Owners

[ajalves]

my 'issue' is that teams knowingly put themselves in 100 or 200 million in debt and then get bailed out randomly. IRL a conversation would be had with the owner prior to pumping up a 250 million dollar payroll

If I was the GM of the dodgers I'd know what I could and couldn't do going in. In this sim we really have no idea

[dusters06]

my 'issue' is that teams knowingly put themselves in 100 or 200 million in debt and then get bailed out randomly. IRL a conversation would be had with the owner prior to pumping up a 250 million dollar payroll

If I was the GM of the dodgers I'd know what I could and couldn't do going in. In this sim we really have no idea

That's why I mentioned the whole not being able to be fired part...technically we're exploiting the game by racking up debt and getting bailed out. I don't mind either side of this argument but feel there's greater risk with having Corey adjust it each season. Tough call really

[The_Niddler]

I am sorry shel, but I agree with Coug here.
I don't care.
Since it appears to be random, meaning, we are not sure exactly what causes an owner to be as generous as others, comparing yours and Rob's.

It is something that happens in real life. Owners give and take away money.
I understand AJ's point that in real life, there would be a discussion and without that, it makes it easier for someone to go 100 or 200 million in debt and then get bailed out, but this is part of 17.

Maybe 18 fixes it?
Maybe we need to jump to 18?

But I don't see the harm.
To coug's point, it didn't work out for Rob. He didn't win anything and in the end, did it cause any harm?
No. So he got bailed out a little, he is still in debt. He still has a hole to get out of.
It may only take him 2-3 seasons now to get out of that hole instead of 5-6.

Personally, I like the randomness of it, but that is just my opinion and I will respect whatever the majority or the commish decides.

[Boston_Rob]

I am sorry shel, but I agree with Coug here.
I don't care.
Since it appears to be random, meaning, we are not sure exactly what causes an owner to be as generous as others, comparing yours and Rob's.

It is something that happens in real life. Owners give and take away money.
I understand AJ's point that in real life, there would be a discussion and without that, it makes it easier for someone to go 100 or 200 million in debt and then get bailed out, but this is part of 17.

Maybe 18 fixes it?
Maybe we need to jump to 18?

But I don't see the harm.
To coug's point, it didn't work out for Rob. He didn't win anything and in the end, did it cause any harm?
No. So he got bailed out a little, he is still in debt. He still has a hole to get out of.
It may only take him 2-3 seasons now to get out of that hole instead of 5-6.

Personally, I like the randomness of it, but that is just my opinion and I will respect whatever the majority or the commish decides.

Maybe we set a hard Salary Cap? Because I know if George's owner Kicks the bucket and has one that wants to give him money he is gunna be upset. Haha

[shel311]

To coug's point, it didn't work out for Rob. He didn't win anything and in the end, did it cause any harm?

Process vs Results

How Rob performed is irrelevant to this discussion.

[Cnasty]

Completely shocked here guys are ok with owners randomly giving a team in completely massive debt $240million out of nowhere to clear the debt when they got money taken away or nothing given.

Well not completely shocked as you guys never cease to surprise me anymore

[shel311]

i'll never understand how Niddler "doesn't care" about this but coaches we never do anything with or talk about matter more.

[Boston_Rob]

i'll never understand how Niddler "doesn't care" about this but coaches we never do anything with or talk about matter more.

You are taking him to literally, Shel.

[The_Niddler]

i'll never understand how Niddler "doesn't care" about this but coaches we never do anything with or talk about matter more.

The fantastic thing about life is that we are all allowed to have our own opinions and just because you don't agree with mine or Coug's, doesn't mean yours is right or the way everyone has to go.

I feel that owners should be allowed to give or take money just like I feel that we should have coaches.
Those are my opinions, sorry, but get over it. They are mine and they will not change.
They are both part of real baseball and I feel they should be a part of our little digital baseball.

When I said I don't care, I stated that I want this to stay, but in the end, it will not make me not want to be a part of the league if the majority or the commissioner decide to do away with it.
I run my team to always be in the positive, so in the end, it really doesn't impact me.

But again, everyone is allowed to have their own opinions and I respect that.

[shel311]

[Boston_Rob]

[dusters06]

Completely shocked here guys are ok with owners randomly giving a team in completely massive debt $240million out of nowhere to clear the debt when they got money taken away or nothing given.

Well not completely shocked as you guys never cease to surprise me anymore

Is this worthy of a vote or something you as commish should just decide? 250+ million cash given is not feasible, nor realistic imo. I'm just curious the impact this will have on teams currently in poor financial situations. Like it was stated, instead of 5-6 season rebuild it more like a 2-3 if owners are bailing us out. We may see half the league as really bad while the other half in good financial positions continue to get better. In all reality, that's exactly the way it should be

[ajalves]

now, I don't care if you want to pump up a 300 mill payroll ....I don't think a salary cap is necessary. I just think you should have to work your way out of debt, not get 250 mill from your owner

[mreijimiyake]

My opinion is that the current set-up, or the proposed commish only judgement on fair interpretation of a rule that is not clearly expressed, is neither fair, immersive or enjoyable.

It's a grey area for sure. To me running up that kind of debt is not cricket and could be viewed as rather unsporting. Then again it seems as though you have a history in this league of being ok with teams running fairly large deficits. So whatever it is it's certainly not cheating!

I guess I could snaffle up all the quality free agents on the market and run a big debt on top of my large budget but that seems a little shitty and not personally my idea of fun.

I love the idea of owners but only if we could get fired too and have to start again etc. You have to take the good with the bad.....atm it's not as fair or transparent as it could/should be.

[Seeitsaveit13]

now, I don't care if you want to pump up a 300 mill payroll ....I don't think a salary cap is necessary. I just think you should have to work your way out of debt, not get 250 mill from your owner

Throw a cap on owner contributions/deductions? We have a cash cap of $50 mil, cap the Owner +/- at $25 or $50 mil (pick a number). That way Corey doesn't have to fix EVERY one every time, just one or two (if that) a year.

[shel311]

or the proposed commish only judgement on fair interpretation of a rule that is not clearly expressed

This thread is specifically designed to get everyone's input so it's not a commish only judgment.

[mreijimiyake]

or the proposed commish only judgement on fair interpretation of a rule that is not clearly expressed

This thread is specifically designed to get everyone's input so it's not a commish only judgment.

Fair enough. I thought the consensus was that Corey would have to do so without any clear framework.

Absolutely no slight intended on Coreys authority to do so.

[dusters06]

now, I don't care if you want to pump up a 300 mill payroll ....I don't think a salary cap is necessary. I just think you should have to work your way out of debt, not get 250 mill from your owner

Throw a cap on owner contributions/deductions? We have a cash cap of $50 mil, cap the Owner +/- at $25 or $50 mil (pick a number). That way Corey doesn't have to fix EVERY one every time, just one or two (if that) a year.

I like this, nothing over 20-25 mil from owner. If the owner takes money, deal with it. If he's charitable and gives, then nothing over 25 mil.

[wdoupis]

now, I don't care if you want to pump up a 300 mill payroll ....I don't think a salary cap is necessary. I just think you should have to work your way out of debt, not get 250 mill from your owner

Throw a cap on owner contributions/deductions? We have a cash cap of $50 mil, cap the Owner +/- at $25 or $50 mil (pick a number). That way Corey doesn't have to fix EVERY one every time, just one or two (if that) a year.

This does seem like a solid way to ease in to it

[shel311]

I thought the consensus was that Corey would have to do so without any clear framework.

If it's a consensus, then it's really not a commish only judgment though, right?


And to be fair, if we do it this way, Corey isn't making any judgments on how much each team should get and what is fair, he's setting every single team's cash from the owner to $0.