Reply to Balance issues with an idea

[dougummel]

I know that this will not solve the problem of owner over spending and inequity of markets, but it would help make the game more realistic.

I know that as the game currently stands, owners cannot sign free agents if they do not have any cash. I would suggest that they not be allowed to RE-sign their own free agents if they have under a certain amount (say -40). Also, it should be doable to make sure that they cannot make any trade that would increase their payroll if they had under a certain amount (say 0).

This would eliminate the teams that consistently run deficits to compete while still allowing a team to save up a bunch of money and make a run at the World Series. However, it would make sure that there were consequences for mortgaging your future.

I think that this is fairly realistic because at some point an owner in real life would say "no" to any proposed deal that is just going to make him lose more and more money. However, he may be willing to do so for a limited period of time if he had a shot at winning the whole thing. You can bet that it would not be extened, however, or the GM would be looking for a new job.

I know that this does not address the inequities of the large vs. small markets, but it will establish somewhat of a more level playing field and be more realistic as well.

I'd be curious to hear what everyone else's reaction is to this idea.....

[John]

All the points are definately good ideas. Teams in debt should not be allowed to increase their payrolls. About the resigning, well teams in debt can't resign players, right?

[dougummel]

That could be. I haven't been in debt ever, so I was not aware of that. I hope that is the case.

[lonbo]

I agree that something must be done about making the game
more realistic IRT FA signing but the situation is worse in leagues
that have computer GM'S than one's that are completly run by
real managers. With computer GM'S it's easy to dump high priced
players on the computer, steal the new prospects, strip the team of any low priced stars and all the cash available. I don't mind trying to compete with a small market team such as Oak, KC,
but it is almost imposible by the 2nd or 3rd year. Some teams,
such as large market teams, can charge +50 or more and still fill
the stadium every night with a losing team, Oak i almost gave
tickets away and drew 26,000. I tried everything I could think of
to increase revenue and as far as I could see there is no advantage. It's almost impossible to grow. We are playing right
now for free testing a product. Every team should start with the
same advantages and disadvantages. A winning program within
the budget should grow, a losing program out of budget should
be penalized. Bos finished 200 mogul points at the end of the
year with a payroll higher than budget, a farm/scout/med ranked
no lower tha 3 and can charge +50 for tickets and sell out, that
in my opinion is not realistic. Here are my suggestions for keeping
things realistic.

1. Any team over buget unable to sign FA, Regardles of how much
cash a team has on hand.
2. Computer teams can only trade and give 2-3 points differnce.
That keeps some GM'S from stripping all the available cash from
weak computer teams.
3. No prospects from a computer team can be traded the first 3
years. That lets computer teams develope new players before
someone strips them. It will help keep the computer teams
competitive.
4. When a team can put a player of the calibur of Ken Griffey in the minors, player should become dissatisfied and efficiency rating
go way down over 5 years ML experience player should not be
able to be dropped the the minors without it effecting the players
ability. I know for a fact if KGriffey is healthy he's not going to
be happy with that situation. If a player has been injured then
thats a different subject. Getting a player back into playing shape
but no longer than a few weeks just like the big guys. I'm playing
in a league where there are better players on the bench and in
the minors than I can afford to put on the field. If a GM is willing
to spend over 20 for a player he should be on the ML roster not
in the minors.
5. Farm system. some teams spend 150 points on development
and don't have a complete team in the minors. How do you
develope players if a complete team is not there. There needs to
be a toggle just like the ML for training a SS to be 2b-3b if that
is what you will be needing. If a team don't have a complete team
9 players and at least 6-7 pitchers development drops. Not increase. I want to see Norfolk try to play with 6 players. It's not
realistic.
6. Mogul points, thats what I thought the game was designed
for but found out from one of the guys in my league(Bos GM)
I was wrong. 1250 points playing Oak thought I'd done an
exceptional job under buget profitable no crowd 160 point
payroll not a big deal. 200 points 750 point payroll over buget is
the way to go i guess. Not what I thought the game was about.
He doesn't have to worry about experienced ML's in the minors.
There needs to be adjustment for overspending, penalties. Get
the game realistic, but then I thought it's not real to most who
play it's a game and who cares. That is one of my biggest concerns when it come to paying for a game that is so out of
whack for some teams.
7. At the end of the year if you have cash, only 25 points to start
the FA season. The rest goes into a bank that prior to the trade
deadline say Jun 50% of your bank can be used to purchase
help for the end run for the pennant. That will make guys have to
be more carefull with their capitol. Even the Yankees have to
be a little careful not to waste money.

I want to see leagues be competitive for 10-20 years not 2-3.
Read some of the posts. The game needs some restrictions
not caps but restictions on different areas to keep everyone
interested in playing. Just some of my opinions and suggestions.
r/llh