Negative cash should equal negative results

***danpac47*** · 05-09-2011, 12:02 AM

If i remember correctly, even if a team is in debt, or in the red in cash - they can still trade or resign players?

If so, I think this needs to change. Teams need to be penalized for having a financially sucky organization.

rockybull · 05-09-2011, 12:17 AM

I think they should be able to trade, so that they can get the amount of cash needed to get out of debt. And I think all you can resign is arby eligible guys, which I think is perfectly fine. As far as FA's or anything like that, then HELL NO until they get in the positive with cash.

Jordan · 05-09-2011, 12:18 AM

:( I'm always gonna be in debt because I lose 50M do to rev sharing each off season haha.

***danpac47*** · 05-09-2011, 12:45 AM

(05-09-2011, 12:17 AM)rockybull Wrote: I think they should be able to trade, so that they can get the amount of cash needed to get out of debt. And I think all you can resign is arby eligible guys, which I think is perfectly fine. As far as FA's or anything like that, then HELL NO until they get in the positive with cash.

true about the trades.

mike · 05-09-2011, 01:26 AM

Mogul already punishes them by not letting them extend anyone and I think there is a league rule in place for free agency, only min bids.

Peter · 05-09-2011, 10:50 AM

they can't resign players that are up for free agency but can sign arbitration guys. teams with negative cash shouldnt be able to do any negotiating with agents, im not sure if thats the case now

dejota · 05-09-2011, 11:37 AM

In FCM: Teams are free to do whatever they want if they're negative in cash. If the trend is to continue down that path the league will interfere much like the MLB is doing with the Dodgers right now. I view small, and obviously short term cash issues, as a MLB Loan which would be covered IRL. The Rangers were forced to let a bunch of players walk one year because of this issue and I feel it set them back more than allowing them to go negative would've been and clearly they're financially stable now.

In Mogul: It will auto cut any nonarby players.

IRL: They go case-by-case like I'm doing with FCM.

***AndyP*** · 05-09-2011, 12:57 PM

I like how we do it here. We have good, smart GMs - they'll choose how to bring costs down themselves and more often than not it will be at their expense in some way (offering prospects with bad contracts, draft picks, letting players go, trading good players for poorer return due contract, etc.) - let the market decide how they pay for this issue.

mike · 05-09-2011, 04:24 PM

I think Peters issue is more when it comes to end of the season. I try to keep my team in the black especiallyby seasons end just to avoid issue like having all my players let go. I dont think id change my tune now that I know there is no rule againts being in the end at the end of the year but I see Peters issue with it. However I like the case by case thing.

***danpac47*** · 05-11-2011, 12:50 PM

I just think it's unfair to the teams that try to stay within their budget.

And for the teams that don't really care much for their expenses, they should be face the consequences.

The two teams in debt right now are the Mariners and Yankees, who both have a playoff spot right now. I don't think that's right because the Angels or the Tampa Bay Rays could be there instead because they have maintained a good stable financial situation.