the 62 mets win the world series!

[adam]

Did the title catch your eye?

Seriously, I'm playing in two FS leagues and the concern I have is about owners with extremely weak teams or with extreme debt.

I'll use FS3 as an example. I've won over 100 games the last three years and have yet to make a wildcard. The reason behind this is that we have in the NL 3 teams who are consistently winning 30 or fewer ballgames a year. It isn't fair to have to win 110 games to make it as a wildcard.

There also are teams in FS1 which have adopted the philosophy of 'let's sign everyone to 7 year contracts and **** the debt!' I think one team is close to -500.

Therefore, I'd like to propose some commisioner powers auto-coded for public leagues.

You may lose your franchise for the following:
1) Debt over -500 points
2) winning of under 100 games in three seasons or 20 in any one season (lack of want to compete)
(ill squeeze this in here, but i think the ticket machine needs to look at winning percentage a bit more...would a team that was 20-130 draw _anyone?)

I think most people would rather see leagues with parity, as opposed to having teams 90 games apart in the same division.

Also, I mentioned options in an earlier post that I'll repeat here briefly. I'd like to see some public leagues set with either caps on spending/salaries and/or some kind of revenue sharing. That way, the small market teams feel that they can realistically compete. It's going to be hard to get people to pay to get their brains beat in. Hey Clay, can I play for free if I play as Kansas City, Florida, Tampa Bay, or Montreal? I'd like to see this become enjoyable for everyone (even if I've got a virtual dynasty in FS1 *grin*)

thanks for reading!
adam/sandon

[shawnlucas76]

Man, I am struggling with Oakland in my Fast Sim league. My payroll is 171, only 7 above the budget. Tickets are now at -30%, scouting and medical expenditures are virtually non-existent, and I have pay TV. I tried normal broadcast and blackout, with little or no success. I am now 9 points in the hole. Even at -30%, I can still only draw about 20,000 a game for an 86-73 team. Fickle fans, I guess. Crikey, how do these guys do it in real life. Upon second thought, this has nothing to do with your original post, other than to point out that not all debt is the owner's fault. In your example, yes. But not always. I also had to gripe a bit about my financial situation and how I'm gonna lose all my names cuz I didn't sign them in the beginning of the year.

Shawn

[Varjak]

Originally posted by adam
I'll use FS3 as an example. I've won over 100 games the last three years and have yet to make a wildcard. The reason behind this is that we have in the NL 3 teams who are consistently winning 30 or fewer ballgames a year. It isn't fair to have to win 110 games to make it as a wildcard.This is a good point, but I'm not sure how big a deal it'll be. Right now I'm in a fastsim league where Oakland appears to be undergoing a test to see how bad they can get. I thought they were just clearing payroll to get out of debt, but now, after four full years of simulation, they're averaging 33 wins a season, going from 65 to 30 to 22 to 16 (and since they're a four-team division, their mogul score for four last-place finishes is still 21st out of 30). Minnesota isn't much better, and the result is that the good teams have to win 100 games just to have a serious shot at the playoffs.

While I dislike teams that are clearly going out of their way to be bad, I think the problem will largely resolve itself once you have to pay to play. I don't think many players will want to pay to aim for a sub-.100 winning percentage. Those that do probably should be booted, but until it becomes an issue after beta testing is concluded, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I do think that the online game should have the same constraints as the CD regarding teams in debt. Nothing that increases payroll should be allowed. There are indeed teams 500 points or more in debt who have managed to boost their payroll over the 700 point mark, and that really shouldn't be allowed.

[nevets72]

I really think that there is a serious game playing issue here.

The only way to survive is to have one of the big 5. I have Florida in one of the Fast Sims. The first year I cut all the fat possible and signed a 350 payroll for year 2. For year 2 - 5 I have had BETTER THAN A 650 winning percentage and have YET to make the playoffs. THe only reason why is that Atlanta and NY have payroll exceeding 500. I am now 200 in debt and can not raise my attendance because I have not won.

I am extremely frustrated. Why would I pay for this frustration? There has to be a leveling mechanism that does not revole around booting owners. Frankly, I do not see how any owner can survive/win with a "small" market team without going into the red.

[amount]

I'm reading a lot about revenue sharing, balanced leagues, etc. here and I certainly hope that the guys who make the game DO NOT impose such a structure on all the leagues. It might be possible to allow user created leagues to decide if they want "BALANCED" "SHARED REVENUE" or "REAL-LIFE", but it should not be imposed as a default.

As for everyone who claims it is impossible to win with a small market team, I can understand your frustration: I had some trouble in slow leagues early on. I do contend, however, that it is possible to win with a SMkt team. Not to boast, but take my FSIM2 Detroit Tigers for example. Detroit is not as bad off as a market as Minnesota or Oakland, but its hardly a first tier city. My payroll is about 350 points, but only after several successful years in a row and growing fan interest. Although my league has at times had teams with triple my payroll, I've managed the following records:

78-84
95-67
106-56
105-57
121-41
91-44 (current season)

ALDS winner 4 times
AL Champ 3 times
WS Champ 1 time
League's highest MOGUL rating

I've managed to be fairly successful by being careful who I sign and who I release. I've had to let a few big name players go when they asked for 50pt contracts, but 2 15pt players are often better than 1 50pt, and you've got 20pts left over. I traded for good young starters, and when I had four, I signed them to long term contracts (7 years) for about 15-20 pts each. When these guys come up for renewal I might have to let them go (some of them are worth 50pts or more), but by then I hope to have replacements. My 5th slot I fill with a cheap veteran who can deliver consistently an ERA of 4.00-5.00 at a cost of 1 or 2 pts (I've used Juan Guzman and Bret Saberhagen here). I perhaps have the league's best pitching staff, and it's not that expensive (under 100pts).

As far as offense is concerned, I have no really big names, but 9 consistent strong players who get the job done well. I wanted to keep Deivi Cruz (SS) when he asked for 100 pts, and I signed him to a long term (60 pt) deal. To make room, I went with strong defensive rookies in other positions, and let go some big names.

I've had similar, but not equal success, with Montreal in a different league.

Anyway, I'm just trying to say that it is possible to succeed without being Boston or NY. I've really enjoyed buidling a team with limited resources, and it's forced me to make some tough decisions. For those who complain and want balanced leagues, why not join a new league and take a big team? I like the game the way it is with lots of variation among teams and market sizes. Of my three teams, Detroit, Montreal, and Boston, the latter is by far the least fun to play.

Anthony