2040 Season Thread-Feeling Crabby?

[GeorgesGoons]

2036-2039 - The Omahahaha years.

Can we erase these years from the History? On the bright side we will erase Miami's championship as well

I was like Dave, huge financial hardships, so I had to figure a way to move forward. I really didn't want to take that long but it happened. We'll move forward and try to be a little more responsible with the finances. I should get back to above .500 this year.

[nick]

ppl bring up my tank but it was 1.5 seasons max as i got super bored quickly



look at teams like Omaha who went 3 straight yrs winning less games than my "tank year".

[Cnasty]

Corey likes Bernie Sanders so much the NDLB is becoming a socialist league. Now I know how super rich people feel. gonna have to start putting my $$ in Panama..

Move to Cana..nvm.

[Cnasty]

Side note!

Well titled thread Corey!

So much pressure when starting a new season thread it had to feel right. I went with it.

[wdoupis]

I am just catching up on all of this talk and I know a ton has been said but here is my quick take. From what I can tell we try and model this like real baseball and in the MLB there is no floor and the owners argue the same thing. Players want a floor and owners say you get a floor and we get a cap and it goes away. I completely get the frustration.

As far as coaches, never would any organization not have them so I am not sure why we would ever allow that. Nick makes sense with the ridiculous salaries they ask for but it seems Reign had a pretty easy solution. If we can in fact adjust how much coaches ask for to make it realistic then that solves that issue.

As far as the floor, like real baseball it's a shitty situation that can be unfair that we just have to live with. Tanking sucks but everyone has to be able to rebuild how they see fit and if we really want to get realistic we can pull a Dodgers/Frank McCord and the league take the team over and fire the terrible owner.

I was not around for a lot of the examples you guys have discussed but this is my quick take from a relatively new and neutral party.

[shel311]

One thing I'm with Nick on from a couple of pages ago, we did just kinda arbitrarily decide the coaches thing had to be fixed immediately under the guise of realism, while not addressing many other aspects of the game that aren't realistic. It just seemed odd coaches randomly became the "must fix" item.

[Cnasty]

I obviously am a terrible communicator as I have repeated multiple times this wasn't done for realism, rather it was done due to the financial implications that are created when we don't have a consistent utilization of coaches in every organization.

Some may have voted for it due to realism, some may have not. The reason it was brought up by me when doing the last rollover and evaluating finances was due to the financial implications.Same as when guys are putting $1 in player development or scouting. Is it realistic? No. Should we do something about it in my opinion due to the financial implications outweighing the realistic ones? Yes.

So again, it wasn't under the guise of realism even though many have an opinion it isn't realistic, that is not why it was brought to the table.

Financial implications vs realism

As quoted by a wise man before me.

it's just one of those things that people want to complain about, but don't understand the overall implications so they don't feel that it's worth regulating.

[ajalves]

One thing I'm with Nick on from a couple of pages ago, we did just kinda arbitrarily decide the coaches thing had to be fixed immediately under the guise of realism, while not addressing many other aspects of the game that aren't realistic. It just seemed odd coaches randomly became the "must fix" item.

not 'odd' when you realize we were trying to screw you and nick!

guise.....going to start working this into my everyday work jargon

[Cnasty]

guise.....going to start working this into my everyday work jargon

He ever says guise in front of me at work...

[DRWebs]

I would agree in theory about a spending floor for those teams receiving revenue sharing. It's actually a real life issue so there's some realism to it. Not entirely sure how to implement but I imagine teams receiving revenue sharing would have to invest a specified percentage on draft expenses, international free agents, or general player payroll

Let's not micromanage, that is just absurd. I dumped salary this season and now I have 54 million to spend this offseason, I only recieved 13 million through revenue sharing.

I'm not quite sure you're following. In theory, what is wrong with saying owners receiving "free money" aka revenue sharing, must spend a portion of it the following year? Let's say, again in theory, owners must spend 25% (just using for ease) of revenue sharing received the following year on free agents, excess draft pool expenses, or international free agents. Most owners spend 3-5M in free agency alone, so most wouldn't have to change a thing to satiate a potential requirement. The 25% requirement in theory just ensures teams are using the "free money" in order to improve their organization in some capacity.

In the end I don't see it happening, or necessarily that we even need it (unless we've had teams not invest in the past as I'm not up date on the complete league history). But since it is being talked about more in MLB these days, it seemed a fair enough idea to bandy about in discussion

[cougnix]

Why is Seattle being brought up as tanking? Never once did I intentionally cut payroll to lose. It was all natural!

[DRWebs]

If your payroll and coach expense is below "X" at the end of the season, then an amount is added to it as a penalty before rollover. This will mean that you will still get rev sharing, the financial spending aspect can be circumvented by the commish and the top spenders aren't hit quite as hard due to your tanking.

If a team finishes below .300, their first round pick is moved to the end of the round. You don't have to do this in-game. It can be handled with the order on the message board.

If a team finishes below .300 for a consecutive season (on-going), they forfeit their 1st round pick.

Point 1 in theory sounds like a reasonable suggestion /idea. Would their still be any sort of negative impact of the team's budget the following year, ie a huge drop?

For point 2/3, what would be done in a situation like Akron where they were set up for failure and the hole that was dug was too much for them to get out of? I think if anything the move to the back of the round would be more fair in the 2nd consecutive season and so on

[shel311]

As quoted by a wise man before me.

it's just one of those things that people want to complain about, but don't understand the overall implications so they don't feel that it's worth regulating.

This as such a "Reign" comment to make.


But again, it still goes to my main point, it was still arbitrarily decided to be this issue that had to be fixed immediately while other equally important issues were deemed not as important to resolve at that time.

[ReignOnU]

I am just catching up on all of this talk and I know a ton has been said but here is my quick take. From what I can tell we try and model this like real baseball and in the MLB there is no floor and the owners argue the same thing. Players want a floor and owners say you get a floor and we get a cap and it goes away. I completely get the frustration.

As far as coaches, never would any organization not have them so I am not sure why we would ever allow that. Nick makes sense with the ridiculous salaries they ask for but it seems Reign had a pretty easy solution. If we can in fact adjust how much coaches ask for to make it realistic then that solves that issue.

As far as the floor, like real baseball it's a shitty situation that can be unfair that we just have to live with. Tanking sucks but everyone has to be able to rebuild how they see fit and if we really want to get realistic we can pull a Dodgers/Frank McCord and the league take the team over and fire the terrible owner.

I was not around for a lot of the examples you guys have discussed but this is my quick take from a relatively new and neutral party.

You have to understand that there is a disconnect between the way that we process revenue sharing and the way that MLB does it.

NDL: Every dollar spent on payroll (player and coaches) over the league average is taxed at 50%. This money is put into a pool and then redistributed to the bottom 15 teams in spending split that equally. It is possible to pay into the pool because you are higher than the average and also receive from the pool because you're in the bottom 15 overall.

MLB: Every team pays 31% of their net local revenue into a pool. The national broadcasting revenue goes into the pool. That money is distributed to the bottom 15 markets. Beyond this and unrelated to it, is the MLB luxury tax. That tax is set at a threshold of which only 4 teams hit it last year. The 1st year a team pays 17%, then it escalates to 50% by year 4. The money brought in from this is NOT redistributed as part of revenue sharing.

In comparison, we have local revenue generated in the game and it's done based on market size. The variance is something like $10m - $14m per team... which isn't terrible. We also have national broadcasting which is the same amount for every team. These 2, in essence, are the equivalent of MLB revenue sharing.

With all that said, the reality is, our luxury tax/revenue sharing system that we have in the NDL is completely made up and doesn't simulate the real MLB at all.

[DRWebs]

As quoted by a wise man before me.

it's just one of those things that people want to complain about, but don't understand the overall implications so they don't feel that it's worth regulating.

This as such a "Reign" comment to make.


But again, it still goes to my main point, it was still arbitrarily decided to be this issue that had to be fixed immediately while other equally important issues were deemed not as important to resolve at that time.

I kind of hear you here to an extent as that was the only thing that changed immediately, but it seems as if Corey is evaluating the financial impact of all things (coaches, player development, and scouting budget) to establish some sort of a baseline for all teams unless I'm misunderstanding him. Also, last year was a transition from JD to Corey, so maybe that could help explain why only one issue was addressed as ensuring the rollover surely was at the top of the list and the others were just a "if we get to them" basis

[ReignOnU]

If your payroll and coach expense is below "X" at the end of the season, then an amount is added to it as a penalty before rollover. This will mean that you will still get rev sharing, the financial spending aspect can be circumvented by the commish and the top spenders aren't hit quite as hard due to your tanking.

If a team finishes below .300, their first round pick is moved to the end of the round. You don't have to do this in-game. It can be handled with the order on the message board.

If a team finishes below .300 for a consecutive season (on-going), they forfeit their 1st round pick.

Point 1 in theory sounds like a reasonable suggestion /idea. Would their still be any sort of negative impact of the team's budget the following year, ie a huge drop?

For point 2/3, what would be done in a situation like Akron where they were set up for failure and the hole that was dug was too much for them to get out of? I think if anything the move to the back of the round would be more fair in the 2nd consecutive season and so on

I think I expressed my thoughts on Akron at that time. That shitshow should have been cleaned up when the new owner was appointed. People still comment about the Houston clean up early in my reign, but the reality is, it was the right thing to do and the groundwork for why a set of standards were put in place for new teams/owners.

[ReignOnU]

As quoted by a wise man before me.

it's just one of those things that people want to complain about, but don't understand the overall implications so they don't feel that it's worth regulating.

This as such a "Reign" comment to make.


But again, it still goes to my main point, it was still arbitrarily decided to be this issue that had to be fixed immediately while other equally important issues were deemed not as important to resolve at that time.

Being OOTP commish makes that happen!

[Cnasty]

As quoted by a wise man before me.

it's just one of those things that people want to complain about, but don't understand the overall implications so they don't feel that it's worth regulating.

This as such a "Reign" comment to make.


But again, it still goes to my main point, it was still arbitrarily decided to be this issue that had to be fixed immediately while other equally important issues were deemed not as important to resolve at that time.

I kind of hear you here to an extent as that was the only thing that changed immediately, but it seems as if Corey is evaluating the financial impact of all things (coaches, player development, and scouting budget) to establish some sort of a baseline for all teams unless I'm misunderstanding him

This is exactly it. It wasn't that this was the #1 issue that had to be fixed right now, ASAP versus it being an easy issue to fix or low hanging fruit if you will in a way that most would understand or at least I hoped.

"Hey guys, we all should have coaches including your new commish who had zero coaches for 2 seasons as I feel it is having a financial impact on our league".

That goes back to me being a terrible communicator because it seemed to have failed even though the vote passed.

Reign and JD set up a fantastic foundation for this. I am not trying to break that foundation by going rogue and doing all kinds of crazy shit. I am fine tuning and ensuring maintenance is kept up on this fine tuned machine before we have a debacle where the new guy ruined everything.

That just happened to the be first one not due to importance but due to an item that had an opportunity to adjust. There honestly is not any huge, important issues that are plaguing as right now that need to be fixed ASAP imo.

[Seeitsaveit13]

Wow. This one blew up quickly...

[shel311]

With all that said, the reality is, our luxury tax/revenue sharing system that we have in the NDL is completely made up and doesn't simulate the real MLB at all.

We should scrap it!

Signed,

Niddler