NDL Forum

shel311 wrote:

Wasted Memory wrote:We're going to have guys rated in the 50's demanding 8M to 12M per. We're going to have to drastically change how we build.

Yep, which is realistic and will take some serious time to get used to.

Those fifty rated guys will soon be the majority of your team. They are average too slightly above average players.

BigRy wrote:Those fifty rated guys will soon be the majority of your team.

Soon?


They've been the majority of my team for about 15 seasons now.

Cnasty wrote:Do I get back pay if that proposal passes?

Sell some of those rings if you need money

wdoupis wrote:We can try to brainstorm different fixes but I would not post a winter meeting with just one specific solution. I do not completely remember yours but from what I remember it started at 50million for winner and trickled down a million per the standings. I would be against that as something like that is not dictated by one season or a flash in the pan team. Sustained success has to be rewarded so a solution based on that is the way to go

It's better than a 50 win team getting 50m and a world series winner getting 42m.

GeorgesGoons wrote:

wdoupis wrote:We can try to brainstorm different fixes but I would not post a winter meeting with just one specific solution. I do not completely remember yours but from what I remember it started at 50million for winner and trickled down a million per the standings. I would be against that as something like that is not dictated by one season or a flash in the pan team. Sustained success has to be rewarded so a solution based on that is the way to go

It's better than a 50 win team getting 50m and a world series winner getting 42m.

No it's not. It'll be a no vote from me and many others im sure.

we need to stop fucking with stuff.

Well, isn't Boston hamstrung with budget because it is simply tied to revenue at this point? In "reality" teams budget is set by the money the owners are willing to spend on the team. The Dodgers have a huge payroll now because they were sold and the new ownership group wants to spend to win a title. Winning in MLB doesn't just lead to more money every year - it depends on other things.

Previously, when we had owners, it often felt like that if you were winning doing well then you got money. Now, maybe we all weren't happy because owner financial attributes were random but rather than eliminate them completely from the game perhaps we should have considered just making them all have the same make-up so that well managed teams are given more leeway and money to continue building. Maybe it is incorrect perspective but it felt like in earlier versions of the game that if you had a great year, the owner would grant you more money the next year and so on. Now, it feels like you can have a huge turnaround one year but your budget won't move an inch because your revenue only goes up in small increments since moving fan interest and generating ticket sales is a slow process (just a few million a year)...

dakshdar wrote:Well, isn't Boston hamstrung with budget because it is simply tied to revenue at this point?

Not sure if the "at this point" insinuated a '19 issue, maybe I read into that a bit much but...

If Billy does the manual manipulation of budgets, then we're essentially doing budgets like we always have done, so the issue is not really how we get the budget # in my opinion.

dakshdar wrote:Previously, when we had owners, it often felt like that if you were winning doing well then you got money. Now, maybe we all weren't happy because owner financial attributes were random but rather than eliminate them completely from the game perhaps we should have considered just making them all have the same make-up so that well managed teams are given more leeway and money to continue building.

This is not correct. Previously year revenues have always driven next year budgets in our game.

dakshdar wrote:Now, it feels like you can have a huge turnaround one year but your budget won't move an inch because your revenue only goes up in small increments since moving fan interest and generating ticket sales is a slow process (just a few million a year)...

Ok, so we may be on the same page.

But again, the issue isn't necessarily how the budget number is derived, but moreso how these revenues are derived.

Everything Shel just said is correct

So the old emails you'd get during the offseason where the Owner would say "I like what you're doing, here's an extra $10 million in your budget to get more free agents"... how was that "tied to revenue"?

I get that budgets were related to revenue, but there seemed to be some leeway where we now have none...

We can mess with the media revenue part but how much will that truly differentiate teams in the league? Does the highest one and lowest one still only differ by $10 mil? The only true differentiator will be ticket sale revenue which will vary to a much larger degree but is a self defeating mechanism - you're a bad team that makes no money because you can't draw anyone to the games so you can't spend money to get better (in theory).

dakshdar wrote:We can mess with the media revenue part but how much will that truly differentiate teams in the league? Does the highest one and lowest one still only differ by $10 mil? The only true differentiator will be ticket sale revenue which will vary to a much larger degree but is a self defeating mechanism - you're a bad team that makes no money because you can't draw anyone to the games so you can't spend money to get better (in theory).

It's separated by $13m. But teams that are consistently in the ALCS/NLCS aren't at the top. Boston, who should have the most media revenue is currently $8m behind the leader who hasn't been above .500 in 5 or 6 seasons.

dakshdar wrote:So the old emails you'd get during the offseason where the Owner would say "I like what you're doing, here's an extra $10 million in your budget to get more free agents"... how was that "tied to revenue"?

I get that budgets were related to revenue, but there seemed to be some leeway where we now have none...

Because your budget is always "projected" until preseason begins. So if you had a projected of 125 and made some big moves in the offseason and say your fan interest went up 10 points when preseason begins your owner would say I like what you have done so I will give you more but in reality your fan interest just went up so your projected season ticket sales went up and projected revenue went up.

It is still the same and your owners still send those giving or taking away. We have not gotten rid of owners, we just take away the cash they give at the end of each season.

get used to it Malakas

nick wrote:get used to it Malakas

Can't deny it, my boys got worked. Would have been a 4 game sweep if not for a 3 run 9th in the 4th game

It would be nice if Winterfell could cool off a little. Take 2 of 3 from him but lost ground by 2 games....damn you Ted!

And if we can catch up to Pythag. Currently tied with Boston at -5

wdoupis wrote:That is another thing, when I do rollover I have to see everyones finances. I am always shocked at the amount of bad teams or even middle of the road teams that are sitting on 50 million cash and 80 million for free agents. If they signed 1 or 2 top guys they would be division contenders or better. I do not know if its due to lack of interest or just not paying attention to FA but teams sitting on all that money probably does not help our finances out much.

Maybe they are worried their market sized will get shrunk out of the blue by the commissioner....

File is uploading...

Not many good division races but the AL West is competitive for the first time in a long time. Richmond clinging to a 1 game lead over SF and I believe I have lost 5 straight in the series. With 7 games vs Boston in the next two weeks this should be really fun.

I get Reyes back this week and we will try to make the push for another division title. I can't remember the last September that I was not only worried about resting guys half the games.