Example of something that needs changed

[Razon]

Here is a classic example of something that hopefully can be addressed. In this case, someone stacked Houston and then bailed the league. I'm not pointing this out because I am St. Louis and in second place. I point this out because once this goes live it would tick me off.

score attend rev pay profit cash
Houston Diesels 1,950 36,006 201 1,113 -267 -238
Date June 20th 2005

Once this goes live a case like this will be something that will ruine the experiance for everyone. Noone in their right mind will get a payroll of 1113 points and expect to make anywhere near a profit. This is Fastsim 25 if the powers that be wish to check things out. As would be expected with a powerful roster like this they are in first but will have the worst financial standing for anyone who has a desire to pick up houston in the future.

Food for thought,

Raz

[James Grove]

This is why we have implemented the new budget limit.

It helps prevent this kind of radical overspending.

Hopefully we will see less of this in the future.

-James

[Garrett]

Maybe you should not be able to sign players to raises if you are over your budget, but if a player wants a salary cut you would be allowed to negotiate.
This should be allowed even if you have a negative amount of money, there is no way to lower your salaries except by trading.
If a guy is making 27 points for the season but would take 3 points for 2 years I think you should be allowed to sign him to that extension.
But if you are way over budget but still have money upper management should not let you sign players to extensions if they stay the same or ask for raises.

[dabillytater]

when you're overbudget, it seems ridiculous to be unable to renegotiate a player to a CHEAPER contract. Isn't this what you should be doing as a gm.
it would make more sense to me to be restricted from ADDING to your budget when you're already in the red, but you should always be allowed to slash budget.

[Razon]

Originally posted by dabillytater
when you're overbudget, it seems ridiculous to be unable to renegotiate a player to a CHEAPER contract.

Let me ask you this. If your a player, would you renegotiate a 50 pt salery lower when you are guarenteed 50 pts? I for one would not. That is the nature of contracts, you sign them, your stuck with them. Should we then have a player who signs for a song demand after a dream year that his salery be raised? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Its the GM's responsibility to not overspend.

Now, in the case of taking over a computer controlled team which is way in debt because a former human was inept at budgeting, I don't have a solution that would please the masses. Bottom line, a contract should stay just that, a contract.

A trading block feature would be nice though. I know the league boards are what thats for.

Just my 2 coppers,

Raz

[James Grove]

The player may be willing to lower his salary if he gets a longer term contract.

I believe that as is currently stands, if a player is in the last year of a 100 point contract, you can renegotiate his contract lower, and the new contract will amortize what he has left in his current contract (100 points pro-rated for the season) over the years of the new contract. (Of course, this only works if you are not in debt.)

So if the player was injured or slumping, and is now only worth a 10 point contract, then he might re-sign a 4 year deal for 35 points (100/4 + 10). Less than that if the last year of his current contract is partially or completely over.


A big reason for NOT allowing people to renegotiate is that if they do, they will STILL have the players locked up for long term contracts, which is what we are trying to avoid. A team that is in debt is BANKRUPT or at least relying heavily on credit lines. They can't conjure money from nowhere, and so they simply can't sign new financial obligations.

Personally, I'd like to see something where a team that is deep in debt ends up defaulting on its payroll, so then the big stars all walk out of their contracts and into free agency. But that might introduce a strategy of intentional bankruptcy, to release expensive players at no cost. We're rolling ideas around.

Cheers,
James

[dabillytater]

As it stands now, it's the players, not the owners who are initiating the lower contracts. This is not a case of someone overbudget begging long-term stars for a lower salary. We cannot re-nogtiate long-term deals. We can only sign players who are in their last year. I've already had several guys who have asked for a long-term package that was worth less overall than the current season he was playing. And this is reflected in my budget.
When I first started and there was little guidance in how to do things, I gave Richard Hidalgo a raise from 1 in 2001 to 50 over four years thiinking the 50 would begin next year because everyone was honoring their contracts. But no, the 50 kicked in immediately, just as when last season Shane Reynolds, who was making 35 in 2002, was more than happy to accept a deal for 17 in 2003, and it applied to my budget that way when it was enacted (but i had to wait until i creeped into the black to sign him, when I think rightfully that should be a deal i can make at the beginning of the season because i am responsibly accepting a deal FROM A PLAYER WITH A STUPID AGENT who is begging to play for less money. Reynolds is now going to be playing 2003 for 5 because this is the deal he wanted at the beginning of this season.
One way or another this is either a quirk of the financial system or a bug that doesn't reflect how players and teams deal with each other. Right now I've learned to be able to exploit the aging and marginal players who are willing to play for less, but I don't this is realistic. On the other hand, I also don't think a team should be penalized for locking up a player to an extension and have it reflect on the current season. At the time I made my virgin run through signing players, I thought I would have a full season in which to set up the rest of the team's budget in anticipation of next season's contracts.
Until teams in the red are able to cut salary in this method, other teams have an advantage in being able to exploit this salary loophole. And yet it is the teams in the red who need it more. For that matter, (and I can't say this with any certainty) it's possible the small market teams (who are prone to straddling the profit margin) could be at a disadvantage to the high-revenue teams who can continually buy down contracts in this manner.

[Slugger222]

The reason that a new contract applies immediately is because you re re-negotiating his current contract, with an extension. You are not saying, "OK, Joe Stud, after this year, you are going to get a 30 point raise."

What you are doing is saying, "OK, Joe Stud, we think that you are worth 30 more points a year to this franchise, and we want to extend that commitment X number of years."

It works the same way when a player asks for less money, although I think that is very unrealistic.

Example:
I had Remlinger, who was working for 18 points in 2001. I signed him during the post season for one year extension at 3 points for one additional year. What he was asking for. A total of a 6 point commitment.

Then, I happily noticed that my budget for 2001 had been credited with 15 more points! I guess he gave it back! (What a guy!)

I did not see any pro-rating, or amortization of the original 2001 salary.

Just thought I'd let you know!

[onethumb]

I'm not sure when the budget fix took place, but there is a team in my league that is pulling the same kind of ****--taking over another team with a slave email account, and trading all the good players to the original team. In this case they guy was negative in cash from the end of last season, and DOUBLED his payroll to an amazing 1,175, with an expected revenue for this year of 126.

This kind of **** will ruin this game--this is the 3rd league now that I've been in, and I quit the first 2 for the same reason. Mabye if teams are running too far in the red (like over -200 mabye), the players (starting with the highest paid first) should automatically sit out the season until the payroll is more in line with what the team can afford, since realistically the team doesn't actually have any money to pay them.

[mikeh5]

I think the trading block feature is available in the "play at home" version of the game.