|
Post by Scott on Dec 5, 2009 10:40:43 GMT -5
The only thing to come out of the fewer trade thread that I think might be beneficial to the league is to institute a minimum opening bid for free agents of $1 million which would be raised from $400K.
This would go into effect next offseason when free agency begins. Let me know what you think. With today's cash levels, I can't imagine this would be that big of a deal. Most free agents end up over $1M anyway.
I considered making $1M the minimum salary for all players in the game, not just the ones being signed in free agency, but I thought we would try this out first.
|
|
|
Post by Halos on Dec 5, 2009 11:17:57 GMT -5
I've never been a big fan of free agency, so I usually only use it to fill the last couple of bench spots on my team. I typically just want a cheap scrub that might get one hit in his four at bats for the season, so I don't want to spend $1M on that. Like you said, most FAs get over $1M if they are worth anything, so I don't think this is necessary.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Dec 5, 2009 13:05:51 GMT -5
With all the things people talked about, this is your solution? Raising salaries for all teams while the top earning teams still get free A+ farm and medical rankings?
I'll just pretend this is a gag poll.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Dec 5, 2009 13:36:44 GMT -5
With all the things people talked about, this is your solution? Raising salaries for all teams while the top earning teams still get free A+ farm and medical rankings? I'll just pretend this is a gag poll. As has been stated in the other thread, we do not have a problem and therefore do not need a solution. This idea is somewhat unrelated and something I have considered for a while.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Dec 5, 2009 13:41:41 GMT -5
As has been stated in the other thread, we do not have a problem and therefore do not need a solution. Stated now equals proved? This idea is somewhat unrelated and something I have considered for a while. If we didn't have a problem, then why do you want to do this? And why do you want to charge rebuilding teams two and a half times more money for the scrub players they use to fill in for players they release?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Dec 5, 2009 14:18:22 GMT -5
I want to do it, because it is a way to reduce cash levels in the league that is not a drastic measure.
In all reality, I would like to make the league minimum $1M instead of $400K. It has been considered before and likely will be considered again.
In addition, it might even speed up free agency a bit as we can skip the $100K increases from 400 to 500 to 600, and start out with some real money.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Dec 5, 2009 15:28:11 GMT -5
You mean money the teams with 80+ loyalty can spend.
Raising all players to a 1M minimum is equal taxation. Raising the FA minimum to 1M effects low talent teams more than contenders because, as you said yourself, the players worth something already get more than 1M.
The FAs getting less than 1M are, again, the scrubs that low talent teams sign to replace players they release or trade while they try to build up their cash reserves.
Think for the whole league, man. You're certainly smart enough.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Dec 5, 2009 15:46:11 GMT -5
The FAs getting less than 1M are, again, the scrubs that low talent teams sign to replace players they release or trade while they try to build up their cash reserves. Since clearly there are so many teams out there that don't have enough cash reserves already. Not a single team in TMBL is in danger of going bankrupt anytime in the next decade. In most cases, we could remove $50M from every team and no team would go bankrupt in the next decade.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Dec 5, 2009 16:16:35 GMT -5
Raising all players to a 1M minimum is equal taxation. Think for the whole league, man. You're certainly smart enough. Rand, your wrong on this point. Raising the league minimum penalizes those who have more 400k players. Not even close to equal taxation. Your also way off base about Scott not thinking of the whole league. He's been a very fair commisioner and has always taken the time to allow these types of discussions, unlike you who just ruled with an iron fist and it was your way or the highway. You would have locked both threads by now. This league is healthier than it's ever been and I personally see no need for a major overhaul.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Dec 5, 2009 16:33:10 GMT -5
The fairest way to do this would be to change the minimum salary to $500k and raise all players above minimum by 25%, that would be equal Taxation.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Dec 5, 2009 16:57:35 GMT -5
Rand, your wrong on this point. Raising the league minimum penalizes those who have more 400k players. Not even close to equal taxation. It would be more fair than putting the bulk of the money purge on the low talent teams, but yes, it's less fair overall than I'd first thought. Still doesn't make it fair that scrub players cost a million to the low talent teams that need them to fill in. Or that owners who don't want to pay that league wide luxury tax will end up playing under-developed rookies, giving them less chance of catching a lucky break from their farms. While the high earning teams, with the free A+ farm ranking, just sign what they need and laugh at the idiots playing guys rated 53/79. As to the rest: Bite me
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Dec 5, 2009 17:06:14 GMT -5
Rand, you are coming off as if your trying to lead a mutiny. Sure, not every idea that isn't yours isn't always great, but there are more effective ways of attempting change then jumping up and down and throwing a temper tantrum....bite me back
|
|
|
Post by sj on Dec 5, 2009 17:14:06 GMT -5
Rand, you are coming off as if your trying to lead a mutiny. Sure, not every idea that isn't yours isn't always great, but there are more effective ways of attempting change then jumping up and down and throwing a temper tantrum Oh joy, another guy, and former top supporter of mine, who doesn't understand the concept of debating. Shall we all just get together and sing several verses of kumbaya, while burning incense and praying that the divine spirit of the heavens will fill us with it's grace and show us the one true way to go? ....bite me back Sure thing. Expose your jugular vein please.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Dec 5, 2009 17:25:50 GMT -5
Debate? This isn't a debate, it's you kicking and screaming about how everything Scott does is in his best interest, not the leagues. This coming from the one person who shot down every debate that wsn't going your way. This has been fun but I gotta run.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Dec 5, 2009 18:06:36 GMT -5
Merry Xmas everyone Ho.. Huh oh?
|
|
|
Post by sj on Dec 5, 2009 20:07:05 GMT -5
it's you kicking and screaming Yes, you keep saying that, yet it doesn't get any more true through your repetition.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Dec 5, 2009 22:45:01 GMT -5
That was the Itchy and Scratchy show! Hey hey hey! (I guess that makes me Krusty, then)
Instead of playing around with minimum salary, why don't we raise the Salary Demands? They're currently set at -10% (with 3 negotiations), because we wanted to emulate the infamous -20% discount we had with the 2k4.
I don't think free agents get signed to contracts that are too low. But it's sometimes rather easy to sign players already on our teams to contracts that are, well, extremely low. Does that really make sense that a player like C Darrell Porter's first contract was below $5M? Rick Langford at $4.65M? And so many others.
One of the game's flaw, in my opinion, comes from how badly the players demands are, over their career. Younger, they don't ask for much and so it's easy to keep your younger players around the time of their first big contract. But then, they get older, and that's when fever hits them. It's almost impossible to re-sign a veteran who, for instance, needs to re-negotiate when he has one or two years of peak left, to a short-term contract. On the opposite, that veteran wants:
1) a ton of money 2) a longer contract
leading to the fact that, to sign him short term (1 to 3 years), you have to give him a lot more money for him to accept the deal.
Seriously, who decides that, at 36 years old, ending or nearing the end of his peak, he should get $12M annually for 4 years - and let's not forget the options he thinks he's worth when you offer him what he considers to be far from being enough.
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Dec 6, 2009 10:47:41 GMT -5
hell no!
i wanna be able to sign bench players or people that nobody else wants for as little as possible. I don't want my payroll to get higher i want to control it.
|
|