Financial Rules proposal vote

[Young Drachma]

Ticket prices are $1.

Media media is set to $65 million

By doing that, each team's budget is at least $65 million, plus gate and playoff and merch, which isn't really all that much.

Cash maximum is $1.00. No more carrying cash, because all you need is enough to spend on your salary, plus whatever revenue you accumulate via ticket and merch, which will give you a few million extra depending on your situation.

- Option years cannot be for more than 20% of the highest year of the contract

- Incentives are eliminated.

- Players making $5 million or more can only be released in the last guaranteed year of their contract. All others can be released at will.


A one-time exemption for releasing players would be allowed in the September after the proposal passes.

Would be enacted starting after the 1980 season. (So next weekend)
The one-time exemption would take place the season before, meaning at the end of this season, people could release who they wanted, but that would be the only opportunity they'd have to do that before the new rules passed.

[Commo_Soldier]

I like these, but I think we should make one caveat. All teams have either the same size stadium or the largest and smallest are within 10% of each other. This should hopefully prevent hassles later on.

EDIT: Also I know there was talk about this, but would like a little more clarification on the "last year" of the contract portion. Do option years count as the last year or the year before the option count as the last year, since the option year is not really a year?

[ekcut]

I am very happy!

As Commo pointed out, I too would like to equalize stadium capacities.

I do not think option years should count as the last year of a contract. I think the rule should be, "Only players in the last guarenteed year of their contract can be released"

[kaosfere]

I'm voting yes on this with the caveat that I'd like to revisit the issue of incentives once we settle down with the new structure.

[ekcut]

:+1:

We are all FOOLs, nothing is ever final! :)

[Young Drachma]

I am very happy!

As Commo pointed out, I too would like to equalize stadium capacities.

I do not think option years should count as the last year of a contract. I think the rule should be, "Only players in the last guaranteed year of their contract can be released"

This is fine and within the spirit of the rule as I meant it, even if it got muddled. :)

[Young Drachma]

- All Stadiums will be equalized at 40,000 seats.

We can add this rule after these, but that's an easy fix, honestly.

[Young Drachma]

The player release rule was intended to be for those players making $5 million or more. Not for those under that, otherwise, it would be onerous and slow things down.

[ekcut]

The player release rule was intended to be for those players making $5 million or more. Not for those under that, otherwise, it would be onerous and slow things down.

Gotcha....so the rule is "Players making over $5mil/season must be in the last guarenteed year of their contract ot be released. All others can be released at will."

[Young Drachma]

Fixed. thanx.

[muns]

im down with the changes. Great job DC, and Great Job BOD!!!

Thanks for all the hard work on this!

[magic_number]

I signed this guy under the rules I had to "learn fool" with & I feel "the new rules can wait or give a "per player under contract" pass on the new rules. Why rush? This is what I meant by using the term "Betwars" some time ago... I had to run with the system in place, so why rush it now?

All the GMs were given the same training (none) & most of us, at some point, wished we had some kind of rule book or "FOOL GUIDE". If we want to "out law" some stuff that needs fixing, then why not "grandfather" the stuff that was common practice before??

I did not get a chance to read anything about this, so excuse me if this was already discussed.

[TimGuru]

I signed this guy under the rules I had to "learn fool" with & I feel "the new rules can wait or give a "per player under contract" pass on the new rules. Why rush? This is what I meant by using the term "Betwars" some time ago... I had to run with the system in place, so why rush it now?

All the GMs were given the same training (none) & most of us, at some point, wished we had some kind of rule book or "FOOL GUIDE". If we want to "out law" some stuff that needs fixing, then why not "grandfather" the stuff that was common practice before??

I did not get a chance to read anything about this, so excuse me if this was already discussed.


I don't think he's a problem for you. You can cut him at the end of this year legally, or you can cut him after next year legally because he would be finishing his next-to-last year anyway.

At some point the rules need to be implemented, and there will always be someone with "but I...but I" case. I will trust DC to handle those justly since he is giving up his team and will be a non-interested party.

And i think that's exactly the kind of ridiculous contract that we all won't have to worry about offering or getting beat out by anymore.

[Commo_Soldier]

My concern with this new rule will be the player incentives that are already on players could really hamper a team. Maybe we should edit all incentives so they will not cause the damage they are capable of doing or hold off until these incentives are done with. A team should not be punished for incentives offered that they would have been able to provide prior to these changes.

[Young Drachma]

We can retroactively credit teams financially who have those incentives. Meaning if an incentive gets processed because a player meets it, the team should alert the Commish and the requisite changes will be made to their bottom line to clear out those charges. But future incentives simply will have to follow the new rules, I'd figure.

As for what Magic # is saying, I understand what you're saying here. But the hope is, after these rules are fleshed out, going forward we'll be able to have a guide in place (Turner volunteered to do it) and we can simply add to it as we go along. So...it won't be as hard to figure out.

Plus, with the rules changing at the same time, everyone will be under the new rules at the same time and can learn to respond/react. If you have an expensive guy with value, being able to move him should be doable and if he's lost his ratings, you can release him without penalty.

[TimGuru]

By the way, are no trade clauses still allowed?

[Young Drachma]

Yes, I see no reason why not. They cause the owner trying to deal the guy more problems than anyone else, since the player can refuse to waive it to get traded and the Commish can't override that. Well, the game lets him. But I won't do it.

[magic_number]

I don't think he's a problem for you. You can cut him at the end of this year legally, or you can cut him after next year legally because he would be finishing his next-to-last year anyway.

At some point the rules need to be implemented, and there will always be someone with "but I...but I" case. I will trust DC to handle those justly since he is giving up his team and will be a non-interested party.

And i think that's exactly the kind of ridiculous contract that we all won't have to worry about offering or getting beat out by anymore.

My player or anyone's player = same thing. That is why we all feel fixing this is good... the "why rush" thing is just that, a Q? In time (2-5 years?) it will be gone or just about.

[Cringer]

Simply against the changes, and I rarely cut guys to lose their salary from the cap.

[magic_number]

We can retroactively credit teams financially who have those incentives. Meaning if an incentive gets processed because a player meets it, the team should alert the Commish and the requisite changes will be made to their bottom line to clear out those charges. But future incentives simply will have to follow the new rules, I'd figure.

As for what Magic # is saying, I understand what you're saying here. But the hope is, after these rules are fleshed out, going forward we'll be able to have a guide in place (Turner volunteered to do it) and we can simply add to it as we go along. So...it won't be as hard to figure out.

Plus, with the rules changing at the same time, everyone will be under the new rules at the same time and can learn to respond/react. If you have an expensive guy with value, being able to move him should be doable and if he's lost his ratings, you can release him without penalty.


I'm cool with this, I just don't see the trees on fire. You see about 89.2% of the time I'm OK w/the overall thing, but I'll still Q it up if I need more info.

thx

[magic_number]

Simply against the changes, and I rarely cut guys to lose their salary from the cap.


I've never cut a player (in this manner) & ortiz was set up for it :devil: so I know half of what you mean... however, why are you against the changes?? I'd like to hear some good old convo on this.

Where is "ALL TITLES" (just look at his sig)?? I respectfully summon thee!! :popcorn: AT is like a FOOL Yoda sometimes & is a real good typer :)

[Cringer]

Just isn't really broken in my view, so no need to fix it. I understand if others had a problem with the system, and it appears they will get the changes they like. I just didn't feel there was a real problem with things, so I don't support the changes but will live by them once they kick in of course.

[Young Drachma]

I understand what Cringer is saying and ultimately agree. Things were fine, understood and generally fine over time. But after almost 20 years of doing it the same way, I can see how the tide has changed. I think it'll work okay going forward and should quell some of the concerns that folks have. I think it's just the nature of how a league like this goes.

[Chief Rum]

Gotcha....so the rule is "Players making over $5mil/season must be in the last guarenteed year of their contract ot be released. All others can be released at will."

I don't know if it might be just a quibble, but I thought what we were looking at with the $5 M was a $5 M cumulative remaining contract value limit. Meaning a player cannot be released before his last year if the pay out is more than $5 M.

But, regardless, I doubt it matters much, as we won't have enough in the bank to release some guy on a 10-year, $4.9M/season contract, lol.

Just to get a quick discussion out there, though, should we be concerned about teams not trying to pay up to the $65 M cap? I would really like to discuss a salary floor. Not a prohibitive one, like $60 M or something nuts like that. But maybe $40 M. And if the team doesn't meet it, the difference between their salary and $40 M is subtracted from their balance. Would anyone support that?

Hmm, I actually thought it out, and now I'm not sure it's necessary (with respect to the concerns I had). The presence of the $1 balance max makes it likely to be difficult to exploit this system by tanking. But I thought I would throw it out there anyway.

[Alan T]

I don't know if it might be just a quibble, but I thought what we were looking at with the $5 M was a $5 M cumulative remaining contract value limit. Meaning a player cannot be released before his last year if the pay out is more than $5 M.

But, regardless, I doubt it matters much, as we won't have enough in the bank to release some guy on a 10-year, $4.9M/season contract, lol.

Just to get a quick discussion out there, though, should we be concerned about teams not trying to pay up to the $65 M cap? I would really like to discuss a salary floor. Not a prohibitive one, like $60 M or something nuts like that. But maybe $40 M. And if the team doesn't meet it, the difference between their salary and $40 M is subtracted from their balance. Would anyone support that?

Hmm, I actually thought it out, and now I'm not sure it's necessary (with respect to the concerns I had). The presence of the $1 balance max makes it likely to be difficult to exploit this system by tanking. But I thought I would throw it out there anyway.


Cue broken record:

Problem is there is so much talent in the league at certain positions it completely devalues those positions. Unless you are hall of fame material, anyone playing 1B or realistically even the corner outfield positions paid more than a hair over minimum wage is just overpaid.

The only money positions out there really are pitcher, catcher, 3B to some extent and decent fielding middle infielders with pop in their bat.. and the same with a CF who can both field and hit. And generally most of those don't hardly ever show up on the market to get in the first place.

So I have the lowest payroll of my entire time in Valdosta this year, and it is entirely because I wanted to try to get any player at any important position I could in free agency and none became available.

So if there was a salary floor implemented, I would just have to pay a 1 year contract to some bum 1B and then release at the end of the year I guess.

[Tasan]

How are we ever going to be able to cut any kind of mistake? I don't like not having any money around to be at least flexible. I'm going to vote no because I really don't think this makes much sense or is very "basebally".

[muns]

Cue broken record:

Problem is there is so much talent in the league at certain positions it completely devalues those positions. Unless you are hall of fame material, anyone playing 1B or realistically even the corner outfield positions paid more than a hair over minimum wage is just overpaid.

The only money positions out there really are pitcher, catcher, 3B to some extent and decent fielding middle infielders with pop in their bat.. and the same with a CF who can both field and hit. And generally most of those don't hardly ever show up on the market to get in the first place.

So I have the lowest payroll of my entire time in Valdosta this year, and it is entirely because I wanted to try to get any player at any important position I could in free agency and none became available.

So if there was a salary floor implemented, I would just have to pay a 1 year contract to some bum 1B and then release at the end of the year I guess.


I have the lowest pay roll in the game at 47 million, and I think i have a decent team, so im not sure how we could implement a floor when it is possible to build decent teams withut spending huge amounts of money.

I get what your saying about tanking though Chief.

[muns]

How are we ever going to be able to cut any kind of mistake? I don't like not having any money around to be at least flexible. I'm going to vote no because I really don't think this makes much sense or is very "basebally".

I actually agree with you here, but I am compromising. I am not in the camp where things were ok, as cutting guys with 50 mil left on their contracts stinks and wasnt really realistic, and Ive done it.

IMO it left the door wide open for guys to sign players to contracts that they knew they werent going to pay out, and that takes some fun out of the league, again just my opinion.

The new rules limits this, and you have to be real picky about who you sign long term deals to, which after thinking about it I really like, beacuse it adds more strategy. Im all for doing that.

At least you still get to cut guys you dont want who are making under 5 mil, so just make small mistakes ;)

[Pike]

- All Stadiums will be equalized at 40,000 seats.

We can add this rule after these, but that's an easy fix, honestly.

oh, I dunno. I think I may need more than that in Chicago. The Black Sox in Chicago? Hottest ticket in town I tell ya! ;)

Being the new guy, my opine is pretty low-value, but I love the way the finances are set up in the league. Makes it much more about getting the best out of your cap space, and being smart about your roster. Wish MLB had something similiar, *sigh*.

[Commo_Soldier]

Just to clarify is this the last season of higher tickets and lower media revenue?

[Young Drachma]

Yup.