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

[funclown]

Considering the Winning It All Bonus was really the Clay Bonus, I support removing it.

I really was gonna propose this getting removed when I saw this new playoff revenue format, but right now the revenue sharing is just a bit slanted. I think alot of us broke a new high on giving this season.

[Andrew]

FWIW the amount of revenue sharing money went from $31m last season to $50m this season. The range last season was -4.5 to 5.5 last season to -7.7 to 7.8 this season. Seems like OOTP 16 has increased revenues for whatever reason. Especially for the top teams.

If anyone hasn't updated their league file yet can you look at the "Total Revenue" section of the financial report and paste it here?

[Carlos]

FWIW the amount of revenue sharing money went from $31m last season to $50m this season. The range last season was -4.5 to 5.5 last season to -7.7 to 7.8 this season. Seems like OOTP 16 has increased revenues for whatever reason. Especially for the top teams.

If anyone hasn't updated their league file yet can you look at the "Total Revenue" section of the financial report and paste it here?

Is it possible that the top of the list has more money and the bottom has less?

[Delandis]

I'd propose that we raise the carry over amount to 20-25MM to incentivize saving cash AND get rid revenue sharing. We are talking about two different issues here, market size and fiscal responsibility. Evidenced by the fact that half of the league will not have the cash to participate in FA, there is little (if any) correlation between the two.

I've been a big market team since I took over in 1984 and I've watched teams rise and fall in market size, before and after leveling the field. Baltimore remaining a big team isn't by accident. Why should I get punished year after year for putting out a competitive team that fans want to go see, while others get rewarded for doing the exact opposite?

If you want to build your team by slowly building through the draft, that is completely fine.

But you shouldn't get to do it on someone else's dime.

[Z]

I'd propose that we raise the carry over amount to 20-25MM to incentivize saving cash AND get rid revenue sharing.

Interesting. I do not recall why we set it at $10 million in the first place.

This suggestion might be one way to reward fiscal responsibility.

No disrespect to the teams who spend freely, but I feel like there should be consequences — at least relative to the responsible teams — for losing tens of millions of dollars.

Allowing teams to keep more of their profits would be one way to achieve it.

[BradZ]

Interesting. I do not recall why we set it at $10 million in the first place.

This suggestion might be one way to reward fiscal responsibility.

No disrespect to the teams who spend freely, but I feel like there should be consequences — at least relative to the responsible teams — for losing tens of millions of dollars.

There is. You carry your negative debt and it hampers your ability to operate.

[Z]

There is. You carry your negative debt and it hampers your ability to operate.

Does it? I feel like the same teams manage to spend $130+ million on player payroll every year despite losing money.

Maybe my sense is incorrect there?

[Carlos]

I'd propose that we raise the carry over amount to 20-25MM to incentivize saving cash AND get rid revenue sharing. We are talking about two different issues here, market size and fiscal responsibility. Evidenced by the fact that half of the league will not have the cash to participate in FA, there is little (if any) correlation between the two.

I've been a big market team since I took over in 1984 and I've watched teams rise and fall in market size, before and after leveling the field. Baltimore remaining a big team isn't by accident. Why should I get punished year after year for putting out a competitive team that fans want to go see, while others get rewarded for doing the exact opposite?

If you want to build your team by slowly building through the draft, that is completely fine.

But you shouldn't get to do it on someone else's dime.

I'm very okay with removing revenue sharing.

The money my team got isn't going to do much at all for us. We are still in the hole by $27 MM.

By the way, anyone know where I can find that? The only place I've been able to see that number is by offering a player a contract. It still seems to me that the financial reporting in OOTP isn't very clear.

For example, in the report saying Money for Extensions. It simply says none. That doesn't actually help. How much do I need to get to $1? I know the answer but only when I click on Offer Contract and then it tells me that this offer will put you this much more in debt.

[Carlos]

Does it? I feel like the same teams manage to spend $130+ million on player payroll every year despite losing money.

Maybe my sense is incorrect there?

Maybe in old versions. Definitely not the case in OOTP 16.

[Z]

There is. You carry your negative debt and it hampers your ability to operate.

You seem to understand the numbers better than I do, so I'd appreciate any explanation you have.

Pittsburgh spent $117.5 million on player payroll in 2015. It resulted in them finishing the season with a balance of negative-$13.4 million.

Despite finishing with an eight-figure negative balance, they managed to increase their payroll by $12 million, to $129.6 million in 2016.

Similarly, Pawtucket finished 2015 with a negative balance of -$4.7 million, but increased their payroll by $14 million in 2016.

If teams are being rightly restricted by losing money, how is this possible?

[Delandis]

Interesting. I do not recall why we set it at $10 million in the first place.

This suggestion might be one way to reward fiscal responsibility.

No disrespect to the teams who spend freely, but I feel like there should be consequences — at least relative to the responsible teams — for losing tens of millions of dollars.

Allowing teams to keep more of their profits would be one way to achieve it.

I believe we did it because an earlier version of OOTP did not accurately carry year to (over or whatever) year balances. I think it was fixed in 14 and we never adjusted.

I've thought about it before but always forgot to mention it.

[Sharkn20]

I'd propose that we raise the carry over amount to 20-25MM to incentivize saving cash AND get rid revenue sharing. We are talking about two different issues here, market size and fiscal responsibility. Evidenced by the fact that half of the league will not have the cash to participate in FA, there is little (if any) correlation between the two.

I've been a big market team since I took over in 1984 and I've watched teams rise and fall in market size, before and after leveling the field. Baltimore remaining a big team isn't by accident. Why should I get punished year after year for putting out a competitive team that fans want to go see, while others get rewarded for doing the exact opposite?

If you want to build your team by slowly building through the draft, that is completely fine.

But you shouldn't get to do it on someone else's dime.

That´s exactly how I feel, with obviously less experience and less years in the league.

[Andrew]

Is it possible that the top of the list has more money and the bottom has less?

These are the raw revenue numbers for 2016 vs 2015
2016

PAW	2016	 $144,927,058 
DVS	2016	 $143,746,211 
BAT	2016	 $143,441,444 
DAL	2016	 $138,817,918 
LAD	2016	 $136,791,980 
PIT	2016	 $130,632,180 
MAI	2016	 $129,761,146 
WAS	2016	 $128,879,777 
PHI	2016	 $127,449,746 
BAL	2016	 $124,861,111 
MOR	2016	 $124,732,619 
IND	2016	 $122,861,271 
NO	2016	 $119,956,430 
HAR	2016	 $119,167,138 
SYR	2016	 $113,145,395 
DEN	2016	 $107,732,873 
WIL	2016	 $107,424,190 
CAL	2016	 $102,876,089 
CAR	2016	 $102,386,220 
NYK	2016	 $102,036,114 
LAA	2016	 $99,491,957 
DAV	2016	 $99,044,700 
WIN	2016	 $98,849,096 
TOR	2016	 $93,192,428 

SUM	 $2,862,205,091 
AVG	 $119,258,545 
MEDIAN	 $121,408,851 
RANGE	 $51,734,630

2015

WAS	2015	 $131,688,634 
DVS	2015	 $131,482,259 
BAT	2015	 $130,272,667 
MAI	2015	 $129,481,049 
LAD	2015	 $128,466,104 
DAL	2015	 $124,746,951 
PAW	2015	 $123,893,861 
BAL	2015	 $123,041,850 
IND	2015	 $122,588,857 
MOR	2015	 $120,992,103 
CAR	2015	 $120,537,365 
PIT	2015	 $118,720,035 
PHI	2015	 $117,470,344 
NO	2015	 $116,924,953 
SYR	2015	 $116,437,098 
HAR	2015	 $115,659,602 
DEN	2015	 $111,164,407 
DAV	2015	 $108,224,457 
WIL	2015	 $107,501,962 
NYK	2015	 $104,675,914 
WIN	2015	 $102,644,662 
LAA	2015	 $100,359,701 
TOR	2015	 $98,859,359 
CAL	2015	 $98,674,132 

SUM	 $2,804,508,326 
AVG	 $116,854,514 
MEDIAN	 $118,095,190 
RANGE	 $33,014,502

2014

MAI	2014	 $134,944,301 
LAD	2014	 $133,344,379 
BAT	2014	 $133,294,990 
DVS	2014	 $131,962,955 
CAR	2014	 $127,382,299 
PAW	2014	 $127,337,401 
WAS	2014	 $126,603,993 
BAL	2014	 $125,144,770 
SYR	2014	 $123,305,874 
DAL	2014	 $120,398,006 
DAV	2014	 $115,080,071 
PHI	2014	 $114,850,571 
PIT	2014	 $114,304,846 
DEN	2014	 $113,982,783 
IND	2014	 $112,922,880 
CAL	2014	 $109,187,109 
NO	2014	 $109,097,717 
LAA	2014	 $101,682,067 
WIN	2014	 $101,358,484 
NYK	2014	 $100,776,470 
MOR	2014	 $99,215,094 
HAR	2014	 $98,774,942 
TOR	2014	 $96,590,227 
WIL	2014	 $93,528,171 

SUM	 $2,765,070,400 
AVG	 $115,211,267 
MEDIAN	 $114,577,709 
RANGE	 $41,416,130

[Delandis]

You seem to understand the numbers better than I do, so I'd appreciate any explanation you have.

Pittsburgh spent $117.5 million on player payroll in 2015. It resulted in them finishing the season with a balance of negative-$13.4 million.

Despite finishing with an eight-figure negative balance, they managed to increase their payroll by $12 million, to $129.6 million in 2016.

Similarly, Pawtucket finished 2015 with a negative balance of -$4.7 million, but increased their payroll by $14 million in 2016.

If teams are being rightly restricted by losing money, how is this possible?

In Pawtucket's case they brought in 144MM. That's tremendous for our universe. I think even in my 2001 championship season I only made 134MM.

[funclown]

The top and bottom seem to have a bit more distance to them today.