|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 8, 2008 19:59:21 GMT -5
We need to start discussing about this: team expenses.
Last season, expenses were frozen when the Reds tried to raise their farm spending all the way up to 18M.
I have since then spent a lot of time trying to figure out what way to go with the expenses, and it really is a complicated matter.
There doesn't seem to be a perfect solution. And no, letting teams do what they want with expenses isn't a solution either.
I want to hear everyone's views on this. There will be no poll for the moment, and the reason is simple, I have no proposals to put on the table as of the moment.
Let it just be known that, no, I will not go through with plans such as having teams send me their expenses via PM. This will not correct problems that we currently have or are about to.
Farm spending is, of course, the area we should be most concerned about.
I understand that teams that have the best fan loyalty and the best revenues (in other words, the best teams) can spend amazing amounts in Farm if they wish. I also understand that they often draft late and should get an advantage in Farm to allow their "late picks" to develop better.
But that's an argument that just doesn't work in TMBL.
Fact: Good teams pick last. Other fact: Good teams pick well.
So well in fact that often, their late picks are, even at draft time, better picks than picks taken in the top 10.
We can find plenty of extremely bad picks in the Top 10 in any draft since 1970. At the same time, we can find plenty of extremely good picks later in the draft. Some of them became awesome thanks to an A+ farm system, but some were already very good picks at the time they were taken.
Another thing we need to start considering is the teams that have been hurt by awful expenses and careless owners. If some teams have been lucky to have the same owner for a long time, it's not the case everywhere. A streak of bad, really bad owners has taken quite a toll on teams like the Giants, White Sox and Tigers. It'll be extremely hard for them to recover from it, and if nothing is done to help them, the gap between great teams and bad teams will continue to widen.
At the same time, teams like the Yankees have spent zero in all expenses for over a decade. The result is that almost all of their prospects have been screwed, pushing back the team's hopes of contending through self-building by another decade.
All of this is enough for us to consider doing something about it. But what?
Since this is an equalized league, should we go with equalized spending?
Should there be an expenses cap?
Should there be a minimum expenses?
Or any other idea?
I'm listening. We will discuss this for a while, and if something good and interesting comes out of it, we might take it to a league vote.
I want ideas that will be good for the league as a whole, not ideas that will favor your team.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Oct 8, 2008 20:47:21 GMT -5
I'm generally a fan of fewer rules and letting owners run their teams however they wish, even into the ground, if that's what their bad decisions result in.
We all have our own ideas about how important farm, medical and scounting spending are, so I'd really hate to have minimum spending limits or equalized spending.
Most don't think that scouting is worth anything at all, but several think it's at least worth $500K.
Some spend a lot on medical while others just prefer to live with a higher injury rate, maybe making up for it by keeping better backup players.
Most, but not all, feel that farm spending is very important for long-term success, but a few owners who could afford to spend more don't do so. Although I can see the reason for the limit that was put on farm spending this season, I'm against it in principle. If Atlanta or New York or Cincinnati wants to get in a spending contest and put $30M in farm spending, then it's okay with me. Those teams have earned that money through their own success and they should be able to spend it however they want. The BBM rules are clear that spending twice as much doesn't mean that your farm system will be twice as good. Only the ranking matters. So if a couple of teams want to spend $30M for first place and I can spend $13M for fourth place, I'll do that every time.
In short, I feel that expense strategies are a key part of what separates successful owners from unsuccessful ones, and I'd hate to see us limit flexibility any more than absolutely necessary.
I would suggest one minor change, however. When a crappy team with poor farm, medical and scouting ratings gets a new owner, restore the ratings to a "B" level to give the team a boost in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 8, 2008 21:03:38 GMT -5
Since this is an equalized league, should we go with equalized spending? Should there be an expenses cap? Should there be a minimum expenses? Or any other idea? First, I think I could go for any of these three ideas, but I HATE all of them for the same reasons Mosko talked about above.. An expense cap would have to be thought about carefully, because whatever you set the cap at, you are going to have owners spend whatever the cap is. For example, if we set the cap at $20 million, you are going to have teams spend $20 million when they should not even be spending $8 million. Teams like the Braves or Reds will not be affected no matter what you set the cap at. Hell, I could spend $50 million on the farm and really not be phased at all. What we have to guard against though are the teams not named the Braves or Reds or the few others in the same great financial condition because these teams copy what every detail of what the Braves or Reds do even if that detail does not fit their own situation. The example I often bring up is the Local TV Blackout. Teams see these two teams bringing in HUGE dollars with the Local TV Blackout concept. Hello folks! You have to be a good team in order to use this concept or you are going to slaughter your fan loyalty even more than it already is. The Braves have to make the playoffs and usually win at least one series in the playoffs for my fan loyalty to stay where it is with a Local Blackout. My point being, if you are going to spend the same kind of money on the farm as the Braves or Reds, you are causing your own painful downfall. It doesn't phase us. It drains you. It is OK to be 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th or so on in farm spending. You farm will be just fine. By the way, if the Braves and Reds are spending $20 million, and third place is spending $15 million, you are still third place. You will still get great farm grades! If you draft well (a much bigger key to turning a team around than the farm spending), you will be fine. Just do not act like the Yankees and spend ZERO. That is just plain dumb. This isn't 2k4 anymore, where it did not matter what you spent. This is 2k8, and sometimes I wonder if some of our owners realize that yet. On to the other points: a minimum for farm spending or any other kind of spending..... This really shouldn't even be an issue, except for the fact that we have the Yankees in TMBL. Maybe someone that knows Bob could give him a call, and tell him what he is doing to his players??? That is really my only answer there. As far as equalized spending.....This is probably the way we are going to have to go, because no matter what I say (like my examples above), people are going to think they need to be in first in spending, and are going to continue to outbid people even though they do not have the money to do it. Build your franchise first, and then spend the money. It is sad that we even have to have this discussion because the spending categories are in my view the most strategic part of the game. There isn't much other strategy that goes into this computer game, and this part of the game has been made a mockery by TMBL owners doing things outside their means. There should be teams that have a strategy of a ton of spending in one category and not much spending in another. There should be other teams that spend high in all categories, and there should be some teams that do not need to spend much in any category. Every team is in a different situation. But in this league, for some reason, everyone has to spend the most in everything. Except the Yankees of course....
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Oct 8, 2008 21:25:40 GMT -5
I think there should be a cap on expenses but not a minium.
Some owners think some expenses are a waste of money
We capped out how much cash we can have to make this a better league so we should cap out expenses to control spending and not ruin teams by spending more than they can afford. if its all even then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 8, 2008 21:48:39 GMT -5
I think there should be a cap on expenses but not a minium. Some owners think some expenses are a waste of money We capped out how much cash we can have to make this a better league so we should cap out expenses to control spending and not ruin teams by spending more than they can afford. if its all even then so be it. If there was a minimum set, it probably wouldn't be too high to begin with. But a cap most surely would be more important than a mimimum spending.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Oct 8, 2008 21:54:09 GMT -5
I dont think a cap is good because most owners would feel they HAVE to pay the to the ceiling.
Also i want to point out that the twins are one of the lowest spenders in farm spending right now, and if that continues my prospects do pretty good for me. I would like to spend more money on farm spending, but im trying to have a balanced budget.
Also "though I can see the reason for the limit that was put on farm spending this season, I'm against it in principle. If Atlanta or New York or Cincinnati wants to get in a spending contest and put $30M in farm spending, then it's okay with me. Those teams have earned that money through their own success and they should be able to spend it however they want" Thats exactly how i feel, Its going suck having ATL's and the cincys always out spending me on Farm, but maybe that bidding war will equalize the league long term.
This year theres not many key FA's especially in relief. I know the twins have no real shot at a key guy if for some reason ATL wants to bid on him. Maybe if ATL knew that he might have to pay 30 million in farm spending, he would conserve money a little better, and help the less revenue teams get players in FA.
If we dont go with a cap, maybe only have 2 designated times where you can publish your designated amounts of $ expense spending, and that should eliminate busy work for the commish, and also somewhat stops a bidding war.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 8, 2008 22:38:43 GMT -5
Also i want to point out that the twins are one of the lowest spenders in farm spending right now, and if that continues my prospects do pretty good for me. I would like to spend more money on farm spending, but im trying to have a balanced budget. It's all in your honor that you do so and that it's working well for you. But there are 23 other teams in TMBL, many of which are not trying to have a balanced budget or are putting their teams in a delicate financial situation if they're not already there. Thats exactly how i feel, Its going suck having ATL's and the cincys always out spending me on Farm, but maybe that bidding war will equalize the league long term. No, it won't equalize. In the long term, all it can do is increase the gap between ATL/CIN and the lesser good teams. Allow them to invest $30M in Farm, and in a few seasons from now, we're gonna find ourselves unable to compete with either team. It can be fun for them, but 22 other guys will get bored to death with this. This year theres not many key FA's especially in relief. I know the twins have no real shot at a key guy if for some reason ATL wants to bid on him. Maybe if ATL knew that he might have to pay 30 million in farm spending, he would conserve money a little better, and help the less revenue teams get players in FA. Look at the Braves closely. Payroll: $49M Payroll budget: $92.5M Cash: $81.5M They're not done with buydowns. That payroll can drop lower. It's already the second lowest in the NL. Add to this the fact that they don't seem to need much from free agency, that payroll is not gonna rise dramatically. And even if it did! Look at that room under the payroll budget! Their expenses are set at $13M already. Add even "just" 17M all the way to $30M, they would still have over $25M under payroll budget. $25M to spend on free agents and anything else you might think of, that's an awful lot of money. Scott does not exagerate when he says he can raise Farm to $50M and still make money. There are not many teams with over $20M room under the payroll budget: Baltimore, Kansas City, San Diego and Cincinnati. The O's have lost 2 of their starters and will need to spend some in free agency. KC's revenues should go down next year after their last-place finish. SD is in a comfortable financial situation. But only CIN is in a situation comparable to the Braves: they don't need to add that much in free agency, and are $28M under payroll budget: they too can raise farm to $30M if they wish to. But many, many teams are not looking that comfortable: BOS, DET, NYY, OAK, CHC, HOU (suddenly $17M over budget after signing their walk year players), LAD, PHI (although improving), PIT among others. Some of these teams will follow the leaders in Farm no matter how high they go, and they just won't be able to. Running a team to the ground is one thing. But sometimes it's awfully hard to get over it. Just ask Tigers owner what he thinks was done to his team after a stretch of careless owners followed his original TMBL debut, and how badly a situation his team is in now. We've had so many owners just come and do nothing good to their teams and then leave, it has hurt those teams quite a lot. And it might happen again. Everyone is an "interested, careful, motivated and intelligent" owner when they write me an email wanting to join in. Not all of them prove it to any degree, and some even spend an entire season doing absolutely nothing for their team before they disappear or get removed from the league. If we dont go with a cap, maybe only have 2 designated times where you can publish your designated amounts of $ expense spending, and that should eliminate busy work for the commish, and also somewhat stops a bidding war. This is not about the amount of work for the commish. It's about trying to confine a potential problem that is widening the gap between great and not-so great teams. Before things get out of control, and before it's too late to change anything.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Oct 8, 2008 23:18:04 GMT -5
An idea we floated in another league was to have "tiers" for spending. Now the problem with a cap - even a low one - is that the more teams tied for 1st, the greater the drop between 1st and lets say 12th when it comes to the BMB rankings. We have had to resort to adjusting the rankings manually at the start of each season to avoid this.
But on the topic of "tiers" we could establish a mixed system where we create 4 "tiers" of spending and a maximum of 6 teams could be at each level. Lets say for farm spending we had the following "tiers"
$20 million $15 million $10 million $5 million
this creates both a "cap" and a "floor" and it groups teams together so that there would be 4 basic levels (and therefore rankings) the top 6 teams would get A ratings, the next 6 should have B ratings, then C and D ratings. Teams would then declare what spending level they wanted to be placed at and the Commish would rule on the request - yes if the team can afford it, no if the team cannot afford it (based on a pattern of revenue from past seasons). What we don't want is to see teams going into debt with this but at the same time I think that we need to do two things:
1 - establish a system to "guide" expenses 2 - maintain some form of a market system and the associated impact that ratings have on the in game functions.
thanks
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Oct 8, 2008 23:39:29 GMT -5
Also i want to point out that the twins are one of the lowest spenders in farm spending right now, and if that continues my prospects do pretty good for me. I would like to spend more money on farm spending, but im trying to have a balanced budget. just trying to get the notion out there that you dont have to spend #1 to get prosepects to develop Also I understand the braves and how by them spending 50 million would increase the gap from top tier teams to lower teams. But the opposite, a cap, would allow the braves to only spend 13 million or whatever the cap is. All that does is let the Braves have more money. By the Braves spending 50 million dollars, only increasing theres competiveness by a little bit (imho), but w/ a cap that extra 37 million could be used to buy draft picks/or players which i think would let teams dominate. When i mentioned something about making it easier for the commish, on your original message when you said you were putting a cap, you mentioned that it was becoming to be a lot of work changing the settings...thats why i threw that out. Maybe for every million over 10 million in farm spending that team has to donate a million dollars to a pool, and at the end of the year the bottom 5 revenue teams got a share of the pool of $....kinda like a luxury tax. (I can see problems with that too, but i thought id put it out there)
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Oct 9, 2008 8:04:04 GMT -5
I think first and formost should be the welfare of the league. We are obviously made up of many differant levels of experience and/or commitment when it comes to TMBL and that is where the root of the problem lies. While I am a Capitalist by nature and believe in all that comes with that, I do not neccesarily believe that it is the best thing for TMBL. What happens when 15 owners get sick of never having a chance, and leave, where will we be then? The biggest hurdle I see is that even if we were to equalize spending in all categories, and rate everyone the same in farm system, medical and scouting, those teams would still have great sums of cash every year to spend on the best free agents or trade to other teams for the best draft picks and players.
I hate the sound of this as much as everyone else, but instead of spending caps, spending cellars, why don't we just equalize income and allow everyone to spend as they see fit? Is this even possible? Too much like communism? I don't know, but I think it might breathe some new life into the teams that are struggling and present some new challenges to the overly succesful franchises who might eventually become bored with little or no competition.
|
|
|
Post by drew on Oct 9, 2008 8:26:06 GMT -5
I guess my question is what is wrong with what we currently have? I 'm of the mindset of if "it ain't broke don't fix it" The league currently has a balance of teams that dominate every year(Reds and Braves) and divisions that have different winners every year (NL West- 4 different Division champions in 5 years) Most of the teams that continually don't compete for division titles have a glaring reason why. (Revolving door ownership, inactivity, dumping all of your ML ready players for prospects, etc.) I think what we have going on now works.
It is already somewhat of a crapshoot on how you're going to develop your players. If you look at all of the teams that spend the most on the farm, some teams develop their talent awesome and some don't. My farm spending has equaled the Braves and Reds for years, but my minor league system is where young players go to die. If you look at the charts that show the peaks by each year, nearly all of my current minor leaguers all consistently go down once I draft them. I don't know why. Maybe it is just bad luck; maybe I have drafted horribly, maybe I pissed off the Mogul gods or a combination of all of them. I might be missing some key detail of mogul but I don't think my minor league system would be much worse if I pulled a yankees and spent $0 on it. On the flip side certain teams that spend the most have peaks stay the same or go up on most of their minor league players. The Braves don't need to spend 50M on their farm to dominate. They already do. Just my 2 cents worth.
|
|
|
Post by marmol on Oct 9, 2008 9:05:58 GMT -5
From the perspective of someone who is new to the league, I don't have a problem with the current system. The prospect of having to take a bottom feeder team and within a defined amount of time be able to compete with the front runners is why I joined. I do think a luxury tax is intriguing however...
It seems realistic that there are teams that can outspend everyone. From the inexperience factor, if a team can take a less than moderate draft and by dumping a ton of money at the Farm system be able to produce better product than those draft well and who do not have those resources there can be conflict. I do not know the restraints of the game yet. I will figure out the White Sox dynamic as I go, but its obvious it has to be with good draft and Farm system spending at this point. It will help enable the high draft picks of the White Sox to hopefully pan out. I would not want to limit what teams such as the White Sox can spend since its the only way I can see them climbing out of the basement.
|
|
|
Post by reds on Oct 9, 2008 11:22:28 GMT -5
I'm pretty much in complete agreement with what Mosko and Scott said. The free market should be the way to go.
What nobody is talking about is this: I don't think setting an expense cap would even acheive it's intended goal. If you block the amount of cash the top teams can spend on the farm, they will just have boatloads of cash to spend on other stuff. You'll see free agents going for huge prices that only the good teams can afford. Or guys sending $20-30M out in trades to get more players. If you block teams from spending in one area, they will just find other ways to spend that money. Nobody is just going to sit around with $200M in the bank.
|
|
|
Post by reds on Oct 9, 2008 11:25:19 GMT -5
I think first and formost should be the welfare of the league. We are obviously made up of many differant levels of experience and/or commitment when it comes to TMBL and that is where the root of the problem lies. While I am a Capitalist by nature and believe in all that comes with that, I do not neccesarily believe that it is the best thing for TMBL. What happens when 15 owners get sick of never having a chance, and leave, where will we be then? The biggest hurdle I see is that even if we were to equalize spending in all categories, and rate everyone the same in farm system, medical and scouting, those teams would still have great sums of cash every year to spend on the best free agents or trade to other teams for the best draft picks and players. I hate the sound of this as much as everyone else, but instead of spending caps, spending cellars, why don't we just equalize income and allow everyone to spend as they see fit? Is this even possible? Too much like communism? I don't know, but I think it might breathe some new life into the teams that are struggling and present some new challenges to the overly succesful franchises who might eventually become bored with little or no competition. Sorry Paul I didn't see this post until I made mine. You are right, if people are concerned about disinterest from a few teams dominating, equalizing all income is the only way to stop it. That's quite a drastic step though and certainly not one that I am in favor of.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 9, 2008 11:33:50 GMT -5
I think first and formost should be the welfare of the league. We are obviously made up of many differant levels of experience and/or commitment when it comes to TMBL and that is where the root of the problem lies. That's exactly it. What happens when 15 owners get sick of never having a chance, and leave, where will we be then? Many owners don't realize what future may lie for TMBL if we don't take some kind of action. In the last few years, the gap between great teams and very bad ones has widened in such a way that if we don't do something to try and reduce that gap, it will only get worse. It will then reach a point where, no matter how hard you try to have your team win and improve, two teams are consistently going to win every World Series year after year. We are not far from reaching that point. Paul is exactly right: a lot of people will get bored with this, and we will start losing a bunch of owners. And we're even supposed to have 2 more teams in 1977... I guess my question is what is wrong with what we currently have? (...) I think what we have going on now works. It works, but that's not the problem. Don't look at it from the Dodgers' point of view and the fact that the NL West can have a different winner every year, it gives you the illusion that there is a good balance. Look at the rest of the league: which have been the best teams since 1966? which have been the worst? what teams look to be the best teams from now on until the 1980's? which one might be the worst? You'll find out that they are the same teams. Always. My farm spending has equaled the Braves and Reds for years, but my minor league system is where young players go to die. If you look at the charts that show the peaks by each year, nearly all of my current minor leaguers all consistently go down once I draft them. I don't know why. Maybe it is just bad luck; maybe I have drafted horribly, maybe I pissed off the Mogul gods or a combination of all of them. I might be missing some key detail of mogul This is a huge part of my point. It's not because a team ties the leaders in Farm Spending that their farm instantly becomes as good. It takes time. At the end of 1974 (before the turnover), only 5 teams had an A+ ranking in Farm: Braves, Reds, Astros, Expos and Indians. NOT the 20 teams or so currently tied for first place in Farm spending. Take your Dodgers for instance. Sure, you're spending as much as the highest spending teams. But your farm was at C- prior to the turnover, and despite your investment, it hasn't paid off yet because you're still at C- in Farm. No wonder your players aren't developping well in the minor leagues. At least, not as well as the ones on teams such as the Braves, Astros, Reds, Expos or Indians. You even compared your player's development to the Yankees. That is because NYY is at D+ in Farm (also spending the tops in Farm but only for a short while), which is extremely similar to your C- rating. Your minor league system really is comparable to that of the Yankees, and very far from the top teams in the league. And for your team to get at A+, well it's gonna need time, a whole lot of it. Allow teams like CIN and ATL to spend $50M on Farm, don't expect to develop good rookies ever. And to catch up with them ever. That is also not the only problem we're facing right now. By looking at a file before turnover and the current Nov. 16 file, and watching closely the teams that are currently spending $13M in Farm, here is what we can notice: Braves dropped from A+ to A Cubs went from B+ to A+ Reds, Astros and Expos dropped from A+ to A- Dodgers and Pirates stayed at C- Mets dropped from B to B- Padres dropped from A to A- Giants and Royals stayed at D Cardinals stayed at C+ Red Sox stayed at B+ Angels dropped from A- to B+ White Sox stayed at C Indians stayed at A+ (the only team to do so) Tigers and Yankees stayed at D+ Brewers stayed at B- and the most unexplainable thing: the $7M spending Twins (ranked 22nd) went from C+ to B. How's that?
|
|
|
Post by reds on Oct 9, 2008 11:39:36 GMT -5
Allow teams like CIN and ATL to spend $50M on Farm, don't expect to develop good rookies ever. And to catch up with them ever. I don't understand this Terry. It doesn't matter how far away the top teams are, all that is important is your rank. If the Braves and Reds are at $30M and ten teams are at $15M, all of those ten teams will be ranked 3rd in farm spending. And their prospects will develop just fine.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 9, 2008 11:49:40 GMT -5
It doesn't matter how far away the top teams are, all that is important is your rank. If the Braves and Reds are at $30M and ten teams are at $15M, all of those ten teams will be ranked 3rd in farm spending. And their prospects will develop just fine. We have already seen how some teams absolutely refuse to be anything else than tied for first in Farm spending. Raise it all the way to $30M, and some teams - many of which will only hurt their teams if they do so - will follow you there. It is easy to understand that many teams do not want to give any edge whatsoever to the Braves and Reds: you are the teams to beat. The problem isn't there. It's the way some of these other teams try to get to that goal that is simply not working, and in the end, only contributing to the gap between two teams and most of the rest continue widening like crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Halos on Oct 9, 2008 12:10:44 GMT -5
I will admit that I haven't really tried to learn the finacial system of 2k8. I would count myself as one that copies what some of the other good teams do since I don't have a full understanding of the financial system. I don't do this blindly; I still test things out with my own team and budget before I post any changes.
With that said, some sort of luxury tax or spending limits seems like a punishment to owners who run their team well. They will still find other ways to spend their money (FA, trades, etc.). This is mostly to blame on poor ownership, which has a way of usually weeding itself out. New owners are then in quite a bit of a hole. As someone earlier suggested, I would be for resetting a team to median levels when a new owner takes over. We should also have something of a how-to guide on the boards for owners with no previous experience so that they have some clue how to operate their team. You never know, that might even help some of us experienced owners as well.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Oct 9, 2008 13:47:52 GMT -5
Frankly, I'd much rather that the rich teams spend their money on farm system than that they spend it in taking all of the decent free agents.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 9, 2008 14:00:31 GMT -5
As someone earlier suggested, I would be for resetting a team to median levels when a new owner takes over. We should also have something of a how-to guide on the boards for owners with no previous experience so that they have some clue how to operate their team. You never know, that might even help some of us experienced owners as well. Resetting teams to median levels look to be a very potable option. We might even consider something like applying it retrospectively for some of our newest owners that have taken over teams that have been put in situations that will take forever to recover from (White Sox, Tigers, etc...). As for a how-to guide on the boards, that is something Scott and I have discussed previously, and to hear it from someone else, even more from a veteran owner like you, just convinces me that it would be, indeed, the way to go. The more people that can benifit from this, the better for the league.
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Oct 9, 2008 16:00:28 GMT -5
I don't think it's fair to some teams to allow the top teams to spend however much they want. There is already a huge gap between the good and the bad teams as it is, I don't see any reason to widen that gap simply because a few teams can afford to spend a little more on the farm.
Padres brought up a good point earlier when he said that the largest concern should be the overall welfare of the league. The cap on spending doesn't hurt the top squads, but taking it away could greatly effect other teams' overall success and drastically alter the rebuilding process (and we have A LOT of teams going through that process right now). That wouldn't do much for the "overall welfare" of TMBL.
The current system is definetely flawed. But if we have the interests of the ENTIRE league in mind, I feel like there has to be some sort of limitation on spending.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Oct 9, 2008 17:07:01 GMT -5
Im in favor of leting the new owners...tigers...white sox...be put to median levels for farm and health.
Also on the write up, that would be awesome. I still dont understand fully how the braves, (hes tried to explain) draft so well. I would LOVE to have a awesome ss in the minor leagues developing as i think thats a very important position. In the draft Gary templeton looked like a scrub. He also never developed that well in my sims. Yet the Braves knew he was solid, and drafted him late in first round. Hes a 94 peak now. I understand he takes a lot of time prepping for the draft, but i thought i invested a decent amount of time last draft too. Also the write up could explain little intricacies that our league has, like how base stealing is pretty much impossible, and if you look at the standings the 1st and second place teams pretty much dont steal at all.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Oct 9, 2008 17:16:07 GMT -5
Let's see if I've got this right.
If we were to say raise the spending limit to 30M. As Terry said quit a few teams would follow the Braves and Reds with thier blinders on up to 30M. But you would also have many teams going to 20M, 18M and so on. That would mean someone spending 13M might have a Farm system still around a D - Right? If thats correct I really see no other way than to put a cap (a lower one)on spending.By the way I don't like the idea but I realy don't see that we have a choice.
I do like the idea of giving the new owners a fighting chance by resetting the the teams to median levels.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 9, 2008 18:07:34 GMT -5
Ok, sorry guys, I am really busy these days, but I have finally made it back to the boards to put some more input in.
Terry, I agree with most others that we should setting a new owner's level to a median level. I think we should put that to vote and accept it.
As far as those of you that are interested in knowing more about BBM, and would like some of us to start a thread about it....I think that is a good idea as well. I think the reason we did not do this in the past is because we have no idea where to start. If we started a thread, we would need questions from those interested, and then those questions could be answered by some of us.
If I had to write an article over everything in BBM....well that would be impossible. But if we had specific questions or even general questions about stuff you want to know, that will make it a lot easier for me to give you the scoop on those things. Even I do not know everything there is to know about BBM, but I feel like I do know quite a lot. I am also not around during the day anymore due to work, at least on weekdays and some Saturdays. But I will get back to any questions you have as soon as I can.
Bottom line: Someone start a thread, and we can go from there.
Next, more about these spending caps on spending, and this is really important. As some have already stated, if you limit the spending on the farm for teams like the Reds and Braves, you are going to have another problem on your hands. What am I supposed to do with my $100 million in cash that I will likely have after next season? What I am going to do is spend on the top free agents, and I can bid a pretty unlimited amount given the fact that I can't spend elsewhere.
That is what you have to consider here, and only a few owners have pointed that out so far.
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Oct 9, 2008 18:10:05 GMT -5
^^^ Exactly. If the Braves and Reds go spend $30M then you'll see the next team's spending $25M or thereabouts. That is impossible for a lot of teams to spend, and their farm systems will suffer becaue of it. It's not like we'll see first place go to $30M and everyone else stay at $13M. There has to be some kind of limitation to balance things out.
|
|