1st Impressions of Beta

[Bad_Ash]

Yesterday I joined 3 leagues to help test the beta. To say the least it was depressing. Here are my 3 teams and their financial situations.

St. Louis payroll: 357, cash -312
Twins payroll: 200, cash -420
Diamondbacks: 351, cash 53

All 3 leagues I joined are either in the postseason or off season. Twins and Cardinals are fastsims.

All 3 teams were poorly managed. I have played 11 games into the Twins season and I have 0 minor leaguers due to money constrainsts, I've still managed to turnout a 5 and 6 record.

If I were paying for this game I'd certainly be disgruntled that I've inherited such financially challenged teams.

Suggestions for improvement:
1. When someone quits a team reset their cash to a reasonable amount so when someone new joins the league they don't inherit a negative cash situation.

2. You need a naming policy for teams encoded in the game, or just permanently set their names. I've seen about the foulest names you could imagine in the leagues I've joined.

By the way, I'm gonna stick it out with all 3 teams for the challenge of it. And oh yes, it is a beta...winning is not important, testing is.

badash

[nysteinbrenner]

I can relate to this situation, as I've experienced it also in 2 of my 3 teams cases... it appears in many cases that abandoned teams immediately become something of a "dumping ground" for other teams who are looking to cut payroll - putting the team's new owner in dire straits on Day 1, and probably causing new owners to bail from their teams rather than taking on the challenge.

My chief suggestion in this area would be simple - prohibit trades between human-operated and computer-controlled teams once each team in the league has taken on its 1st human owner. This would prevent the "payroll dump" once an owner bails, helping the new owner along.

I'd also suggest that in cases where an owner takes control of a team where the debt exceeds -900 points, the new owner's debt is set at -900 ($ 180 million for those who are point-impaired)... roughly the equivalent of the cost of an expansion team in MLB.

As for the owners who intentionally take on 1,500 point payrolls then dump their teams, well... I'm in favor of a hard salary cap of, say, 600 points ($ 120 million for those who are point-challenged). True, it would allow the Oakland's and Montreal's of the world to run up huge debts, but should the owner bail (and the other changes be implemented) the impact on the new ownership would be somewhat minimized.

[TGG]

Salary caps hurt........ an lead to a very dull league........
If everyone has 600 points to spend ( or what ever amount you want) then everyone gets 600 points in players.......
that leads to balance yes........but also leads to a very dull league, with everyone with the same type of players same costs etc you will end up with a lot of teams around 500 winning % an very few teams that have a better record. ( think flipping a quarter 50/50) I admit that you could do better then that, by buying 600 points worth of Sammy Sosa's an another person buying 600 points worth of ( add bad player here). But remember that the good teams that make money now with high pay rolls will still make that money, an the poor teams will still lose the money. So a salary cap will do nothing except make High priced good league teams ( soxs yanks....etc) lower thier payrolls an poor teams a chance to raise thiers but for what ? so when they lose money they are in the hole again, but this time instead of being in the hole -50 they are -250 ????? Hmmmmmm that seems like a very bad idea.

I have said it here already, about revenue sharing ( I hate the idea in RL) teams that are cash poor, or teams that are picked up by another player after the first "manager/owner" leaves they are given a % of money from the league . Tieing in other ideas that I have read on these boards, If a new manager picks up a team he must be approved by the "league" not the players but by the computer meaning if they have quit a lot of teams an left those teams in dept that they can not pick another new team from a different league. ( this will give people a reason to spend more wisely) Teams with winning records but have lost money ( pick a league % , a ave of what every team in the league spent on payroll.) those teams that did lose money but did not over spend should be qualified to get a load or some type from the league as a whole ( revenue sharing) Teams that clearly over spend get nothing.......but after a while those owners lose there jobs an are forced to either start a new league of thier own, or join a league already being played. ( this also leads to players playing better an not over spending.) In the long run of revenue sharing, if I was forced to have to give a % of my earning to another team, I would not go out an over play for players......I would do my best to get other owners to do the same, meaning instead of buying the 100 point player I would wait till his price came down, ( yes I know people will back stab ya in this idea but still if the league as a whole stopps spending on high priced players those players priced do go down, at least that is what I have seen)

Also as I blabber on............

Trading, Dumping players an getting nothing in return.......that is just crushing leagues, an no you can not do that now as I have read, you after 5 years players have "rights" in real baseball, they can refuse minor league assignment ( that leads to a release where the releaseing team take no penelty for the remaing contract ) When players are shopped around or put on waivers other teams claim them, the releaseing team again takes no penelty for this. But remember it is very rare that a Barry Bonds or what not would every be put on waivers ( this leads to the idea of letting us redo over priced players) Again a player on waivers is offer to the worst team first an works the record backward to the best team, not yankees getting Barry Bonds first for nothing, Barry would be offer to the worst team.

But teams trading should HAVE TO OFFER SOMETHING IN RETURN , now I don't care if it is a bucket of balls an Manny's ballboy but something should be offer in return, but the team getting the player should have to make sure ( by the computer) that they would not go into dept for this ( but no penaly for players on waivers) This also would stop the lower priced teams from packing their payrolls an going over the profit limites an going into these -100 depts or more.

Anyway I have ramble on enough......

[euphoria13]

" So a salary cap will do nothing except make High priced good league teams ( soxs yanks....etc) lower thier payrolls an poor teams a chance to raise thiers but for what ? so when they lose money they are in the hole again, but this time instead of being in the hole -50 they are -250 ????? Hmmmmmm that seems like a very bad idea. "


The payroll limit is not a salary cap. It is not the same for all teams. It seems to be based on projected revenue and expenses. For example, my Oakland team now has a 196 payroll limit. I think it is easier for the big market teams to go down from 600 to 500, than it is for a small market team to go from 300 to 196 (my Oakland team). And the 196 is with zero spending in farm/scouting/medical.

[nevets72]

I have NY Mets in one league. I have built a winning team with wise moves and signings. Admittidly it was easier due to my financial situation, but when I started spending I over spent by about 100 points hoping that I would do well enough to get more fannies in the seats. It worked, but I am very sensitive to winning. If I do not make a run for the playoffs, my attendance will go down and I will lose a ton of money. To complicate it further, I have all long term deals. I am in a position where I cannot trade away talent, I have a high payroll, Ihave a low cash balance, and now I can't go out a get one more player to help me move into the playoffs.

While this is a different position that the lower markets are in, it is still a challenge. I have the Brewers in another league. I am cashing in and have a 250 payroll. With the limit, I still can't get a new player.

While I like the idea of evening the playing field, switching in med-stream is going to cause more headaches now, but, guys, this is Beta. The developers have a limited time frame and they can not wait to start up another 50 sims to test it. It will be interesting to see how it plays out when they go live.