2016 Brewmaster's 1 SIM Complete - Next SIM Sun AM

[Pat]

Looking at my roster, its HEAVY a trade based team.

Of the playoff rosters....

Only 6/25 Patriots were drafted by Pawtucket, two of which (Jimmy Lee and Erik Hudson) were drafted with 1st round picks acquired via trade.

For Death Valley, one. Just one player, RF J.P. Knappe, was drafted by the organization. He didn't see the field in the Brewmaster's.

[funclown]

Of the playoff rosters....

Only 6/25 Patriots were drafted by Pawtucket, two of which (Jimmy Lee and Erik Hudson) were drafted with 1st round picks acquired via trade.

For Death Valley, one. Just one player, RF J.P. Knappe, was drafted by the organization.

Don't feed the beasts this off-season.

Someday I'm gonna try the "homegrown" approach. Its just so hard to draft all the right spots and sometimes draft classes just don't time out right.

[funclown]

I was spit balling. Jistic and I use to talk about this all the time. Seems after 15 million (give or take) PD returns really diminishes. Remember PD only makes a true great player great faster its DOES NOT make a bad player become good. He just gets to his potential shittyness faster.

Scouting above 10 million really what insight are you gonna get??? Its not like we are on a 1-250 pt scale here.

Its just an idea, nothing more.

Brad is better then me on this , but here is what Toronto did (no judgement just using the best data was have)

98.3 in revenue
32 million on total expenses.
71.3 on PD & Scouting

Then proceeds to lose 5 million dollars. To be thats just not right either.

Kind of makes me wish we did have Intl complex to give people something to throw money at and encourages "rebuilding" teams to keep at least 10 million on hand for signing bonuses IMO.

btw. not suggesting any rule proposal. its just a discussion.

[umd]

Of the playoff rosters....

Only 6/25 Patriots were drafted by Pawtucket, two of which (Jimmy Lee and Erik Hudson) were drafted with 1st round picks acquired via trade.

For Death Valley, one. Just one player, RF J.P. Knappe, was drafted by the organization. He didn't see the field in the Brewmaster's.

Don't feed the beasts this off-season.

And old Pat begins...

[Ryan]

I was spit balling. Jistic and I use to talk about this all the time. Seems after 15 million (give or take) PD returns really diminishes. Remember PD only makes a true great player great faster its DOES NOT make a bad player become good. He just gets to his potential shittyness faster.

Scouting above 10 million really what insight are you gonna get??? Its not like we are on a 1-250 pt scale here.

Its just an idea, nothing more.

Brad is better then me on this , but here is what Toronto did (no judgement just using the best data was have)

98.3 in revenue
32 million on total expenses.
71.3 on PD & Scouting

Then proceeds to lose 5 million dollars. To be thats just not right either.

Kind of makes me wish we did have Intl complex to give people something to throw money at and encourages "rebuilding" teams to keep at least 10 million on hand for signing bonuses IMO.

Those are good points. Again, not to pick on Spear, just the scenario, being in the red there should be a no-no for any team.

And old Pat begins...

And we've stooped to age shaming...

[Matt]

Both teams are definitely built through trades without a doubt. Two of the most active on the market that actually know what they are doing, have a plan, and follow it.

[Pat]

And old Pat begins...

[Andrew]

How do team's with a payroll of $10-15m getting $7m of revenue sharing? It might be time for a payroll floor or an adjustment to revenue sharing. They're not broke, they're cheap.

Why are we punishing profitable winning teams when everyone was in equal financial footing at the start?

Is revenue sharing still needed? We leveled the market sizes awhile back. Any variations in revenue/budgets should be a direct result of how teams are managed both in terms of on field performance and fiscal responsibility.

[funclown]

Is revenue sharing still needed? We leveled the market sizes awhile back. Any variations in revenue/budgets should be a direct result of how teams are managed both in terms of on field performance and fiscal responsibility.

And since playoff revenue is double now you can tie this together by removing the "winning at all bonus". Clay brought this rule seeing he would reign for 1000 years, but it has been useful. Don't think its been something to discourages rebuilding however, more of a "hey i won the lottery" type deal.

Pawtucket got 9 million for playoff revenue last season and would of turned a small, but important profit. No need to get another 5million rather get what we earned.

[Z]

And since playoff revenue is double now you can tie this together by removing the "winning at all bonus". Clay brought this rule seeing he would reign for 1000 years, but it has been useful. Don't think its been something to discourages rebuilding however, more of a "hey i won the lottery" type deal.

Pawtucket got 9 million for playoff revenue last season and would of turned a small, but important profit. No need to get another 5million rather get what we earned.

I'm supportive of both those proposed changes. Something to discuss for 2017.

[funclown]

I'm supportive of both those proposed changes. Something to discuss for 2017.

Agreed.

[Carlos]

Looks good on the balance sheet for fiscal 2016, but then 2017 comes rolling out you lose basically all of it. Nice learning lesson. Almost promotes if your gonna be bad, build your minors, don't invest in your BLB team, sit back and get paid.

If it was called Financial Tycoon, sure.

[Carlos]

Is revenue sharing still needed? We leveled the market sizes awhile back. Any variations in revenue/budgets should be a direct result of how teams are managed both in terms of on field performance and fiscal responsibility.

I will forever disagree with this.

Leveling the markets didn't take into account that some teams were already financially strapped, some teams were rebuilding, some teams were already bringing in money with high fan interest, etc.

It leveled the playing field until the past snuck right back in and changed everything back to how it was.

Sure, I think if a team continues to lack financial stability then it's their fault. But I don't agree that it's entirely their fault from the day markets were stabilized.

It's sort of like giving everyone $50 MM right now. Some teams will have to use that to pay debt. Other teams will be able to use it to add talent to their roster. It doesn't normalize much other than teams being able to spend for that year.

[Sharkn20]

I would be agreed with killing revenue sharing as I lost almost $9M in 2 years. Is it a punishment to get into the play offs with a clean and green $13M profit, while other teams are un win now mode getting in really bad red numbers?? So I have to give them my money?? That is really unfair...

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Z]

I will forever disagree with this.

Leveling the markets didn't take into account that some teams were already financially strapped, some teams were rebuilding, some teams were already bringing in money with high fan interest, etc.

It leveled the playing field until the past snuck right back in and changed everything back to how it was.

Sure, I think if a team continues to lack financial stability then it's their fault. But I don't agree that it's entirely their fault from the day markets were stabilized.

It's sort of like giving everyone $50 MM right now. Some teams will have to use that to pay debt. Other teams will be able to use it to add talent to their roster. It doesn't normalize much other than teams being able to spend for that year.

These points are good ones, Carlos.

I think mostly people see what Toronto did this year and wonder why a team that made a willful decision to not spend any money to compete in the BLB should receive revenue sharing money.

This discussion might be a little overreactive. Maybe we should be discussing competitive balance rules rather than making a big financial change that affects everyone.