up your attendance and revenue stream to support a higher payroll long term...


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 5th 2014, 1:20 pm

Rich wrote:
Snarf054 wrote:I'll be the first to admit the financials in OOTP are by far my weakest point, but looking at the reports it seems there are now 5 or 6 of us that are going to have 110 mil budgets this season with Missy still sitting at the top at 142. I would assume this is due to the owner changes we made last season. If that stagnates there then it won't really help but if it continues to grow at the bottom it might be moving towards what we want. With that in mind I am going to vote for us to stay the same.

I think in a perfect world we would throw the cap out the window and institute revenue sharing. A luxury tax I don't really care about either way. If a rich team wants to just throw all their money into high priced players instead of development then more power to them. It is not impossible to win with a low budget team. I think I proved that this season. You just need to ride out your bad contracts and then blow the whole thing up and rebuild through free agency until your prospects are ready to take over. It really sucks losing while you do that though.

As for the international free agents, while most of them are junk I like having them. If you look at my rookie league team you will see an absolute stud SP that is 18 yrs old that came out of my international compound. I am very excited to see how he develops. What a good scout does for you is when the international free agents come out there are always a few good prospects that are underrated by the default league scout and those are the gems you are looking for. When you see two 5 star guys sitting there on your list and one is asking 500k and the other 2 mil you just have to smile. It works a lot better in single player than it does online though because online you get one shot to sign them instead of being able to negotiate which can be frustrating. It also sucks seeing them sitting there when you have no free agent money available Sad
FYI - I pushed up the bottom teams a little again as we did last season.  Thats the team budgets.  It won't be a big impact over 1 season- but maybe with the budgets pushes and the game will adjust it to where we want.  Last season Tacoma was pushed to 100mil.  The game increased him to 102.  This season bumped him and everyone under 110 to 110.  I know its not as fast as some would like but I believe slow little adjustments will prevent a crazy financial change.
also- pretty much everyone has the same market size of 7.  Might still be an 8 here and there.  We changed all the owner spending to 7- there is a few teams that are gradually going down to 7.  I moved them down 1 again this season.  So eventually we will all be equal in market size and owner spending (matters if we keep owner budgets).  So I think that the only real differences now are gate revenue (which is effected by winning and player popularity (attendance).  Fan loyalty and fan interest are random and changing.  Fan interest changes easier.  Not too sure how often loyalty changes/or if it does.  So I think if we can get all the budgets in a fair range, I think we are in good shape.  It doesn't solve trading issues but I think the fairness is resolved.  I will maintain the budgets in the range once I figure out what that is.  I don't think we will have a budget max - but should always have a budget floor.  Please feel free to agree/disagree or just comment....


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 5th 2014, 1:09 pm

Snarf054 wrote:I'll be the first to admit the financials in OOTP are by far my weakest point, but looking at the reports it seems there are now 5 or 6 of us that are going to have 110 mil budgets this season with Missy still sitting at the top at 142. I would assume this is due to the owner changes we made last season. If that stagnates there then it won't really help but if it continues to grow at the bottom it might be moving towards what we want. With that in mind I am going to vote for us to stay the same.

I think in a perfect world we would throw the cap out the window and institute revenue sharing. A luxury tax I don't really care about either way. If a rich team wants to just throw all their money into high priced players instead of development then more power to them. It is not impossible to win with a low budget team. I think I proved that this season. You just need to ride out your bad contracts and then blow the whole thing up and rebuild through free agency until your prospects are ready to take over. It really sucks losing while you do that though.

As for the international free agents, while most of them are junk I like having them. If you look at my rookie league team you will see an absolute stud SP that is 18 yrs old that came out of my international compound. I am very excited to see how he develops. What a good scout does for you is when the international free agents come out there are always a few good prospects that are underrated by the default league scout and those are the gems you are looking for. When you see two 5 star guys sitting there on your list and one is asking 500k and the other 2 mil you just have to smile. It works a lot better in single player than it does online though because online you get one shot to sign them instead of being able to negotiate which can be frustrating. It also sucks seeing them sitting there when you have no free agent money available Sad
FYI - I pushed up the bottom teams a little again as we did last season.  Thats the team budgets.  It won't be a big impact over 1 season- but maybe with the budgets pushes and the game will adjust it to where we want.  Last season Tacoma was pushed to 100mil.  The game increased him to 102.  This season bumped him and everyone under 110 to 110.  I know its not as fast as some would like but I believe slow little adjustments will prevent a crazy financial change.


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Guest
Guest

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Guest on June 5th 2014, 12:58 pm

I'll be the first to admit the financials in OOTP are by far my weakest point, but looking at the reports it seems there are now 5 or 6 of us that are going to have 110 mil budgets this season with Missy still sitting at the top at 142. I would assume this is due to the owner changes we made last season. If that stagnates there then it won't really help but if it continues to grow at the bottom it might be moving towards what we want. With that in mind I am going to vote for us to stay the same.

I think in a perfect world we would throw the cap out the window and institute revenue sharing. A luxury tax I don't really care about either way. If a rich team wants to just throw all their money into high priced players instead of development then more power to them. It is not impossible to win with a low budget team. I think I proved that this season. You just need to ride out your bad contracts and then blow the whole thing up and rebuild through free agency until your prospects are ready to take over. It really sucks losing while you do that though.

As for the international free agents, while most of them are junk I like having them. If you look at my rookie league team you will see an absolute stud SP that is 18 yrs old that came out of my international compound. I am very excited to see how he develops. What a good scout does for you is when the international free agents come out there are always a few good prospects that are underrated by the default league scout and those are the gems you are looking for. When you see two 5 star guys sitting there on your list and one is asking 500k and the other 2 mil you just have to smile. It works a lot better in single player than it does online though because online you get one shot to sign them instead of being able to negotiate which can be frustrating. It also sucks seeing them sitting there when you have no free agent money available Sad
avatar
WhoDat
T Ball'er
T Ball'er

Posts : 283
Join date : 2012-10-13
Location : Ewing, NJ

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by WhoDat on June 4th 2014, 6:08 pm

In v14 they split the International Amateurs.  The better ones are supposed to come through the International Amateur Free Agent pool one a year and team's scouts get the rest as scout finds.

The numbers I have seen is a very small % of the scout finds become major leaguers (as it is in real life).  From my experience there are 1-3 decent players in the International FA pool but even most of those aren't "Stars" but potentially serviceable major leaguers at best.

With random talent change I guess having the bodies there may eventually lead to a few OK players.

They pretty much decided that most of the talent should come from the draft with the occasional established International FA.

The options of International Leagues in v15 and having them post players to the MLB might add some but for the most part you got to get your talent from the ammy draft.
avatar
Rosco70
T Ball'er
T Ball'er

Posts : 56
Join date : 2014-01-29
Location : Scotland

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rosco70 on June 4th 2014, 4:59 pm

I voted for entire revenue stream. After taking over Savannah near the end of 2023 season with a near max payroll i've been unable to have much influence over my team with the only changes I could make to affect my team were through the rule V and normal drafts. I couldn't even change my scouting or development budgets which were at or near the minimum due to lack of funds so any extra money would have been handy to at least feel like I was having some effect on my team. With most contending teams near max payroll too I didn't see much point in trying to trade my veterans and any players others were offering I couldn't trade for either so have mostly been on autopilot with exporting only being able to adjust rosters for injuries waiting for my contracts to expire.
avatar
Bumstead
T Ball'er
T Ball'er

Posts : 518
Join date : 2012-10-12
Age : 50
Location : Valparaiso, IN

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Bumstead on June 4th 2014, 4:29 pm

In looking at the OOTP forum, it appears that most of the better International Players go through International Free Agency instead of your scout finding them.  I can't say that those guys are a whole lot better from my view...
avatar
Bumstead
T Ball'er
T Ball'er

Posts : 518
Join date : 2012-10-12
Age : 50
Location : Valparaiso, IN

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Bumstead on June 4th 2014, 4:21 pm

Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:what if we did a moving hard cap.  The cap could change each season.  It would be the average of the leagues team budgets?  The current league avg budget is: 121,416,667.  So the cap this season would be 121,500.  Full revenue streams available so the GM controls all the money.  There still a cap so no one can go to crazy.  Each season the cap changes based on how the teams are financially.

Team budgets aren't just for salaries...how is a cap of $121M fair to a team with a budget of $102M?  Caps are there to keep things even, so you either do that or you blow up the cap and create some ways for the have nots to stay alive (luxury tax and revenue sharing) and you temper market growth/decline.  I'm not sure why we always talk about team budgets as if they only relate to player salaries.  Healthy teams cannot exist without a portion of their money going to scouting and player development IMHO.

Bum
the higher budget teams spend more it should bring there budgets down.  We would still need to equalize some things.  Market size for one.  With full revenue streams and the same market size you should have the options once you sign players and start winning.  The cap keeps spending from getting out of control and for the most part been working.  We don't have teams in a large amount of debt.  To increase trading we need to allow teams to spend their money and equalize the teams.  Equal market sizes and full revenue streams are the main factors.

You can do what you want and it's not going to make much difference to me.  In the end, I don't have revenue or a budget so my team just continues to spin as is and we wait for players to develop for 8 years cause I still can't trade #3 SP's that make market value for anything of value.  So I will keep them and not spend on something else because I refuse to give away players.  I think you should blow it up or leave it alone.  By blowing it up, I mean the cap.  If the cap never moves then free agent requests and everything else should stay stagnate.  What has changed?  I don't see how making minor changes is going to fix what it is that you do not like about NABL.
we boosted your budget to 100mil last season and its now 102.  So it did work.  I think the budgets are whats important not the cap.  I don't think removing the cap will pass.  It got a few votes last season or the season before when we voted on it.  I still think we need to control budgets whether there is a cap or not.  If everyone has similar budgets than the teams are equal and it comes down to winning.

I guess I don't understand what it is that worked...My budget and TB's budget is $102M for salaries, scout, scouting, and player development.  The next lowest budget is $111M....what worked and when did it happen?  I'm still almost 10% below all but 1 other team and well beyond 10% below most teams.  I haven't complained since you made the change, but to tell me it worked...not really.  I am almost as far behind everyone in budget as I was before.  Basically, everybody's budget increased as far as I can tell.  To be fair, I don't really care, I will keep trying to get better.  But, I can't make trades unless I trade prospects, so I won't even bother with it.
your budget was 90 mil or under.  it was increased to 100 mil along with a few other teams.  You guys maintained the budget and you and TB went up 2 mil.  I believe we should equalize the teams by keeping the budgets close.

The differential between Tacoma's budget and all the other teams except TB didn't get much closer.  Maybe $4M closer?  Like I said, I don't care what you do and I had my say about my owner.  Why owner settings aren't either shut off or all set and kept the same is beyond me, but I am happy to keep plugging away as is or whatever.  

I think with a group of very good, very involved owners, then the cap should be removed, because it becomes problematic with the game.  When you have some good owners and many lackadaisical owners (and I am one of those a lot lately) then you have to keep the cap, or the result could be really bad for the teams that keep turning over. 

It seems like we have a lot of lackadaisical owners, and there's nothing wrong with that.  This is a casual league; it just is.  I think we probably have to keep the cap.  I don't know how to resolve the issues of everybody wanting prospects in a trade and veterans having no value.  To me, this league appears to be really light on pitching and SS's and Catchers...but, that may be a symptom of OOTP moreso than the league.  I will say though that there may be 1 or 2 potential #1 or #2 starters in the draft each year and then there really aren't even guys that are worth considering even as mediocre starters.  I don't understand that.  It also appears that OOTP basically killed international scouting which is pretty annoying when you have a scout that is "outstanding" in that area....I don't even know the point of having an international camp full of 1 star players and below...

Bum
whats the deal with international scouting.  Can we effect the quality by dumping more money in somewhere or this is how it is now.  I don't have much experience with this new feature.  I was a little disappointed in it too.  I like that everyone is signing these guys and we have a camp for them til they are ready.  But from what I can see they are all junk.  Do there ratings change as they get older.  since most are 16-18.

I don't know.  I don't understand it.  I mean, just like MLB, every now and then you used to be able to find a useful player; and even rarer you found a star.  Now, you get a bunch of them and apparently the ability of your scout doesn't matter as you just get a bunch of crap that sits in minor league camp until they are 18 and then you put them in rookie league where they will be over-matched...forever...Since the upgrade to OOTP14 I haven't had an international player move anywhere near MLB and I haven't had one with potential to play above AA/AAA...I don't understand this change at all.  It basically reduces my scout's usefulness; and apparently completely ignores his rating: apparently he's a great international scout...at finding guys that know how to put a glove on their hand...

Don't know in the end.  It's disappointing to me.
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 4th 2014, 4:13 pm

Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:what if we did a moving hard cap.  The cap could change each season.  It would be the average of the leagues team budgets?  The current league avg budget is: 121,416,667.  So the cap this season would be 121,500.  Full revenue streams available so the GM controls all the money.  There still a cap so no one can go to crazy.  Each season the cap changes based on how the teams are financially.

Team budgets aren't just for salaries...how is a cap of $121M fair to a team with a budget of $102M?  Caps are there to keep things even, so you either do that or you blow up the cap and create some ways for the have nots to stay alive (luxury tax and revenue sharing) and you temper market growth/decline.  I'm not sure why we always talk about team budgets as if they only relate to player salaries.  Healthy teams cannot exist without a portion of their money going to scouting and player development IMHO.

Bum
the higher budget teams spend more it should bring there budgets down.  We would still need to equalize some things.  Market size for one.  With full revenue streams and the same market size you should have the options once you sign players and start winning.  The cap keeps spending from getting out of control and for the most part been working.  We don't have teams in a large amount of debt.  To increase trading we need to allow teams to spend their money and equalize the teams.  Equal market sizes and full revenue streams are the main factors.

You can do what you want and it's not going to make much difference to me.  In the end, I don't have revenue or a budget so my team just continues to spin as is and we wait for players to develop for 8 years cause I still can't trade #3 SP's that make market value for anything of value.  So I will keep them and not spend on something else because I refuse to give away players.  I think you should blow it up or leave it alone.  By blowing it up, I mean the cap.  If the cap never moves then free agent requests and everything else should stay stagnate.  What has changed?  I don't see how making minor changes is going to fix what it is that you do not like about NABL.
we boosted your budget to 100mil last season and its now 102.  So it did work.  I think the budgets are whats important not the cap.  I don't think removing the cap will pass.  It got a few votes last season or the season before when we voted on it.  I still think we need to control budgets whether there is a cap or not.  If everyone has similar budgets than the teams are equal and it comes down to winning.

I guess I don't understand what it is that worked...My budget and TB's budget is $102M for salaries, scout, scouting, and player development.  The next lowest budget is $111M....what worked and when did it happen?  I'm still almost 10% below all but 1 other team and well beyond 10% below most teams.  I haven't complained since you made the change, but to tell me it worked...not really.  I am almost as far behind everyone in budget as I was before.  Basically, everybody's budget increased as far as I can tell.  To be fair, I don't really care, I will keep trying to get better.  But, I can't make trades unless I trade prospects, so I won't even bother with it.
your budget was 90 mil or under.  it was increased to 100 mil along with a few other teams.  You guys maintained the budget and you and TB went up 2 mil.  I believe we should equalize the teams by keeping the budgets close.

The differential between Tacoma's budget and all the other teams except TB didn't get much closer.  Maybe $4M closer?  Like I said, I don't care what you do and I had my say about my owner.  Why owner settings aren't either shut off or all set and kept the same is beyond me, but I am happy to keep plugging away as is or whatever.  

I think with a group of very good, very involved owners, then the cap should be removed, because it becomes problematic with the game.  When you have some good owners and many lackadaisical owners (and I am one of those a lot lately) then you have to keep the cap, or the result could be really bad for the teams that keep turning over. 

It seems like we have a lot of lackadaisical owners, and there's nothing wrong with that.  This is a casual league; it just is.  I think we probably have to keep the cap.  I don't know how to resolve the issues of everybody wanting prospects in a trade and veterans having no value.  To me, this league appears to be really light on pitching and SS's and Catchers...but, that may be a symptom of OOTP moreso than the league.  I will say though that there may be 1 or 2 potential #1 or #2 starters in the draft each year and then there really aren't even guys that are worth considering even as mediocre starters.  I don't understand that.  It also appears that OOTP basically killed international scouting which is pretty annoying when you have a scout that is "outstanding" in that area....I don't even know the point of having an international camp full of 1 star players and below...

Bum
whats the deal with international scouting.  Can we effect the quality by dumping more money in somewhere or this is how it is now.  I don't have much experience with this new feature.  I was a little disappointed in it too.  I like that everyone is signing these guys and we have a camp for them til they are ready.  But from what I can see they are all junk.  Do there ratings change as they get older.  since most are 16-18.


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 4th 2014, 3:34 pm

MikeM731 wrote:I voted to keep it the same , but after reading the various viewpoints on this forum , I m kinda looking more favorably towards the second option of using the revenue .
you could always change your vote as you get more info.


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Guest
Guest

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Guest on June 4th 2014, 3:29 pm

I voted to keep it the same , but after reading the various viewpoints on this forum , I m kinda looking more favorably towards the second option of using the revenue .
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 4th 2014, 3:21 pm

Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:what if we did a moving hard cap.  The cap could change each season.  It would be the average of the leagues team budgets?  The current league avg budget is: 121,416,667.  So the cap this season would be 121,500.  Full revenue streams available so the GM controls all the money.  There still a cap so no one can go to crazy.  Each season the cap changes based on how the teams are financially.

Team budgets aren't just for salaries...how is a cap of $121M fair to a team with a budget of $102M?  Caps are there to keep things even, so you either do that or you blow up the cap and create some ways for the have nots to stay alive (luxury tax and revenue sharing) and you temper market growth/decline.  I'm not sure why we always talk about team budgets as if they only relate to player salaries.  Healthy teams cannot exist without a portion of their money going to scouting and player development IMHO.

Bum
the higher budget teams spend more it should bring there budgets down.  We would still need to equalize some things.  Market size for one.  With full revenue streams and the same market size you should have the options once you sign players and start winning.  The cap keeps spending from getting out of control and for the most part been working.  We don't have teams in a large amount of debt.  To increase trading we need to allow teams to spend their money and equalize the teams.  Equal market sizes and full revenue streams are the main factors.

You can do what you want and it's not going to make much difference to me.  In the end, I don't have revenue or a budget so my team just continues to spin as is and we wait for players to develop for 8 years cause I still can't trade #3 SP's that make market value for anything of value.  So I will keep them and not spend on something else because I refuse to give away players.  I think you should blow it up or leave it alone.  By blowing it up, I mean the cap.  If the cap never moves then free agent requests and everything else should stay stagnate.  What has changed?  I don't see how making minor changes is going to fix what it is that you do not like about NABL.
we boosted your budget to 100mil last season and its now 102.  So it did work.  I think the budgets are whats important not the cap.  I don't think removing the cap will pass.  It got a few votes last season or the season before when we voted on it.  I still think we need to control budgets whether there is a cap or not.  If everyone has similar budgets than the teams are equal and it comes down to winning.

I guess I don't understand what it is that worked...My budget and TB's budget is $102M for salaries, scout, scouting, and player development.  The next lowest budget is $111M....what worked and when did it happen?  I'm still almost 10% below all but 1 other team and well beyond 10% below most teams.  I haven't complained since you made the change, but to tell me it worked...not really.  I am almost as far behind everyone in budget as I was before.  Basically, everybody's budget increased as far as I can tell.  To be fair, I don't really care, I will keep trying to get better.  But, I can't make trades unless I trade prospects, so I won't even bother with it.
your budget was 90 mil or under.  it was increased to 100 mil along with a few other teams.  You guys maintained the budget and you and TB went up 2 mil.  I believe we should equalize the teams by keeping the budgets close.

The differential between Tacoma's budget and all the other teams except TB didn't get much closer.  Maybe $4M closer?  Like I said, I don't care what you do and I had my say about my owner.  Why owner settings aren't either shut off or all set and kept the same is beyond me, but I am happy to keep plugging away as is or whatever.  

I think with a group of very good, very involved owners, then the cap should be removed, because it becomes problematic with the game.  When you have some good owners and many lackadaisical owners (and I am one of those a lot lately) then you have to keep the cap, or the result could be really bad for the teams that keep turning over. 

It seems like we have a lot of lackadaisical owners, and there's nothing wrong with that.  This is a casual league; it just is.  I think we probably have to keep the cap.  I don't know how to resolve the issues of everybody wanting prospects in a trade and veterans having no value.  To me, this league appears to be really light on pitching and SS's and Catchers...but, that may be a symptom of OOTP moreso than the league.  I will say though that there may be 1 or 2 potential #1 or #2 starters in the draft each year and then there really aren't even guys that are worth considering even as mediocre starters.  I don't understand that.  It also appears that OOTP basically killed international scouting which is pretty annoying when you have a scout that is "outstanding" in that area....I don't even know the point of having an international camp full of 1 star players and below...

Bum
well to remove the cap and owner budgets we need enough votes.  I will continue to equalize the budgets.  Each season as needed.  There will def be another bump this season for the bottom owners.  This is something I will monitor each season.  I don't know what teams had increased budgets.  Mine didn't increase much if at all.  I believe i was in the same range last season.  I know your went up because we bumped you to 100 and not its at 102.  Your cash is up from 371K to 5 mil.  I know there are other factors but if you keep cash around the cash max the game will also increase you budget.  The bottom teams need to be equal and stable before doing away with the cap if that is voted in.

I looked at some no cap leagues.  The top teams have 190 mil salaries and their are still teams with only 40 mil salaries.  So first we need to the teams must be equal.


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Bumstead
T Ball'er
T Ball'er

Posts : 518
Join date : 2012-10-12
Age : 50
Location : Valparaiso, IN

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Bumstead on June 4th 2014, 3:09 pm

Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:what if we did a moving hard cap.  The cap could change each season.  It would be the average of the leagues team budgets?  The current league avg budget is: 121,416,667.  So the cap this season would be 121,500.  Full revenue streams available so the GM controls all the money.  There still a cap so no one can go to crazy.  Each season the cap changes based on how the teams are financially.

Team budgets aren't just for salaries...how is a cap of $121M fair to a team with a budget of $102M?  Caps are there to keep things even, so you either do that or you blow up the cap and create some ways for the have nots to stay alive (luxury tax and revenue sharing) and you temper market growth/decline.  I'm not sure why we always talk about team budgets as if they only relate to player salaries.  Healthy teams cannot exist without a portion of their money going to scouting and player development IMHO.

Bum
the higher budget teams spend more it should bring there budgets down.  We would still need to equalize some things.  Market size for one.  With full revenue streams and the same market size you should have the options once you sign players and start winning.  The cap keeps spending from getting out of control and for the most part been working.  We don't have teams in a large amount of debt.  To increase trading we need to allow teams to spend their money and equalize the teams.  Equal market sizes and full revenue streams are the main factors.

You can do what you want and it's not going to make much difference to me.  In the end, I don't have revenue or a budget so my team just continues to spin as is and we wait for players to develop for 8 years cause I still can't trade #3 SP's that make market value for anything of value.  So I will keep them and not spend on something else because I refuse to give away players.  I think you should blow it up or leave it alone.  By blowing it up, I mean the cap.  If the cap never moves then free agent requests and everything else should stay stagnate.  What has changed?  I don't see how making minor changes is going to fix what it is that you do not like about NABL.
we boosted your budget to 100mil last season and its now 102.  So it did work.  I think the budgets are whats important not the cap.  I don't think removing the cap will pass.  It got a few votes last season or the season before when we voted on it.  I still think we need to control budgets whether there is a cap or not.  If everyone has similar budgets than the teams are equal and it comes down to winning.

I guess I don't understand what it is that worked...My budget and TB's budget is $102M for salaries, scout, scouting, and player development.  The next lowest budget is $111M....what worked and when did it happen?  I'm still almost 10% below all but 1 other team and well beyond 10% below most teams.  I haven't complained since you made the change, but to tell me it worked...not really.  I am almost as far behind everyone in budget as I was before.  Basically, everybody's budget increased as far as I can tell.  To be fair, I don't really care, I will keep trying to get better.  But, I can't make trades unless I trade prospects, so I won't even bother with it.
your budget was 90 mil or under.  it was increased to 100 mil along with a few other teams.  You guys maintained the budget and you and TB went up 2 mil.  I believe we should equalize the teams by keeping the budgets close.

The differential between Tacoma's budget and all the other teams except TB didn't get much closer.  Maybe $4M closer?  Like I said, I don't care what you do and I had my say about my owner.  Why owner settings aren't either shut off or all set and kept the same is beyond me, but I am happy to keep plugging away as is or whatever.  

I think with a group of very good, very involved owners, then the cap should be removed, because it becomes problematic with the game.  When you have some good owners and many lackadaisical owners (and I am one of those a lot lately) then you have to keep the cap, or the result could be really bad for the teams that keep turning over. 

It seems like we have a lot of lackadaisical owners, and there's nothing wrong with that.  This is a casual league; it just is.  I think we probably have to keep the cap.  I don't know how to resolve the issues of everybody wanting prospects in a trade and veterans having no value.  To me, this league appears to be really light on pitching and SS's and Catchers...but, that may be a symptom of OOTP moreso than the league.  I will say though that there may be 1 or 2 potential #1 or #2 starters in the draft each year and then there really aren't even guys that are worth considering even as mediocre starters.  I don't understand that.  It also appears that OOTP basically killed international scouting which is pretty annoying when you have a scout that is "outstanding" in that area....I don't even know the point of having an international camp full of 1 star players and below...

Bum
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 4th 2014, 2:55 pm

Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:what if we did a moving hard cap.  The cap could change each season.  It would be the average of the leagues team budgets?  The current league avg budget is: 121,416,667.  So the cap this season would be 121,500.  Full revenue streams available so the GM controls all the money.  There still a cap so no one can go to crazy.  Each season the cap changes based on how the teams are financially.

Team budgets aren't just for salaries...how is a cap of $121M fair to a team with a budget of $102M?  Caps are there to keep things even, so you either do that or you blow up the cap and create some ways for the have nots to stay alive (luxury tax and revenue sharing) and you temper market growth/decline.  I'm not sure why we always talk about team budgets as if they only relate to player salaries.  Healthy teams cannot exist without a portion of their money going to scouting and player development IMHO.

Bum
the higher budget teams spend more it should bring there budgets down.  We would still need to equalize some things.  Market size for one.  With full revenue streams and the same market size you should have the options once you sign players and start winning.  The cap keeps spending from getting out of control and for the most part been working.  We don't have teams in a large amount of debt.  To increase trading we need to allow teams to spend their money and equalize the teams.  Equal market sizes and full revenue streams are the main factors.

You can do what you want and it's not going to make much difference to me.  In the end, I don't have revenue or a budget so my team just continues to spin as is and we wait for players to develop for 8 years cause I still can't trade #3 SP's that make market value for anything of value.  So I will keep them and not spend on something else because I refuse to give away players.  I think you should blow it up or leave it alone.  By blowing it up, I mean the cap.  If the cap never moves then free agent requests and everything else should stay stagnate.  What has changed?  I don't see how making minor changes is going to fix what it is that you do not like about NABL.
we boosted your budget to 100mil last season and its now 102.  So it did work.  I think the budgets are whats important not the cap.  I don't think removing the cap will pass.  It got a few votes last season or the season before when we voted on it.  I still think we need to control budgets whether there is a cap or not.  If everyone has similar budgets than the teams are equal and it comes down to winning.

I guess I don't understand what it is that worked...My budget and TB's budget is $102M for salaries, scout, scouting, and player development.  The next lowest budget is $111M....what worked and when did it happen?  I'm still almost 10% below all but 1 other team and well beyond 10% below most teams.  I haven't complained since you made the change, but to tell me it worked...not really.  I am almost as far behind everyone in budget as I was before.  Basically, everybody's budget increased as far as I can tell.  To be fair, I don't really care, I will keep trying to get better.  But, I can't make trades unless I trade prospects, so I won't even bother with it.
your budget was 90 mil or under.  it was increased to 100 mil along with a few other teams.  You guys maintained the budget and you and TB went up 2 mil.  I believe we should equalize the teams by keeping the budgets close.


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Bumstead
T Ball'er
T Ball'er

Posts : 518
Join date : 2012-10-12
Age : 50
Location : Valparaiso, IN

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Bumstead on June 4th 2014, 2:47 pm

Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:what if we did a moving hard cap.  The cap could change each season.  It would be the average of the leagues team budgets?  The current league avg budget is: 121,416,667.  So the cap this season would be 121,500.  Full revenue streams available so the GM controls all the money.  There still a cap so no one can go to crazy.  Each season the cap changes based on how the teams are financially.

Team budgets aren't just for salaries...how is a cap of $121M fair to a team with a budget of $102M?  Caps are there to keep things even, so you either do that or you blow up the cap and create some ways for the have nots to stay alive (luxury tax and revenue sharing) and you temper market growth/decline.  I'm not sure why we always talk about team budgets as if they only relate to player salaries.  Healthy teams cannot exist without a portion of their money going to scouting and player development IMHO.

Bum
the higher budget teams spend more it should bring there budgets down.  We would still need to equalize some things.  Market size for one.  With full revenue streams and the same market size you should have the options once you sign players and start winning.  The cap keeps spending from getting out of control and for the most part been working.  We don't have teams in a large amount of debt.  To increase trading we need to allow teams to spend their money and equalize the teams.  Equal market sizes and full revenue streams are the main factors.

You can do what you want and it's not going to make much difference to me.  In the end, I don't have revenue or a budget so my team just continues to spin as is and we wait for players to develop for 8 years cause I still can't trade #3 SP's that make market value for anything of value.  So I will keep them and not spend on something else because I refuse to give away players.  I think you should blow it up or leave it alone.  By blowing it up, I mean the cap.  If the cap never moves then free agent requests and everything else should stay stagnate.  What has changed?  I don't see how making minor changes is going to fix what it is that you do not like about NABL.
we boosted your budget to 100mil last season and its now 102.  So it did work.  I think the budgets are whats important not the cap.  I don't think removing the cap will pass.  It got a few votes last season or the season before when we voted on it.  I still think we need to control budgets whether there is a cap or not.  If everyone has similar budgets than the teams are equal and it comes down to winning.

I guess I don't understand what it is that worked...My budget and TB's budget is $102M for salaries, scout, scouting, and player development.  The next lowest budget is $111M....what worked and when did it happen?  I'm still almost 10% below all but 1 other team and well beyond 10% below most teams.  I haven't complained since you made the change, but to tell me it worked...not really.  I am almost as far behind everyone in budget as I was before.  Basically, everybody's budget increased as far as I can tell.  To be fair, I don't really care, I will keep trying to get better.  But, I can't make trades unless I trade prospects, so I won't even bother with it.
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 4th 2014, 2:35 pm

Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:what if we did a moving hard cap.  The cap could change each season.  It would be the average of the leagues team budgets?  The current league avg budget is: 121,416,667.  So the cap this season would be 121,500.  Full revenue streams available so the GM controls all the money.  There still a cap so no one can go to crazy.  Each season the cap changes based on how the teams are financially.

Team budgets aren't just for salaries...how is a cap of $121M fair to a team with a budget of $102M?  Caps are there to keep things even, so you either do that or you blow up the cap and create some ways for the have nots to stay alive (luxury tax and revenue sharing) and you temper market growth/decline.  I'm not sure why we always talk about team budgets as if they only relate to player salaries.  Healthy teams cannot exist without a portion of their money going to scouting and player development IMHO.

Bum
the higher budget teams spend more it should bring there budgets down.  We would still need to equalize some things.  Market size for one.  With full revenue streams and the same market size you should have the options once you sign players and start winning.  The cap keeps spending from getting out of control and for the most part been working.  We don't have teams in a large amount of debt.  To increase trading we need to allow teams to spend their money and equalize the teams.  Equal market sizes and full revenue streams are the main factors.

You can do what you want and it's not going to make much difference to me.  In the end, I don't have revenue or a budget so my team just continues to spin as is and we wait for players to develop for 8 years cause I still can't trade #3 SP's that make market value for anything of value.  So I will keep them and not spend on something else because I refuse to give away players.  I think you should blow it up or leave it alone.  By blowing it up, I mean the cap.  If the cap never moves then free agent requests and everything else should stay stagnate.  What has changed?  I don't see how making minor changes is going to fix what it is that you do not like about NABL.
to me there are 2 different issues.  1) equalize the teams 2) increase trading/allow spending.

Fist we need to make the teams equal before getting rid of the cap.  Slowly raising the low budgets so they are closer.  For the most part is working fine.  I'd like more trading.  You don't have to give away players- no is.  Theres players I'm interested in on the block but I can't afford them cause the cap.  We need to allow teams to spend but protect the league finances.


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 4th 2014, 2:28 pm

Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:what if we did a moving hard cap.  The cap could change each season.  It would be the average of the leagues team budgets?  The current league avg budget is: 121,416,667.  So the cap this season would be 121,500.  Full revenue streams available so the GM controls all the money.  There still a cap so no one can go to crazy.  Each season the cap changes based on how the teams are financially.

Team budgets aren't just for salaries...how is a cap of $121M fair to a team with a budget of $102M?  Caps are there to keep things even, so you either do that or you blow up the cap and create some ways for the have nots to stay alive (luxury tax and revenue sharing) and you temper market growth/decline.  I'm not sure why we always talk about team budgets as if they only relate to player salaries.  Healthy teams cannot exist without a portion of their money going to scouting and player development IMHO.

Bum
the higher budget teams spend more it should bring there budgets down.  We would still need to equalize some things.  Market size for one.  With full revenue streams and the same market size you should have the options once you sign players and start winning.  The cap keeps spending from getting out of control and for the most part been working.  We don't have teams in a large amount of debt.  To increase trading we need to allow teams to spend their money and equalize the teams.  Equal market sizes and full revenue streams are the main factors.

You can do what you want and it's not going to make much difference to me.  In the end, I don't have revenue or a budget so my team just continues to spin as is and we wait for players to develop for 8 years cause I still can't trade #3 SP's that make market value for anything of value.  So I will keep them and not spend on something else because I refuse to give away players.  I think you should blow it up or leave it alone.  By blowing it up, I mean the cap.  If the cap never moves then free agent requests and everything else should stay stagnate.  What has changed?  I don't see how making minor changes is going to fix what it is that you do not like about NABL.
we boosted your budget to 100mil last season and its now 102.  So it did work.  I think the budgets are whats important not the cap.  I don't think removing the cap will pass.  It got a few votes last season or the season before when we voted on it.  I still think we need to control budgets whether there is a cap or not.  If everyone has similar budgets than the teams are equal and it comes down to winning.


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Bumstead
T Ball'er
T Ball'er

Posts : 518
Join date : 2012-10-12
Age : 50
Location : Valparaiso, IN

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Bumstead on June 4th 2014, 2:17 pm

Rich wrote:
Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:what if we did a moving hard cap.  The cap could change each season.  It would be the average of the leagues team budgets?  The current league avg budget is: 121,416,667.  So the cap this season would be 121,500.  Full revenue streams available so the GM controls all the money.  There still a cap so no one can go to crazy.  Each season the cap changes based on how the teams are financially.

Team budgets aren't just for salaries...how is a cap of $121M fair to a team with a budget of $102M?  Caps are there to keep things even, so you either do that or you blow up the cap and create some ways for the have nots to stay alive (luxury tax and revenue sharing) and you temper market growth/decline.  I'm not sure why we always talk about team budgets as if they only relate to player salaries.  Healthy teams cannot exist without a portion of their money going to scouting and player development IMHO.

Bum
the higher budget teams spend more it should bring there budgets down.  We would still need to equalize some things.  Market size for one.  With full revenue streams and the same market size you should have the options once you sign players and start winning.  The cap keeps spending from getting out of control and for the most part been working.  We don't have teams in a large amount of debt.  To increase trading we need to allow teams to spend their money and equalize the teams.  Equal market sizes and full revenue streams are the main factors.

You can do what you want and it's not going to make much difference to me.  In the end, I don't have revenue or a budget so my team just continues to spin as is and we wait for players to develop for 8 years cause I still can't trade #3 SP's that make market value for anything of value.  So I will keep them and not spend on something else because I refuse to give away players.  I think you should blow it up or leave it alone.  By blowing it up, I mean the cap.  If the cap never moves then free agent requests and everything else should stay stagnate.  What has changed?  I don't see how making minor changes is going to fix what it is that you do not like about NABL.
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 4th 2014, 2:05 pm

Bumstead wrote:
Rich wrote:what if we did a moving hard cap.  The cap could change each season.  It would be the average of the leagues team budgets?  The current league avg budget is: 121,416,667.  So the cap this season would be 121,500.  Full revenue streams available so the GM controls all the money.  There still a cap so no one can go to crazy.  Each season the cap changes based on how the teams are financially.

Team budgets aren't just for salaries...how is a cap of $121M fair to a team with a budget of $102M?  Caps are there to keep things even, so you either do that or you blow up the cap and create some ways for the have nots to stay alive (luxury tax and revenue sharing) and you temper market growth/decline.  I'm not sure why we always talk about team budgets as if they only relate to player salaries.  Healthy teams cannot exist without a portion of their money going to scouting and player development IMHO.

Bum
the higher budget teams spend more it should bring there budgets down.  We would still need to equalize some things.  Market size for one.  With full revenue streams and the same market size you should have the options once you sign players and start winning.  The cap keeps spending from getting out of control and for the most part been working.  We don't have teams in a large amount of debt.  To increase trading we need to allow teams to spend their money and equalize the teams.  Equal market sizes and full revenue streams are the main factors.


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Bumstead
T Ball'er
T Ball'er

Posts : 518
Join date : 2012-10-12
Age : 50
Location : Valparaiso, IN

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Bumstead on June 4th 2014, 1:46 pm

Rich wrote:what if we did a moving hard cap.  The cap could change each season.  It would be the average of the leagues team budgets?  The current league avg budget is: 121,416,667.  So the cap this season would be 121,500.  Full revenue streams available so the GM controls all the money.  There still a cap so no one can go to crazy.  Each season the cap changes based on how the teams are financially.

Team budgets aren't just for salaries...how is a cap of $121M fair to a team with a budget of $102M?  Caps are there to keep things even, so you either do that or you blow up the cap and create some ways for the have nots to stay alive (luxury tax and revenue sharing) and you temper market growth/decline.  I'm not sure why we always talk about team budgets as if they only relate to player salaries.  Healthy teams cannot exist without a portion of their money going to scouting and player development IMHO.

Bum
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 4th 2014, 1:33 pm

what if we did a moving hard cap.  The cap could change each season.  It would be the average of the leagues team budgets?  The current league avg budget is: 121,416,667.  So the cap this season would be 121,500.  Full revenue streams available so the GM controls all the money.  There still a cap so no one can go to crazy.  Each season the cap changes based on how the teams are financially.


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Bumstead
T Ball'er
T Ball'er

Posts : 518
Join date : 2012-10-12
Age : 50
Location : Valparaiso, IN

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Bumstead on June 4th 2014, 1:18 pm

Rich wrote:No cap would allow teams to be able to keep there aging stars.  These players are usually popular and you get a hit when releasing them or not signing them because you don't have the cap room.  To me thats another plus.

I kept a "popular" OF on my team all season just because he draws fans.  He was a guy that was great the first year or two, so I extended him...then, as can be the case, he turned into Roberto Petagine and couldn't hit anymore making $7.5M.  He went 1 for 16 on the season and the fans came out to watch him not play.  I took a hit when he filed for free agency...watch out if he signs with someone...sigh... lol
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 4th 2014, 1:03 pm

No cap would allow teams to be able to keep there aging stars.  These players are usually popular and you get a hit when releasing them or not signing them because you don't have the cap room.  To me thats another plus.


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Rich
Commish

Posts : 5625
Join date : 2012-10-12
Location : Long Island NY

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Rich on June 4th 2014, 12:54 pm

WhoDat wrote:My understanding that one of the big factors on what FAs ask for in salary demands is 'Cash on hand'.  Even if you go no cap you still keep the 'cash max' at $10mil and, in theory, FA demands should not get that out of whack.

Also, there is nothing wrong with a player sitting in the FA pool until (or if) his contract demands come down.  Many people in leagues point to these guys left in the pool and say that isn't realistic.  True but neither are their demands.  IRL there is more compromise.  Also, there are guys IRL who retire but if you were willing to pay them %50mil per year they would forgo their retirement for a year or 2.
i think the free agents have been fine.  You get the occassional over 20 mil request but for the most part the good players are around 15-18 mil.


_________________
Richard J. Rutkowski
North Shore Honu
2020-Present
.556(900-720)
2027 NABL Champs!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sponsored content

Re: Owners budgets/Entire revenue stream?

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is December 15th 2018, 9:52 am