2040 Season Thread-Feeling Crabby?

[nick]

also, have fun singing 440k coaches. I went to the bottom of the list, complete bottom, terrible ratings (unk-avg-fair-dec-good-good) , and went to diff positions and he wants 2.5 mil to be coach of my pro team.

So once again, I'll eat a fine and spend less.

[nick]

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.

by clicking "Financial report" and looking at Player Payrolls? By using an Excel Spreadsheet, pasting something in (takes like 10 seconds).

thats fuckign difficult.

[ReignOnU]

I think we're on the verge of a lot of things being brought up... most of which I've touched on at some point...

1.) Tanking - It's disgusting and terrible for any simulation league. There's a reason that the best leagues across this sim and others have anti-tanking rules.
2.) Subpoint of Tanking - Ridiculously low payroll teams. This is a bit of a catch 22 in OOTP because of the financial budgets that are in place. Once you start tanking, if you don't turn the corner within a few seasons, you get stuck in a trap.
3.) Subpoint of Tanking - sub .300 winning percentages... in the last 50 years, this has happened once in MLB... 2003 Tigers.


Quick resolutions to some of the problems...

- If your payroll and coach expense is below "X" at the end of the season, then an amount is added to it as a penalty before rollover. This will mean that you will still get rev sharing, the financial spending aspect can be circumvented by the commish and the top spenders aren't hit quite as hard due to your tanking.

- If a team finishes below .300, their first round pick is moved to the end of the round. You don't have to do this in-game. It can be handled with the order on the message board.

- If a team finishes below .300 for a consecutive season (on-going), they forfeit their 1st round pick.

- Filling coaches should be done on a set date, with a specific fine by level.

- Coaching pay demands should be cut. This is controlled on the backend by the commish. There should be a set time of this occurring, such as the start of 2041. This allows people to prepare accordingly.

- If these items were implemented together, the finances being lost by spending more for lower teams and penalties should offset the increased profit from lower coaching costs.


On a side note about coaches... if you want to circumvent the system, it's still relatively possible. Sign a set of rookie league and SA coaches first. Promote them to ML, repeat until your roster is full. You should be able to fill your entire coaching staff for less than $8m.

[nick]

in theory the bottom part works but some spots youre screwed. That horrible rated coach i picked, i went to R League manager and he wants 1.26 million! lmao wot

[ReignOnU]

Your logic of, fine me the $10M, I will save the $16M is so juvenile.

Funny you say that... I hadn't read everything and saw and IM from Nick... my first response was that we implemented the ACA for coaches. That same logic is EXACTLY what people who are taking the fine are saying about the ACA.

[Cnasty]

Curious to why these were never possibly implemented before asyou stated they were brought up before but I don't remember these being discussed. These aren't new issues.

[The_Niddler]

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.

by clicking "Financial report" and looking at Player Payrolls? By using an Excel Spreadsheet, pasting something in (takes like 10 seconds).

thats fuckign difficult.

Since it is so easy, we have our volunteer.

Thanks nick.

[ReignOnU]

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.

1.) That's you, now put your commish hat back on and think about the number of times you've had to move people from DFA. There will be mistakes. There will be situations where a team is missing a random minor league coach. Docking them $100m isn't the answer. Missing 1 coach at $1m is a slap on the wrist and missing 10 coaches for $10m is a reasonable fine.

2.) It's easy to track, it only has to be reviewed during rollover and with the ability to pull the report off of the web or even take 10min to flip through every team's financial while doing the financial spreadsheet, it's a minor task.

[The_Niddler]

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.

1.) That's you, now put your commish hat back on and think about the number of times you've had to move people from DFA. There will be mistakes. There will be situations where a team is missing a random minor league coach. Docking them $100m isn't the answer. Missing 1 coach at $1m is a slap on the wrist and missing 10 coaches for $10m is a reasonable fine.

2.) It's easy to track, it only has to be reviewed during rollover and with the ability to pull the report off of the web or even take 10min to flip through every team's financial while doing the financial spreadsheet, it's a minor task.

I get what you are saying...I understand only missing 1 coach is a slap on the wrist and missing 10 is more...however, as a commissioner, I am pretty sure Corey can also reach out to those teams that are missing 1 and can see that it is an oversight and work with them a little more before a penalty is handed out, where a guy missing 10, clearly feels differently about the OOTP game.

[The_Niddler]

2.) It's easy to track, it only has to be reviewed during rollover and with the ability to pull the report off of the web or even take 10min to flip through every team's financial while doing the financial spreadsheet, it's a minor task.

Not sure I understand this.
I thought this was something we are going to ask them to do throughout the season is to keep all their coaches, not just review at opening day and you either receive a penalty or not.

Rollover is a bad time to look at coaches IMO.
That is when guys retire or contracts expire.

[ReignOnU]

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.

1.) That's you, now put your commish hat back on and think about the number of times you've had to move people from DFA. There will be mistakes. There will be situations where a team is missing a random minor league coach. Docking them $100m isn't the answer. Missing 1 coach at $1m is a slap on the wrist and missing 10 coaches for $10m is a reasonable fine.

2.) It's easy to track, it only has to be reviewed during rollover and with the ability to pull the report off of the web or even take 10min to flip through every team's financial while doing the financial spreadsheet, it's a minor task.

I get what you are saying...I understand only missing 1 coach is a slap on the wrist and missing 10 is more...however, as a commissioner, I am pretty sure Corey can also reach out to those teams that are missing 1 and can see that it is an oversight and work with them a little more before a penalty is handed out, where a guy missing 10, clearly feels differently about the OOTP game.

Why create a gray area if it's avoidable? It only opens the commissioner up to unnecessary criticism.

[ReignOnU]

2.) It's easy to track, it only has to be reviewed during rollover and with the ability to pull the report off of the web or even take 10min to flip through every team's financial while doing the financial spreadsheet, it's a minor task.

Not sure I understand this.
I thought this was something we are going to ask them to do throughout the season is to keep all their coaches, not just review at opening day and you either receive a penalty or not.

Rollover is a bad time to look at coaches IMO.
That is when guys retire or contracts expire.

The response was to your comment about a spending floor. The only time to review that would be at the end of the season before rollover. That's when expenses are final.

[ReignOnU]

Double post... yes, setting a specific time is smart move for examining coaches. A team may go a month or more trying to fill a spot or a few spots at a given time. If there is a set date, every season, when the task has to be complete, there are no excuses for surprises. Again... no need to have a gray area.

[nick]

Corey likes Bernie Sanders so much the NDLB is becoming a socialist league. Now I know how super rich people feel. gonna have to start putting my $$ in Panama..

[DRiccio21]

if you're posting a competitive team and can do it on all MLB minimum contracts than so be it.

it's when you aren't being or attempting to be competitive the issues come up.

i was in a huge hole financially and historically always had a big payroll, i just had to shed contracts to get myself back into financial stability. i had Glenn and a few other vets i traded/cut mid season also.

my payroll will gradually pick up over the next few years as my youngsters get into their first contracts but if a guy can win with a low payroll, more power to him.

[ReignOnU]

Curious to why these were never possibly implemented before asyou stated they were brought up before but I don't remember these being discussed. These aren't new issues.

2020 - Randawg was accused of tanking (still finished over .300)
2022 - You suggested Seattle was tanking... I mentioned that other leagues have rules about it. Nothing more was said.
2026 - Miami's tank job... a lot of chatter on it.
2027 - Whitt accused of tanking
2027 - More tanking discussion... and I quote "
PostMon Feb 17, 2014 12:49 pm
I've mentioned anti-tanking rules in the past... never seems to gain momentum or people didn't understand the purpose."
2029 - Open discussion about Nick's tanking results
2030 - General consensus is that tanking isn't beneficial because drafts suck now (ironic after the 2029 super draft)
2036-2039 - The Omahahaha years.

It's definitely come up throughout our history and it's certainly had an impact both positively (Miami / Seattle) and negatively (finances / competitive realism).

As for why it was never implemented, it's just one of those things that people want to complain about, but don't understand the overall implications so they don't feel that it's worth regulating.

[ReignOnU]

Corey likes Bernie Sanders so much the NDLB is becoming a socialist league. Now I know how super rich people feel. gonna have to start putting my $$ in Panama..

Just come over to the other side of the aisle buddy.

[Boston_Rob]

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

Let's not micromanage, that is just absurd. I dumped salary this season and now I have 54 million to spend this offseason, I only recieved 13 million through revenue sharing.

As far as Nick's comments to it not being fair, I lost 39 points in fan interest and my attendence dropped roughly 750,000. So its not like I am pulling something. Our league is not as accurate as the MLB, look at how many 100 game winners we have.

[Boston_Rob]

Side note!

Well titled thread Corey!

[ReignOnU]

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

Let's not micromanage, that is just absurd. I dumped salary this season and now I have 54 million to spend this offseason, I only recieved 13 million through revenue sharing.

As far as Nick's comments to it not being fair, I lost 39 points in fan interest and my attendence dropped roughly 750,000. So its not like I am pulling something. Our league is not as accurate as the MLB, look at how many 100 game winners we have.

We have so many 100 game winners for 2 reasons...
1.) As I pointed out earlier, we have far more teams tanking or just sucking in general than the MLB
2.) At any given point there are only 6-8 teams really shooting for the title. In almost every season, teams that are well within the playoff race are posting fire sales and trading quality players from their roster.

In 2020, 15 payrolls were over $115k. In 2039, there are 8.
In 2020, 5 of those were over $145k. In 2039, only Miami.

I'd have to look at the full payroll information, but I believe the issue is with players in the $7m to $15m range. Over the years we've trended towards paying the guys that are worth 15m+ their money, but then we avoid paying these mid-level contracts which creates a gap in the tiers of players.

I also think we have a bit of a transition period going on with some teams that were consistently winning being replaced by the next set of Vancouvers and Winterfells.