Winter Meetings Topic - Financial Restrictions

[shel311]

That's each team's current budget.

Hypothetically, your projected expenses match your budget perfectly, you still have $50 mil for free agents if you have max cash.

This rule will likely not allow many teams to spend their fully money available for free agents, which is why I voted against it.

[shel311]

If we want to make to very easy, let me determine if deals are pushing boundaries to unrealistic expectations and to the detriment of the league.

This is very rare and we normally are pretty solid on deals that I intervene when needed and go from there.

Trade Committee!!!!

The only way to do it with a hard set rule would have to be budget + $50 mil and probably + another % on top of that, which is juts too much.

We're ok as is imo.

[wdoupis]

the only problem is the financial numbers are not right. I have 100+ mil to spend on FAs but if you go by expenses - current budget i only have 34 mil to spend.

Those are the things that are tricky. It's tough so say, the league has been wildly successful for this many seasons. Perhaps we should just leave it as is and not overreact to one rare situation

no were def in the right to overreact. The fact for 35 seasons we had 30 owners who ran things normal and never went this far. Then, the 1st season he does it, we call him out, and so he decides its okay to do it a 2nd season? Cmon man. Its a fucking SIM baseball league, use some common sense and try to not cheat. First season is fine, second season on youre bending rules. Fucking lame.

and the people of the league are speaking based on the votes so clearly this is something no one except like 2-3 people, 1 of them (being a person unloading 95m in a deal), likes..

I know listening is not a characteristic you practice often but if you try I voted yes to this poll. I agree it's never been a problem and it randomly came up. Overreacting would be inplementing rules that may mess up our financials. We can just use common sense and police it in the future.

See that Nick, that was an example of listening to different opinions and expressing one. It's a useful tactic in a debate

[Wasted Memory]

We're ok as is imo.

But 11 of the other 13 people don't think we are. We need to come up with some kind of solution. Sitting back saying "eh, it won't happen again" is not a viable option, as has been pointed out in a couple posts above.

[shel311]

We're ok as is imo.

But 11 of the other 13 people don't think we are. We need to come up with some kind of solution. Sitting back saying "eh, it won't happen again" is not a viable option, as has been pointed out in a couple posts above.

Sure, but you know many of those 1 to will be the first to bitch when they can't afford to sign a player despite having enough money for free agents.

It can't go on budgets. It'll have to be budget plus cash and then some, it'll just be a big mess imo.

Rob's moves have a consequence, which is why I'm ok with it.

[Wasted Memory]

Another advantage to this if it goes in to affect, people will (or at least should) start to consider the consequences of some of these larger contracts. A rule like this will begin limiting the capability of trading that player off to teams willing to take on the contract.

[shel311]

Another advantage to this if it goes in to affect, people will (or at least should) start to consider the consequences of some of these larger contracts. A rule like this will begin limiting the capability of trading that player off to teams willing to take on the contract.

Could be another negative consequence though , with guys less willing to give bigger, more deserving deals if it's harder to trade those guys.

Less trades also equals Les immersion.

Just stuff to think about.

[Wasted Memory]

Another advantage to this if it goes in to affect, people will (or at least should) start to consider the consequences of some of these larger contracts. A rule like this will begin limiting the capability of trading that player off to teams willing to take on the contract.

Could be another negative consequence though , with guys less willing to give bigger, more deserving deals if it's harder to trade those guys.

Less trades also equals Les immersion.

Just stuff to think about.

The more conscientious GM's will begin structuring contracts differently. I'd imagine equal money across the years instead of the ballooning.

[nick]

make every trade have a "veto yes/no" poll attached to it. if ppl veto we look into it.

[DRWebs]

make every trade have a "veto yes/no" poll attached to it. if ppl veto we look into it.

Problem is you don't have all 30 regularly checking the forums or even all 30 willing to vote

[nick]

bad trades always get called out

[Cnasty]

I actually like that idea.

Goes well with me being the judge and executioner

I'm all for ease and fairness.

[GeorgesGoons]

and btw, budgets are so flexible. all you gotta do is win. If people think trading for a lot of extra $$ makes them competitive. no. winning does. Like 3 seasons ago my budget was 3rd last and now it's 11th. All I've done is made sure my books arent messed and won more than i lost and it goes up.

Not at all true. Owners play a huge role in this. I'll use my team as an example.

2044 my budget was $110M, my revenue was $108M
2045 my budget was cut to $105M, my revenue ended with $115M
2046 my budget was cut again to $105M

SO winning is not the only answer. The owners play a part as well. I the fiscal personality should be the same for all of the teams in my opinion. The owner can't fire the GM's so they really don't add anything to the league for teams like mine and probably add more for teams that are given more leeway and more money.

[GeorgesGoons]

the only problem is the financial numbers are not right. I have 100+ mil to spend on FAs but if you go by expenses - current budget i only have 34 mil to spend.

Those are the things that are tricky. It's tough so say, the league has been wildly successful for this many seasons. Perhaps we should just leave it as is and not overreact to one rare situation

no were def in the right to overreact. The fact for 35 seasons we had 30 owners who ran things normal and never went this far. Then, the 1st season he does it, we call him out, and so he decides its okay to do it a 2nd season? Cmon man. Its a fucking SIM baseball league, use some common sense and try to not cheat. First season is fine, second season on youre bending rules. Fucking lame.

and the people of the league are speaking based on the votes so clearly this is something no one except like 2-3 people, 1 of them (being a person unloading 95m in a deal), likes..

Enough with the cheating rhetoric. You sound like a 2nd grader who lost a game and you're only excuse is the other player had to have cheated. To cheat you have to break a rule, there is no rule in place.

[The_Niddler]

I know, seeing this post by Corey:

Montreal is -$168million in the hole, -$28million in cash and $100million over budget in comparison to player payroll and budget.

That makes it pretty clear that he cannot take on more debt.
But where do you draw the line?

I feel like you have to let a team go a little in debt if they are making their team better, which in turn, should help get them out of debt.

[Seeitsaveit13]

That's each team's current budget.

Hypothetically, your projected expenses match your budget perfectly, you still have $50 mil for free agents if you have max cash.

This rule will likely not allow many teams to spend their fully money available for free agents, which is why I voted against it.

Agreed.

[shel311]

I really think many voted before really thinking through the ramifications of this one.

I feel like I may be bumping this thread a few times in the future when someone is complaining to show them their posts in this thread.

This is gonna be fun!!!

[GeorgesGoons]

I really think many voted before really thinking through the ramifications of this one.

I feel like I may be bumping this thread a few times in the future when someone is complaining to show them their posts in this thread.

This is gonna be fun!!!

I voted with you Shelly. I don't care either way

[Cnasty]

With it being as close as it is, are we good with me determining when to intervene versus hard set rules and numbers which are complicated for most and inaccurate depending on where we go with the parameters?

I would consult with the owner(s) prior to denying and give feedback.

[shel311]

With it being as close as it is, are we good with me determining when to intervene versus hard set rules and numbers which are complicated for most and inaccurate depending on where we go with the parameters?

I would consult with the owner(s) prior to denying and give feedback.

Yes, anything that doesn't allow this to go through will be best for the league.