SQL Utilities/Financial Utility

[Andrew]

Assuming the owner personality voting doesn't change drastically, Clay should have everything he needs to kick this thing back off.

[funclown]

Does that mean you and Clay will run the test tonight???

[funclown]

Unless there are any strong opinions against the last proposal, we are going to forgo the poll and make an executive decision. There are so many different options out there now that we think it would be difficult to come to a consensus on which variation to go with.

The only poll will be regarding the dynamic owners here:
http://www.simgamingnetwork.com/foru...ead.php?t=8449

Sounds good Andrew.

[Lintyfresh85]

As always, I don't care what you guys pick, I'll support it.

[Andrew]

Andrew I think we should have a vote on these 2 options. Personally I'm voting for option #1 with the "Dynamic Owner" setup.

Unless there are any strong opinions against the last proposal, we are going to forgo the poll and make an executive decision. There are so many different options out there now that we think it would be difficult to come to a consensus on which variation to go with.

The only poll will be regarding the dynamic owners here:
http://www.simgamingnetwork.com/foru...ead.php?t=8449

[Z]

I like the idea of dynamic owners. Being a small market team is actually very interesting to me.

[Carlos]

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 believe it disappears forever.

That or it funds Clay's outings to Portland.

[funclown]

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.

Andrew I think we should have a vote on these 2 options. Personally I'm voting for option #1 with the "Dynamic Owner" setup.

[Delandis]

Also these guys don't seem to die very often so a team could be stuck with an economizer for 3-5 years.

You would like that to happen to Baltimore, wouldn't you? I think I might need to go change my vote.

[Matt]

I like the owner personality because it's new and sounds interesting. I just don't know how much a tight-wad vs. generous owner affects things. Is it millions? Also these guys don't seem to die very often so a team could be stuck with an economizer for 3-5 years.

[Andrew]

What I proposed to Clay is:

- market sizes from 6-8 using the chart I posted
- "soft cap" at 100m. Soft meaning if teams go over due to call-ups or arbitration, you don't need to start cutting players. I also think we should allow teams who are over the cap to make trades as long as it reduces their cap # for the current year (or next year if the trade occurs during the off-season). I think the game would disallow these but we need to give people an avenue to get under the cap. In some cases it will require a combination of moves to do so. A soft cap also means no extra work for you in terms of cutting players, etc.
- reduce cash max to 10m
- remove all out of game bonuses except writing articles
- create a poll on whether or not to turn dynamic owner personality on. I like the idea of it but don't have a great understanding of how it plays into things.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Ryan]

Batavia should have been in NYC.

I should have taken China.