|
|
Post by Commissioner Erick on Oct 28, 2017 10:20:38 GMT -5
While there are some hard stops (I will not change injury settings!), let me know if there's anything with the structure of the rules in the league you would like to see changed. I want to wait a year or two to see how the 10% over budget rule and two months to reduce salary rule play out before making a determination on them. Of the two teams that needed to cut money this year, one made the playoffs, and the Yankees were able to go over budget, get back under the threshold, and make the playoffs nonetheless. Kansas City was in a rough spot as they were defaulted into debt. Now that things have stabilized, I want to see how this is all playing out in 2020.
Aside from that, the forum is yours!
|
|
|
|
Post by tigersgm_Steve on Oct 28, 2017 11:38:21 GMT -5
I think the Constitution is well thought out and essentially geared for success of the league.
If I could change two things:
1- Change Scouting from Highly Accurate to one or two settings below. Just my preference.
2- When we started I 'campaigned' for a 'burn one contract' allowance for each team but it did not materialize. Of course, this has to do with Miggy's ridiculous 10 year deal that handcuffs the franchise for an eternity. Cano is not much different. I think it would make a few us very happy to have this option even though we are one year in. I don't see where other teams would get hurt by it except that the teams releasing the player have a little better opportunity to improve their long term situation. For example, Detroit is years from being a player no matter what I do and having to pay Cabrera 30M at age 42....well, you get the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by gmyankees on Oct 28, 2017 11:47:56 GMT -5
I'm also in favor of being able to burn 1 contract and this should also be carried over for all new entrants to the league who take over bad situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigersgm_Steve on Oct 28, 2017 11:49:26 GMT -5
Oh, one more thing, please drop 'contract negotiations'. I can live with it yes, but there is nothing I enjoy about it. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by kcroyals on Oct 29, 2017 17:48:10 GMT -5
I’m not in favor of being able to burn a contract. I would be in favor for new entrants though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner Erick on Nov 2, 2017 22:45:35 GMT -5
I don't like the burn contracts as I feel like they're part of the fabric of taking on the team, sort of like a market condition. San Diego has a market condition of being small. Miami had a market condition of a cheap owner. Seattle has a market condition of Robinson Cano's contract, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by friscoranger on Nov 2, 2017 22:48:05 GMT -5
I have to agree with eric on this one. makes it part of the challenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben_Dodgers on Nov 3, 2017 20:56:37 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of any of the contract requirements in the constitution (service time minimum, AB/IP threshold, bonus %, and per year salary restrictions), because they're not enforced by the game. We already saw several people unintentionally violate them this season, and now Erick you've asked to get some assistance reviewing contracts in the future. Why create the extra overhead? My feeling is that if it can't be enforced by the game than it's going to be more trouble that it's worth.
My assumption is that ootp players can be manipulated into signing "unrealistically" low contracts, and you're trying to make that more difficult? I'm. It sure that's actually a real problem, though. The numbers might look weird compared to MLB, but if we're all operating under the same rules it should balance out, right?
There must be some league settings relating to contracts that can adjusted, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner Erick on Nov 4, 2017 10:50:30 GMT -5
The arbitration stuff absolutely is a problem. Players will sign very cheap long term extensions early in their careers. It's a huge problem that OOTP has made better but is not perfect. The other issues are much smaller.
|
|
