SQL Utilities/Financial Utility

[Carlos]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[umd]

I've been doing it for 13 seasons.

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

[Matt]

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

[Matt]

I've been doing it for 13 seasons.

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

[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]

Batavia should have been in NYC.

[Ryan]

Batavia should have been in NYC.

I should have taken China.

[Andrew]

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.

My last thought was to actually remove the hard cap. I think a hard cap makes a ton of sense in real life but in OOTP I'm worried it will only drive player contract demands up because the large market teams will be forced to bank their extra cash. If contract demands go up, the cap really won't be helping the small market teams and it may result in a bunch of good players not getting signed in FA because the teams who can afford them don't have the cap space.

So in summary I think the two best options are:

Option 1
- 6-8 market size
- No Hard cap
- Leave cash max at $20m

Option 2
- 6-8 market size
- Hard cap ($100m?)
- Lower cash max ($5m? $10m?)

If we implement the cap I'd recommend calling it a "soft cap" and allow teams to go over due to arbitration and minor league call ups. It would still be in their best interest to get under the cap as they wouldn't be able to make trades or sign players and it wouldn't create a ton of extra work for the commish.

[Matt]

I'm confused on what the Cash Max is? Is that the end of year +/-? Anything over it we lose or does it continue to go into a bank? I just don't understand the financials well enough (have I said that enough). I do agree with the soft cap for Arb/call-ups. I think I'd go with whatever you think is best and easiest on the commish.

You haven't led us wrong yet. Except when you booked Erasure for the '89 BLB All-Star pregame festivities in Batavia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH0SoZNdozs

[Delandis]

Except when you booked Erasure for the '89 BLB All-Star pregame festivities in Batavia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH0SoZNdozs

You sir, just made me lose a spoonful of cereal.