NDL Forum

btw staff payroll avg last yr was $20 mil

I am in all honesty not trying to be a smart ass and Nick knows I like him and enjoy him being part of the league.

With that being said, I cannot satisfy everyone and my interest is in whats best for the league. I am not sure how it is an "interest killer" and we voted on it as a group that we should mandate coaches so it wasn't like I went rogue and did it myself.

He and anyone else is entitled to say what they think and we have established that around here but think a little of the bigger view and from a perspective of running this thing and what goes into it and keeping it going.

Thanks for the feedback.

nick is a pouter

are we gonna start penalizing teams that spend hysterically low amounts of money on players?

Player Payroll $22,750,000
Player Payroll $29,090,000
Player Payroll $30,014,000
Player Payroll $30,412,000
Player Payroll $35,240,000
Player Payroll $36,362,500
Player Payroll $40,980,000
Player Payroll $51,420,000
Player Payroll $67,345,000
Player Payroll $67,680,000
Player Payroll $67,870,000
Player Payroll $72,250,000
Player Payroll $76,020,000
Player Payroll $76,790,000
Player Payroll $79,270,000
Player Payroll $79,685,000
Player Payroll $82,070,000
Player Payroll $83,590,000
Player Payroll $89,555,000
Player Payroll $91,236,250
Player Payroll $92,690,000
Player Payroll $93,450,000
Player Payroll $94,054,000
Player Payroll $100,660,000
Player Payroll $106,058,750
Player Payroll $107,320,000
Player Payroll $107,954,000
Player Payroll $110,470,000
Player Payroll $116,050,750
Player Payroll $127,110,000


27 million??? I spend that much on coaches. Then I'm gonna have to pay $40 mil/yr to give these teams money when they dont put a single fucking effort into signing anyone worth a fuck.

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

lowest payroll is $60 mil

lets get those teams at the bottom spending more money! cmon this is about fairness

ajalves wrote:nick is a pouter

and still do more for this league than you. Your highlight is being drunk.

nick wrote:

ajalves wrote:nick is a pouter

and still do more for this league than you. Your highlight is being drunk.

keep telling yourself that.

you have a draft round to "run" or something?

Who said it was about fairness?

"Again, this isn't just a rule to make a rule but it has an effect on league financials and brings a level of consistency across our teams setting us up to enter the new version."

but teams can have $30 mil player payrolls?

I spent $24 mil on 1 player last yr who I sent to the minors but its ok to sport 30 mil payrolls and win.. 30 games.

also in talking to Reign, people spending really small amounts of $$ effects my rev sharing. So people hoarding money and losing on purpose is making top teams pay more. We should set a spending floor.

I said that in the past about the floor.

you are pouting though.

40 seasons in and you want to fix the financials NOW! now that you're probably in a bit of a pinch or whatever

I don't see that relating to your comment about fairness? I already explained why we did this and as well when everyone voted on it why it is making a financial impact.

You are acting as if the guys with $30mil payrolls are hoarding the money for success of their team which is a strategy I don't see being successful here yet? They are only hurting themselves in not trying to win and I am making these rules to create a more level playing field is what I am reading from your "fairness" comment. That is definitely not the case and they will be fined the $10mil just like the guys with $200mil payrolls.

The teams with the lowest payrolls in the league are also some of the worst (no offense). I don't get the correlation you are making here.

I do agree it hurts the top teams as you get hit hard with revenue sharing but my knowledge isn't that well versed in our revenue sharing versus the real MLB style one. You pay a penalty to win while others sit on imaginary cash and continue to lose making your job of winning easier.

Isn't that the norm though and why revenue sharing was created at the MLB level due to no salary cap?

Cnasty wrote:I am in all honesty not trying to be a smart ass and Nick knows I like him and enjoy him being part of the league.

With that being said, I cannot satisfy everyone and my interest is in whats best for the league. I am not sure how it is an "interest killer" and we voted on it as a group that we should mandate coaches so it wasn't like I went rogue and did it myself.

He and anyone else is entitled to say what they think and we have established that around here but think a little of the bigger view and from a perspective of running this thing and what goes into it and keeping it going.

Thanks for the feedback.

This reply is so awesome... I just remember all of those "fun" conversations I had to deal with during my first 5-6 seasons.

ajalves wrote:I said that in the past about the floor.

you are pouting though.

40 seasons in and you want to fix the financials NOW! now that you're probably in a bit of a pinch or whatever

i dont wanna fix shit. I want it to remain how it was. the leagues been around 30 seasons and been fine, but lets start tacking on fines for everything but we dont fine those who choose not to compete.

As someone mentioned... $10m fine for not filling 1 vacancy is absurd.

It should be a per position situation based on a specific date such as Opening Day. Even better, it should be catered to level, but that may be a step too far.

nick wrote:

ajalves wrote:I said that in the past about the floor.

you are pouting though.

40 seasons in and you want to fix the financials NOW! now that you're probably in a bit of a pinch or whatever

i dont wanna fix shit. I want it to remain how it was. the leagues been around 30 seasons and been fine, but lets start tacking on fines for everything but we dont fine those who choose not to compete.

I couldn't see fining bottom teams $$....maybe 1st round picks.

it all connects. Rev sharing is connected to player payrolls. when bottom 7 are paying like, im gonna guestimate 35 mil on avg maybe, i am paying them $40 mil to do nothing.

I dont care about coach fines, its just I have a $170 mil budget and $10 mil goes to a coach fine (or $26 mil to coaches), then $40 mil to rev sharing for people to hoard, so now I have $110 mil to spend on players, dev, and scouting, BECAUSE I WANT TO BE COMPETITIVE!

how is that even remotely fair? theres no penalization for blatant tanking.

You have Dave telling Akron about adequate signings in FA, meanwhile Sandoval made more than his entire player payroll.

also, wanna know why I have a big budget? Years of winning. like real life. It wasnt always this high. winning, playoff rev, strong years contributed to it.

nick wrote:btw this "10-18" avg for coaches is a 5 team sample size...

my coaches (not even completely filled) is 26.26 million

so ya, fine me $10 mil a yr and i'll save $16 mil



also, since this is about fairness, should i play my backups vs the bad teams? i wanna make sure theyre having fun and it's fair and competitive.

What is wrong with imposing the fine?
The goal is to get everyone to sign coaches.
If you don't want to get hit with $10M, sign bum coaches. No one is saying the coaches have to be good, you just have to have them.

Your logic of, fine me the $10M, I will save the $16M is so juvenile.
If you were smart, you would sign say 10 coaches to $400k contracts and only pay out $4M and save yourself the $22.6M

I would agree in theory about a spending floor for those teams receiving revenue sharing. It's actually a real life issue so there's some realism to it. Not entirely sure how to implement but I imagine teams receiving revenue sharing would have to invest a specified percentage on draft expenses, international free agents, or general player payroll

Also, why would we not use the average staff payroll instead of a random 5 team sample? Unless it's the bottom 5 staff payrolls, then maybe I'd understand

The_Niddler wrote:

nick wrote:btw this "10-18" avg for coaches is a 5 team sample size...

my coaches (not even completely filled) is 26.26 million

so ya, fine me $10 mil a yr and i'll save $16 mil



also, since this is about fairness, should i play my backups vs the bad teams? i wanna make sure theyre having fun and it's fair and competitive.

What is wrong with imposing the fine?
The goal is to get everyone to sign coaches.
If you don't want to get hit with $10M, sign bum coaches. No one is saying the coaches have to be good, you just have to have them.

Your logic of, fine me the $10M, I will save the $16M is so juvenile.
If you were smart, you would sign say 10 coaches to $400k contracts and only pay out $4M and save yourself the $22.6M

oh oh this is good info. anything else?

btw theres 5 minor leagues x 3 coaches (15) + 4 in the pros (19 total)

19 * 440k = 8.3 mil

so .. dont waste time signing players for 440k and eat a 1.7 mil fine (difference)

DRWebs wrote:I would agree in theory about a spending floor for those teams receiving revenue sharing. It's actually a real life issue so there's some realism to it. Not entirely sure how to implement but I imagine teams receiving revenue sharing would have to invest a specified percentage on draft expenses, international free agents, or general player payroll

Also, why would we not use the average staff payroll instead of a random 5 team sample? Unless it's the bottom 5 staff payrolls, then maybe I'd understand

In my opinion, you guys are missing the point.
The penalty for not hiring coaches could be $100 Million and I could give a shit less, you know why, cause I will have all of my coaching spots full.

The goal is to have the coaching spots filled. It really isn't that hard.

As far as the floor and teams having to spend so much here and so much there....in my opinion, no.
How the hell does everyone think we will track all of that information?
Who is going to police it? The commissioner?
He has enough to do the way it is.