SQL Utilities/Financial Utility

[Matt]

Batavia should have been in NYC.

[Ryan]

Actually the only small are Batavia, Morgantown, Indy, and Mississippi.

I blame the league for letting us start franchises in small markets. What were they thinking?!?!

[Matt]

I've been doing it for 13 seasons.

Actually the only small are Batavia, Morgantown, Indy, and Mississippi.

[Matt]

Are we waiting on a vote now? Do we need to draw up a proposal?

[umd]

I've been doing it for 13 seasons.

Trust me...I feel your pain. I've done it 9 in NCFA.

[Jistic]

As the owner of a small market team (and being new) I have no problem building up a crappy team. However, I do have a problem if I bust my ass and "stick it out" to build a quality team and then lose all my drafted and home grown players to teams spending $95 million a season. That's not fun. Especially in a fictional league. If no one wants a cap or to bring the big dogs back to the pack then what's the point of playing a small market team if you build for 6 years, compete for 2, build for 6? Whereas, big $ money teams do whatever they want $ wise - whether they are successful on the field or not.

If we're not going to make the gap small, then small market members should be allowed to take over the large market teams if they open up. Otherwise, the same small market guys are feeder teams for the same free spending playoff teams every season.

As much as it's "just a game", most of us are competitive enough to admit that losing more than you win is not too much fun.

So, I'm all for making smaller teams more competitive. There's a reason in leagues where real teams are used no one picks the Royals or Pirates and sticks with them.

I've been doing it for 13 seasons.

[funclown]

As the owner of a small market team (and being new) I have no problem building up a crappy team. However, I do have a problem if I bust my ass and "stick it out" to build a quality team and then lose all my drafted and home grown players to teams spending $95 million a season. That's not fun. Especially in a fictional league. If no one wants a cap or to bring the big dogs back to the pack then what's the point of playing a small market team if you build for 6 years, compete for 2, build for 6? Whereas, big $ money teams do whatever they want $ wise - whether they are successful on the field or not.

If we're not going to make the gap small, then small market members should be allowed to take over the large market teams if they open up. Otherwise, the same small market guys are feeder teams for the same free spending playoff teams every season.

As much as it's "just a game", most of us are competitive enough to admit that losing more than you win is not too much fun.

So, I'm all for making smaller teams more competitive. There's a reason in leagues where real teams are used no one picks the Royals or Pirates and sticks with them.

I think the outcome coming up is leading to a bit more level playing field

[umd]

As the owner of a small market team (and being new) I have no problem building up a crappy team. However, I do have a problem if I bust my ass and "stick it out" to build a quality team and then lose all my drafted and home grown players to teams spending $95 million a season. That's not fun. Especially in a fictional league. If no one wants a cap or to bring the big dogs back to the pack then what's the point of playing a small market team if you build for 6 years, compete for 2, build for 6? Whereas, big $ money teams do whatever they want $ wise - whether they are successful on the field or not.

If we're not going to make the gap small, then small market members should be allowed to take over the large market teams if they open up. Otherwise, the same small market guys are feeder teams for the same free spending playoff teams every season.

As much as it's "just a game", most of us are competitive enough to admit that losing more than you win is not too much fun.

So, I'm all for making smaller teams more competitive. There's a reason in leagues where real teams are used no one picks the Royals or Pirates and sticks with them.

[Ryan]

They should add a players union with AI negotiating skills. Wouldn't that be great? You could have a league cruising along when all of a sudden the players go on strike and your league folds.

I thought we were in the midst of this right now.

[BradZ]

Real life. Owners discussing a new CBA every three years (OOTP version).

They should add a players union with AI negotiating skills. Wouldn't that be great? You could have a league cruising along when all of a sudden the players go on strike and your league folds.

[Carlos]

Real life. Owners discussing a new CBA every three years (OOTP version).

[BradZ]

I would have been + .500 if I didn't have to play Philly every other game. Speaking of will the old schedule be put in place or for ease are we letting HAL pick it and skipping the All-Star game again?

And I like entire budget available unless we can kill off the GM every few seasons. In my SP league I've had the same guy for 5+ years and that's a long time in MP time.

So...6-8, hard cap, entire budget. It's like the WLB but with a little parity due to the 6-8. With the hard cap there though it was still possible to go over the $65 mil, I had to cut players on teams over. That means out of game work for the commish though. If we just want the finance guy inside the game to handle it and let some teams go over since that's easier I'd have no problem.

You were 10-11 against us. You more than held your own. You should focus your negativity on BAL and CAL (15-26 combined).

I liked the variety of this past season's schedule. Maybe a little too much interleague, but I liked the change overall.

[Matt]

I would have been + .500 if I didn't have to play Philly every other game. Speaking of will the old schedule be put in place or for ease are we letting HAL pick it and skipping the All-Star game again?

And I like entire budget available unless we can kill off the GM every few seasons. In my SP league I've had the same guy for 5+ years and that's a long time in MP time.

So...6-8, hard cap, entire budget. It's like the WLB but with a little parity due to the 6-8. With the hard cap there though it was still possible to go over the $65 mil, I had to cut players on teams over. That means out of game work for the commish though. If we just want the finance guy inside the game to handle it and let some teams go over since that's easier I'd have no problem.

[Delandis]

Be careful, you have an "Economizer" as an owner. He may tighten up your purse strings to Batavia level finances if you don't produce.

All I have to do is play .500 ball. That's my specialty.

[BradZ]

I'd like that. Gives it more of a GM feel.

Be careful, you have an "Economizer" as an owner. He may tighten up your purse strings to Batavia level finances if you don't produce.