-
Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.
WBL Rule Change Thread
- Thread starter OU11
- Start date
irrelevant truth
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
I'm fine leveling the playing field with spending punishments which requires them to make decisions on players. I think the that the key is increasing 'dead' money to big budget clubs. If you decrease my revenues with revenue sharing, I just spend $8-10m less in FA on players I don't really need like Escamilla, Ramos, Stone, Montoya and that really changing nothing.
I just don't understand why doh has to try to pin it on someone. Why can't we look back at league history and adjust our settings? Why did we decide we need $200m budgets? Profit used to mean something, now it does not. That's way too much money in our leagues economy, especially when there is no incentive to turn a profit.
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Of course there's incentive to turn a profit-- cash and a potential extra bump in the second off-season budget.
How can you tell there's too much money? Srs question. IMO too much money being spent in IFA but barely any in FA for lots of solid, good players.
Cash is the only incentive. Extra bump comes from anticipated revenue.
I can tell there is too much money based off the profits being turned by the top teams. Where the money is being spent is irrelevant. That's you trying to force your play style on other GMs. If half the GMs DGAF about FA, then there is probably too much money in the economy for the FA market.
the good news is, that even if we drop the top budgets, its still gonna be the same because you can sign your goats for 5-10 mil less AAV for 7-10 years now. So instead of paying a GOAT 18 mil in year 6, they'll still be making 8 mil. Save 10 mil per season, per GOAT!
Those ain't goats
like the guy that just had a 10 WAR season that wooly signed?
NML
Well-Known Member
10 year contracts are so rare. Probably, what, 15 in baseball history? And they'd never happen pre arb.
Pre arb multi year deals aren't very common either, from my minimal baseball knowledge.
Not in favor of starting arb earlier - everyone is just going to get more expensive and hurts teams who build through the farm.
Pre arb multi year deals aren't very common either, from my minimal baseball knowledge.
Not in favor of starting arb earlier - everyone is just going to get more expensive and hurts teams who build through the farm.
NML
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. I'm admittedly out of my element with that.
What effect does starting arb earlier have other than losing a minimum year?
Well I can't be certain other than them getting more expensive faster. I would think it would help raise their asking price, but maybe it's pointless. If we really wanted to explore no pre-arb extensions, we could make them go to arb after a year haha.
Yankee151
Hot Girl Summer
To me there should be a significant bump in pay OR AAV to buy out FA years if the doh rule is gone. It doesn't make sense for amazing players to forgo 8+ Million per FA year in most cases. There's just no way to police it though. I like 7 year doh rule for pre arb and 2 years to arb (eliminating super 2s) as a start.
NML
Well-Known Member
Lank?
of course you do
Yankee151
Hot Girl Summer
http://utopia.allsimbaseball9.com//game/lgreports/players/player_6282.html
Signed in the offseason before his arb hearing, it's 7 years at almost 80M, so about 11M in change AAV. Bought out 4 FA years (tho iirc one is a TO?) but the numbers are pretty good (likely 12M+, not opening the game right now) and he becomes a FA at 31 where he can sign another contract if he's still good.
Cheap for the club, Good secure deal for the player that allows him a chance at future cash and protects against long term injury. FWIW, he was a 4 WAR pitcher (I know, pitcher WAR, but that's likely how the game decides) at 24 years old when he signed it.
I wouldn't mind restricting pre-arb contracts to the offseason of their arb hearing, but since that's usually only one sim, I can see why that'd be an akward implementation.
FWIW, I think he mostly proposed it to me and I just accepted.
Sounds like Arevalo, but he is better so he wanted more. 7/$88m (5/8.25/11.55/16/16/16). This was the deal he suggested. I took it, but raised his first year to meet arb. He wanted 4.25 or something.
Yankee151
Hot Girl Summer
That's a good sign that 7 years is the sweet spot then
Maybe, but we also didn't negotiate. There are going to be deals people think are unfair no matter what. I don't think we can combat that without removing them entirely and that isn't worth it to me.
As long as the swing isnt ridiculous I really don't care. I like making rules less complicated. Right now i don't even need to edit the FAQ.
Yankee151
Hot Girl Summer
As long as the intention is there it's fine. If there's anything truly ridiculous that pops up again we can mess with it some more. The main reason I'm not up in arms completely about Bucky is he's low greed, clearly enjoys playing in Fax, and isn't a career 10 war a year player (all facts I found out after the initial outrage), so I think the 7 year nextlandee rule fixes that issue too.
even if Bucky's deal is 7/49 (and there's no telling he'd accept less years at this AAV with this restriction, which would be an amazing side effect) It's much more palatable. Still means he has to go to FA at 32 instead of 35, and he can actually get paid.
even if Bucky's deal is 7/49 (and there's no telling he'd accept less years at this AAV with this restriction, which would be an amazing side effect) It's much more palatable. Still means he has to go to FA at 32 instead of 35, and he can actually get paid.
