Reducing Cash Ideas

[warpriest]

As one of only two GM's that held fast against the cascade of anti-WB sentiment last month, (Detroit being the other), I could support this latest proposal. I can support it even more so since the fact that WB eliminated $450 Million out of the file in 2049. That fact cannot be overemphasized.

Further, I would not oppose a slight increase in the cost of a WB slot from the present $10m each to _______________(throw out a figure)

Even further, to aid smaller market teams handle the suggestion above, we could experiment with a minor increase in revenue sharing.

One last suggestion: Why couldn't the 3 or 4 teams with the worst won-loss records of the preceding season be able to send a 4th spec to WB, ESPECIALLY with predicteds gone, if they can afford it?

Not married to any of these suggestions, just throwing 'em out there. My primary motive for saving WB in some form is to regulate the league's excess cash.

['PR']

I like the peak only idea in terms of WB. Teams with lower records deserve more slots, like 4 or 5, over better teams.

[rockybull]

As one of only two GM's that held fast against the cascade of anti-WB sentiment last month, (Detroit being the other), I could support this latest proposal. I can support it even more so since the fact that WB eliminated $450 Million out of the file in 2049. That fact cannot be overemphasized.

Further, I would not oppose a slight increase in the cost of a WB slot from the present $10m each to _______________(throw out a figure)

Even further, to aid smaller market teams handle the suggestion above, we could experiment with a minor increase in revenue sharing.

One last suggestion: Why couldn't the 3 or 4 teams with the worst won-loss records of the preceding season be able to send a 4th spec to WB, ESPECIALLY with predicteds gone, if they can afford it?

Not married to any of these suggestions, just throwing 'em out there. My primary motive for saving WB in some form is to regulate the league's excess cash.

i'm not sure increasing WB cost is the way to go, i think with changes like andy said is all that really needs to be done. the idea is to get teams to spend money on WB, upping it too much is going to scare a few teams away from using it much. i know for a fact if it's 15 mil i wouldn't use it, even when rebuilding unless i have a true stud prospect. 10 mil is a fair number IMO.

i don't like the idea of adding 4 or even 5 slots in WB, even for just a few teams. I think max of 3 slots is more than enough. we should be looking at reducing the number in the future, not adding more slots. i think even andy said that he hopes the cash problem can get under control and in the future hopefully get rid of WB altogether or something to that extent. maybe i misunderstood, obviously andy can speak for himself, but either way, all adding more slots does is improve odds of your players getting better, and adding even more manipulation to the file. the bad teams already get early good draft picks, that's compensation enough right there, plus extra WB slots. 3 being max is plenty for the bad teams.

[AndyP]

I'd like to keep things at 10M for now and see how this change to WB alters how much people are utilizing it. If there is no change then I think we can revisit cost adjustments. Basically, I want 3-4 seasons to see how participation levels look first.

Do people really think we need more revenue sharing? I mean that honestly, right now as one of the smallest budgets I have ample spending room to get my team going. So I guess I'm open to hearing if and why people think it necessary.

As for the slots - same as above. I'd like to see how this peak-only WB works for awhile. Same goes for trading WB selections, with changes this radical to it I think it best to take things slowly with some of the variables.

[warpriest]

Fair enough. Just scattershooting here................

[rockybull]

I'd like to keep things at 10M for now and see how this change to WB alters how much people are utilizing it. If there is no change then I think we can revisit cost adjustments. Basically, I want 3-4 seasons to see how participation levels look first.

Do people really think we need more revenue sharing? I mean that honestly, right now as one of the smallest budgets I have ample spending room to get my team going. So I guess I'm open to hearing if and why people think it necessary.

As for the slots - same as above. I'd like to see how this peak-only WB works for awhile. Same goes for trading WB selections, with changes this radical to it I think it best to take things slowly with some of the variables.

only reason i brought up the increase in revenue sharing is because g$ mentioned it on the podcast and didn't really get any objections from it. so i thought it was worth at least posting. i knew the market that i chose, so i'm not gonna beg or anything for increasing revenue sharing.

i think it's good to see how the peak-only wb will work first like you said. if it takes out $300+ million cash every year (even past WB's here weren't always taking out 400 million, some years were in the 300 million range) then i think that's good. and if you still feel we have a lil too much excess cash in the file, suggestions 4 and 5 that i proposed could certainly help cut down on the problem even more, or at least be something you could consider.

[AndyP]

My hope is that we just keep trending the way we have been. Since 2040 our average cash supply in the league has dropped nearly 40%. And the it continues to trend downward from what I can see. I want to keep that going because long-term a lot of the problems people have been asking about (FAs, Player demands, WB, etc.) might get rectified with a more realistic financial situation. We're heading that way.

I believe strongly in doing things for the long haul and having the long-term vision of a solution. Quick fixes tend to create big problems. I like the compromise we've figured out here and I like many of warpriest's suggestions as well as the overall idea of not tampering with the file. (i.e. getting rid of WB ultimately or at least narrowing it down) I just want those things to happen naturally rather than forcing the issue.

Anyone that has access to the old files can simply go back the last 10-15 years and see that we have taken major strides in a positive direction and continue to do so. That's the biggest thing I want to keep going with.

Revenue sharing doesn't effect that since it only recirculates the cash that is already here. As a small market that doesn't really care or see a problem I can't contribute to that discussion. If there are others that have strong feelings or good points to make on it - I would really like to hear them.

[hokeyrules]

I don't think re-adjusting revenue sharing is a positive. Florida is usually a low market, and based various reasons, the fan base eventually went up and now I am giving 8 million to teams with crap revenue.


As Andy said that just is recirculating money, I mean the only idea I have doing something similar to WB, but with health.

This would actually not change the how players progress as well.