Draft Discussion

[knucklehead7]

I am opening this thread to allow for a CIVIL discussion regarding the draft in this league.Nothing, and I repeat nothing is going to change with this year's draft. We're far too far along to change anything.

I really appreciate how much activity has been going on with all of the leagues lately, and I want to open this up to hear what others think. But if this gets out of hand, I will make this thread go away. Also, this is a discussion, not a vote.

[bulldog55]

I like the way it is set up now. Signing bonuses should be on and teams in debt should be prevented from signing top players.

[Toona the Cat]

I think the signing bonus issue is going to hurt alot of teams in debt, but it will also encourage alot more fiscal responsibility.

*cue the rolleyes at me for talking about fiscal responsibility (re: Jeter)*

There, I did it. Nobody else has to.

[Toona the Cat]

I like the way it is set up now. Signing bonuses should be on and teams in debt should be prevented from signing top players.

Would you feel the same way if you were in debt ?

[thebishop]

I'd like to say, first off, that Sean did a magnificient job with the draft this year. It's the best one I've ever seen since I've been in any of the leagues, period.

As for the signing bonus problem, it is a bit disheartening not to be able to get an above average prospect for my team, especially since I could use one. But I look at it as my problem, not the league's. If I hadn't overestimated my players and market, I wouldn't be in the debt I have, which is rather Enron like at this point. Short of dismantling my team and starting over, I'll have to be creative in getting that debt down.

If something could be done about letting lesser teams pick a higher guy, sweet. If not, I say we just adjust to it.

[Tavarin]

I like the way it is set up now. Signing bonuses should be on and teams in debt should be prevented from signing top players.

Agreed. The problem was that people were unaware with this.

[y2kornhusker]

Would you feel the same way if you were in debt ?

Without saying too much about it, I'd say those guys put themselves in that situation. Simply put, the teams in debt are in debt because they ran up a payroll last year that was larger than the revenue they brought in.

[thebishop]

Without saying too much about it, I'd say those guys put themselves in that situation. Simply put, the teams in debt are in debt because they ran up a payroll last year that was larger than the revenue they brought in.

Well, my payroll's never been above $81m, so I'd say I didn't run it up way too high. But it was still too high for me, obviously

[Toona the Cat]

Well, yeah, Dave.

Mak brings up a good issue. Nobody mentioned the salary bonus issue until right before the draft. It wouldn't of affected me since I'm a little over 8 million in debt

[Hotwheelz]

Agreed. The problem was that people were unaware with this.

Exactly. And many people with big debts planned with the thinking that they could get lots of picks and take highly rated players. Which is a good strategy when in debt.

I wish there was some way we could get around that rule this year and enforce it next year. When peole can plan, knowing this rule exists.

[ChipperJones10]

I like the way it is set up now. Signing bonuses should be on and teams in debt should be prevented from signing top players.

I really think it's awful that professional sports in America have degraded to the point where agents/players routinely hold entire organizations hostage; it sucks, but that's how it works. Sadly, the Current League is very realistic and probably ought to reflect this as well, so I'm with Scott.

[bulldog55]

Would you feel the same way if you were in debt ?

I wouldn't BE in debt unless I were taking over someone else's team, in which case, I would have expected this well ahead of time. I naturally assumed that with signing bonuses would come the inability to sign top prospects. I actually thought you would be limited to your on-hand cash, not to $500,000.

[thesportshero]

I like it the way it is. It mirrors the MLB, so it just makes it more realistic. Yes, it sucks for teams in debt, but that's mostly their choice. However, I may be a bit biased since I'm not in debt.

[bulldog55]

I should also note I only have $800,000 cash.

[ChipperJones10]

Hmmm, I actually have 27 million dollars despite inadequete income last season. Only the Yankees and Marlins have more money than me. Wow, I didn't even realize I was rich. I also have the cheapest "best-paid player" by far - Cristian Guzman at 4.9 mil/year

It's wierd, I imagine lots of managers, at least real-life ones, would look at my finances and think to spend that money to win. That only now crossed my mind; I guess I don't see money as wins, I usually just look at my roster to gauge my chances - I could have signed someone; I don't really need anyone though, I'm happy with my roster

[KevinWalkerLHP]

I wouldn't BE in debt unless I were taking over someone else's team, in which case, I would have expected this well ahead of time. I naturally assumed that with signing bonuses would come the inability to sign top prospects. I actually thought you would be limited to your on-hand cash, not to $500,000.

I assumed that you wouldn't be able to sign anybody at all.

[bulldog55]

I assumed that you wouldn't be able to sign anybody at all.

Which sounds a little infeasible in retrospect, but yeah, that was my impression.

[Heymaker22]

I'm 50-50 with this. There are only a handfull of teams that have the ability to pull in $80-90 million dollars in a season. The's ones that do that always seem to compete come seasons end. The "small market" teams have to take on salary to try to compete at the world series level. In the end they get themselves in debt for trying to win it. To me it seems the only ones getting hurt by this are those "small market" teams.

[bulldog55]

Make some money. Cut your payroll, turn in a nice profit and start building.

[knucklehead7]

But, the neat thing about OOTP is that you control the ability to change your market. If you dropped your payroll down, brought in cash, spent it wisely and used good young players, and started to win, your fan interest would change, and you'd be bringing in money.

[Heymaker22]

Say you cut your payroll and turn some profit...okay that works but then your fan interest is shot. What if your team market and team loyalty got knocked down too? What if you broadcast deals expired and you ended up $10 million less in those. To me there's too much risk in doing that.

[thesportshero]

It's very easy to get fan interest up if you win a bit. I went from like a 28 this year to a 64.

[Heymaker22]

Fan interest isn't that big of a deal...it's team market and fan loyalty that worry me.

[bulldog55]

But that's reality. If you're arguing for change that's one thing but if we're looking to mirror the Major Leagues, this is exactly what needs to be done.

It has been far too easy to run your team into debt in this league and there have never been any real penalties for doing so. I think this will make people think twice before offering those huge contracts to J.D. Dr-- err, Scott Williamson.

[knucklehead7]

Like TSH said, your fan interest will go up, and if you continue to win, you'll keep it up no matter what. And you will be able to make money. Yes, you may have to be creative with some guys when they reach free agency, but that mirors real life too. Keep your farm system replenished, work hard to replace holes with cheap FAs. Ryan, you are the poster child for this. You've done well to kep your payroll somewhat in check and maintain a good team. It just requires effort.

Like Scott siad, this may finally be the encouragement to keep payroll in check for some teams as debt obviously wasn;t the answer. One thing to note is that the game usually doesn't let you carry debt over(beyond-5 mil), but we're making sure the debt is carried over.