NDL Forum

So money for extensions go bye-bye?

I think we're fucking everything up by doing this after we did Arbitration, Free Agents, and Extensions. All those contracts would have gone down if the total available money were less, but now were saddled with contracts that don't correspond to the actual budgets and less overall money to spend on development, scouting, and team personnel.

I don't see how this can actually work doing it at this point in time. You'd basically have to go to a team that is losing money, determine what percentage they're losing, and reduce all Arbitration, FA signings, and Extensions they did this season by the same percentage.

What a cluster-fuck.

dakshdar wrote:So money for extensions go bye-bye?

I think we're fucking everything up by doing this after we did Arbitration, Free Agents, and Extensions. All those contracts would have gone down if the total available money were less, but now were saddled with contracts that don't correspond to the actual budgets and less overall money to spend on development, scouting, and team personnel.

I don't see how this can actually work doing it at this point in time. You'd basically have to go to a team that is losing money, determine what percentage they're losing, and reduce all Arbitration, FA signings, and Extensions they did this season by the same percentage.

What a cluster-fuck.

Arbitration $ was very similar to the old game. It didnt really affect those numbers/change them much from the other game. Changing all the contracts would be an unreasonable expectation for one person to do. We are talking about close to 200 players.

Its not an ideal solution but its the best one we have.

What is the harm in waiting until this season ends to make the adjustment, and then to adjust in stages?

I really think it will mess a bunch of stuff up long-term because people were giving out contracts and offereing more money to FAs based on the fact that their budget screen said "You have XX to spend on FAs and YY to spend on Extensions."

We'd be better served by reloading the OOTP10 file and starting again at FA signing/Arbitration with this corrected.

dakshdar wrote:So money for extensions go bye-bye?

I think we're fucking everything up by doing this after we did Arbitration, Free Agents, and Extensions. All those contracts would have gone down if the total available money were less, but now were saddled with contracts that don't correspond to the actual budgets and less overall money to spend on development, scouting, and team personnel.

I don't see how this can actually work doing it at this point in time. You'd basically have to go to a team that is losing money, determine what percentage they're losing, and reduce all Arbitration, FA signings, and Extensions they did this season by the same percentage.

What a cluster-fuck.

If it makes you feel better, the only team that is truly screwed is New York, the person who overlooked this and caused the issue; with New England close behind. I now have almost 200m tied up to one dude and he will eat up most of my profits.

Arbitration wasn't affected, by the way; that I know for sure.

dakshdar wrote:What is the harm in waiting until this season ends to make the adjustment, and then to adjust in stages?

A small market team wont be able to sign an extention because another team got an extra $15M they shouldnt have? So now the small market teams wont be able to retain their guys for an entire year. Teams may also spend their budgets and then get hit with a "correction" year where they will have to cut payroll by $20M. Might as well deal with the problem now than deffer it.

brwnbear wrote:

dakshdar wrote:What is the harm in waiting until this season ends to make the adjustment, and then to adjust in stages?

A small market team wont be able to sign an extention because another team got an extra $15M they shouldnt have? So now the small market teams wont be able to retain their guys for an entire year. Teams may also spend their budgets and then get hit with a "correction" year where they will have to cut payroll by $20M. Might as well deal with the problem now than deffer it.

Give the small market team money in the "For Extensions" category. Won't change FAs.

It may not be ideal to give out more money, but correcting by taking away the extra when money has already been spent at rates that will now be considerably higher than it would have been screws most of the league. People that saved on FAs to scout more or sign extensions can't do either, people the splurged on FAs are fucked, and people that did big extensions are screwed because those are now bigger than they should have been.

The math doesn't work the way it is being applied.

dakshdar wrote:You'd basically have to go to a team that is losing money, determine what percentage they're losing, and reduce all Arbitration, FA signings, and Extensions they did this season by the same percentage

Expanded on what I was saying, but I agree with this.

And if arbitration wasn't affected like Trendon said, then don't worry about it.

But the FA signings and extensions, I agree, cut each player's contract by the same % of money we're getting taken from us.

dakshdar wrote:

brwnbear wrote:

dakshdar wrote:What is the harm in waiting until this season ends to make the adjustment, and then to adjust in stages?

A small market team wont be able to sign an extention because another team got an extra $15M they shouldnt have? So now the small market teams wont be able to retain their guys for an entire year. Teams may also spend their budgets and then get hit with a "correction" year where they will have to cut payroll by $20M. Might as well deal with the problem now than deffer it.

Give the small market team money in the "For Extensions" category. Won't change FAs.

It may not be ideal to give out more money, but correcting by taking away the extra when money has already been spent at rates that will now be considerably higher than it would have been screws most of the league. People that saved on FAs to scout more or sign extensions can't do either, people the splurged on FAs are fucked, and people that did big extensions are screwed because those are now bigger than they should have been.

The math doesn't work the way it is being applied.

I get what you are saying, but the only two teams that went nuts were New England and New York. Everyone else came away relatively unscathed.

shel311 wrote:

dakshdar wrote:You'd basically have to go to a team that is losing money, determine what percentage they're losing, and reduce all Arbitration, FA signings, and Extensions they did this season by the same percentage

Expanded on what I was saying, but I agree with this.

And if arbitration wasn't affected like Trendon said, then don't worry about it.

But the FA signings and extensions, I agree, cut each player's contract by the same % of money we're getting taken from us.

I certainly won't complain about getting a huge reduction on my two big signings. I'll be thrilled! However, make sure this is what you truly want. I see the logic, I just felt since it was only New England and New York - the usual culprits in pissing money away - that it wasn't a league-wide issue.

trendon wrote:

shel311 wrote:

dakshdar wrote:You'd basically have to go to a team that is losing money, determine what percentage they're losing, and reduce all Arbitration, FA signings, and Extensions they did this season by the same percentage

Expanded on what I was saying, but I agree with this.

And if arbitration wasn't affected like Trendon said, then don't worry about it.

But the FA signings and extensions, I agree, cut each player's contract by the same % of money we're getting taken from us.

I certainly won't complain about getting a huge reduction on my two big signings. I'll be thrilled! However, make sure this is what you truly want. I see the logic, I just felt since it was only New England and New York - the usual culprits in pissing money away - that it wasn't a league-wide issue.

I hardly spent any money, wouldn't affect me much.


But just because you're not put in the red, doesn't mean this can't have long term negative consequences for some guys.

shel311 wrote:

trendon wrote:

shel311 wrote:

dakshdar wrote:You'd basically have to go to a team that is losing money, determine what percentage they're losing, and reduce all Arbitration, FA signings, and Extensions they did this season by the same percentage

Expanded on what I was saying, but I agree with this.

And if arbitration wasn't affected like Trendon said, then don't worry about it.

But the FA signings and extensions, I agree, cut each player's contract by the same % of money we're getting taken from us.

I certainly won't complain about getting a huge reduction on my two big signings. I'll be thrilled! However, make sure this is what you truly want. I see the logic, I just felt since it was only New England and New York - the usual culprits in pissing money away - that it wasn't a league-wide issue.

I hardly spent any money, wouldn't affect me much.


But just because you're not put in the red, doesn't mean this can't have long term negative consequences for some guys.

It is my opinion that it will affect the following teams:

New England: Broke until late 2016 but they've signed everyone they need to.
New York: Broke until 2018.

Seattle, Washington, and - to a lesser extent - Toronto were already broke. I don't see how it affects anyone else, but if everyone feels strongly about reducing contracts signed by the equivalent percentage, I won't argue ... I get a 15.88% reduction on Ando's salary!

Percentages

New England Spitters 15.86%
Port Orange Hawks 15.74%
Las Vegas Gamblers 17.58%
New York Launch 15.88%
Sheltown Shockers 12.70%
Miami Marlins 11.52%
Texas Outlaws 9.10%
Concordia Tornados 8.73%
Denver Dynamite 8.88%
NorCal Bombers 5.48%
Steel City Bulldogs 6.38%
Carolina Spartans 6.45%
Philadelphia Cheesesteaks 3.29%
Chicago LOLCats 3.19%
Washington Stars 2.97%
Seattle Sea Wolves 2.54%
Hartford Whalers 2.04%
Albany Wild Ones 0.87%
Toronto Warriors -1.50%
Sioux City Explorers -10.19%

so how do I become not broke...

trendon wrote:Percentages

New England Spitters 15.86%
Port Orange Hawks 15.74%
Las Vegas Gamblers 17.58%
New York Launch 15.88%
Sheltown Shockers 12.70%
Miami Marlins 11.52%
Texas Outlaws 9.10%
Concordia Tornados 8.73%
Denver Dynamite 8.88%
NorCal Bombers 5.48%
Steel City Bulldogs 6.38%
Carolina Spartans 6.45%
Philadelphia Cheesesteaks 3.29%
Chicago LOLCats 3.19%
Washington Stars 2.97%
Seattle Sea Wolves 2.54%
Hartford Whalers 2.04%
Albany Wild Ones 0.87%
Toronto Warriors -1.50%
Sioux City Explorers -10.19%

Is this a lot of work?

Like more work than it's worth?


Maybe others can chime in, cause now I'm thinking it'll be tons of work lol.

dakshdar wrote: Give the small market team money in the "For Extensions" category. Won't change FAs.

Giving extra money will only hurt them next year when their budgets reset to the norm. I dont think you understand, the budgets will be back to the normal levels next year. If I am given "extra" money for extentions, when the budgets reset, I am going to be fucked because I used money that I should never of had.

Increasing the $$ only increases the fuck factor.

dakshdar wrote: correcting by taking away the extra when money has already been spent at rates that will now be considerably higher than it would have been screws most of the league.

We have to be fair and apply changes that affect the league as a whole, not just benefit a few.

dakshdar wrote: People that saved on FAs to scout more or sign extensions can't do either

The problem should never allowed them to "save" since the money should not have been there in the first place, so its a moot point.

dakshdar wrote: people the splurged on FAs are fucked, and people that did big extensions are screwed because those are now bigger than they should have been.

-There still exist the ability to remove a FA if you spent over your new budget. I am not going to go and force Trendon to redue the entire offseason. Most of us are not going to be greatly affected. Just a few guys that have the ability to make some changes.

- Most people had some sort of extentions/FA signing. Its not a big deal in the long run if everyone is negatively affected because it maintains competitive balance.

Uuaww wrote:so how do I become not broke...

Win. You should be fine shortly.

shel311 wrote:

trendon wrote:Percentages

New England Spitters 15.86%
Port Orange Hawks 15.74%
Las Vegas Gamblers 17.58%
New York Launch 15.88%
Sheltown Shockers 12.70%
Miami Marlins 11.52%
Texas Outlaws 9.10%
Concordia Tornados 8.73%
Denver Dynamite 8.88%
NorCal Bombers 5.48%
Steel City Bulldogs 6.38%
Carolina Spartans 6.45%
Philadelphia Cheesesteaks 3.29%
Chicago LOLCats 3.19%
Washington Stars 2.97%
Seattle Sea Wolves 2.54%
Hartford Whalers 2.04%
Albany Wild Ones 0.87%
Toronto Warriors -1.50%
Sioux City Explorers -10.19%

Is this a lot of work?

Like more work than it's worth?


Maybe others can chime in, cause now I'm thinking it'll be tons of work lol.

Not a terrible amount. An hour-plus of work. Most of the time would be spent editing the player's history.

By the way, I am so happy everyone is concerned about the financial health of New York. I am touched. I promise we won't pile on the runs except against Philadelphia.

brwnbear wrote:The problem should never allowed them to "save" since the money should not have been there in the first place, so its a moot point

I don't think this is a fair way to look at it at all.

I have no problems taking the money and going on our way. But you've used this logic multiple times now and it's just not fair. The money should not have been there. But it was, so it can't be a moot point.

trendon wrote:Percentages

New England Spitters 15.86%
Port Orange Hawks 15.74%
Las Vegas Gamblers 17.58%
New York Launch 15.88%
Sheltown Shockers 12.70%
Miami Marlins 11.52%
Texas Outlaws 9.10%
Concordia Tornados 8.73%
Denver Dynamite 8.88%
NorCal Bombers 5.48%
Steel City Bulldogs 6.38%
Carolina Spartans 6.45%
Philadelphia Cheesesteaks 3.29%
Chicago LOLCats 3.19%
Washington Stars 2.97%
Seattle Sea Wolves 2.54%
Hartford Whalers 2.04%
Albany Wild Ones 0.87%
Toronto Warriors -1.50%
Sioux City Explorers -10.19%

These are the percentages of the total budget though. Pre-existing contracts aren't impacted by what happened.

I look at it like this:

Say I had $70 million at the start of the FA period. You're taking $27 million. That's ~39%. I would have expected if I started with 39% less money that the FAs and Extensions I signed would have cost me ~39% less. This would then leave me the same percentage of the total available that I had before the adjustment.