Two Proposed Changes

[Corey]

1. Sounds Good

2. As part of the 1%, my opinion is going to be biased. That said, I don't see any issue with a cap. My main issue with the current plan would be $50 million seems low to me. I think $100 million makes more sense to me. It will make it so less cash has to be burned to alleviate some of those issues while still limiting the amount of cash in banks to a decent but significantly smaller amount.

[Geaux Blue]

So at the end of the '38 season meaning we go through the off-season as well or directly after the playoffs? I think two full off-season meaning this '37 and '38 season with knowledge of the rule change would be sufficient in spending access cash.

Basically i'd be on board with 2 full off-seasons before the rule was implemented as well as upping the bank cap to 75-100M Obviously i'm biased there but my first point makes more sense to me for the league as a whole.

[AndyP]

As GB and I were talking in , he mentioned two offseasons being helpful. Could other teams look at their options/approach to this and see if two offseasons would help vs. one?

[Cdawg]

I don't see the reason why not. You gave us essentially 1 week to unload all that money. might as well give us a full season that way next year no one can complain when they still have 150M in the bank. That'd be my route. Give 1 full season and that way at the end of it you gave adequate(1 month real time) heads up to move as much as you can.

[psbaseballfan27]

I feel that two offseasons would be fair. Teams with the 200-500 million would be able to spend their money fairly and not dump it on salaries or below average FA. I can see corey or arizona paying 50 million for one year in order to remove excess of cap in that year. Two years give team time to spend it on winterball, stadiumr enovations etc.

[Geaux Blue]

One thing to remember is that the higher payroll teams are the one's that are usually putting high winning percentage records together and are also mostly being affected by these new rules. I'd love to delve my surplus cash into winterball but will only be able to send one spot this year with my winning percentage. I looked over putting cash into upgrades in the stadium and I guess I could sink all the excess cash into that but it's really not cost/value effective. So the last thing to do is give huge one year deals to FA's and that's not very cost effective as well. Guess what i'm saying here is 2 full off-seasons and I have no reason to complain. Gives teams ample opportunity to devise a game plan for how they want to spend their cash the best way possible. Also doesn't really give people the opportunity to complain as they have the luxury of time to figure out what they need to do.

[AndyP]

As a higher revenue team, I get it, but I re-invest my capital regularly.

It sounds like most people would prefer having to ST of 2039. I'm open to that. Just be aware, more revenue will pour in with 2038.

[mattynokes]

As a higher revenue team, I get it, but I re-invest my capital regularly.

It sounds like most people would prefer having to ST of 2039. I'm open to that. Just be aware, more revenue will pour in with 2038.

I'm fine with it, but I'd actually bump the demands right after the current re-signings. That way in-season asking prices get a jump start in the right direction.

[thenamelesspoet]

I am ok with demand

BUT I am 100% against the bank cap UNLESS you have a separate bank for Stadium upgrades and new stadiums.. A new stadium costs often 350-400M. who wants 300-350M floating around in the game on a low market team... it will make it so they can NEVER build a stadium.

[Geaux Blue]

I am ok with demand

BUT I am 100% against the bank cap UNLESS you have a separate bank for Stadium upgrades and new stadiums.. A new stadium costs often 350-400M. who wants 300-350M floating around in the game on a low market team... it will make it so they can NEVER build a stadium.

They've mentioned allowing you to bank money for stadium matters so I think you'd be ok.