Who Won the Off-season? Players or GMs?

[Trebro]

As we roll into preseason, I'm curious how everyone is feeling about the contracts handed out in the off-season. Did the players win big? Were GMs kept from going off the deep end? Or was it fairly measured, with players getting about what they deserve in our Cap League?

[ae37jr]

There is still a metric shit ton of quality players left. So I think in the end, the GMs who wait the longest will win.

[Trebro]

There is still a metric shit ton of quality players left. So I think in the end, the GMs who wait the longest will win.

I think that is more a factor of the talent staying longer at positions where it's fairly easy to get a quality cheap replacement. I was thinking more about the size of the deals. I feel like spending was lower despite how much budget room was available and some bidding wars I anticipated didn't happen. So I felt like GMs got the edge vs last year where it seemed the deals were very, very player friendly.

[pandan]

There were notably more players willing to sign on to London this sim. May be a good opportunity to get an edge in the GBC with how many unsigned FAs there are that are playable.

[GoldenOne]

With still having 10+ teams that are at least $20M under the cap - its still hard to call this one. If those teams decide to wait until the next couple of sims, they could get some good deals (and make their teams more competitive.) Even if that does happen, the GMs should win this one.

[jleddy]

With still having 10+ teams that are at least $20M under the cap - its still hard to call this one. If those teams decide to wait until the next couple of sims, they could get some good deals (and make their teams more competitive.) Even if that does happen, the GMs should win this one.

Black Sox and San Fernando could merge and still be $20M under the cap.

Hmm, just spitballing here but “the Chicago Bears” has a nice ring to it.

[Dington]

With still having 10+ teams that are at least $20M under the cap - its still hard to call this one. If those teams decide to wait until the next couple of sims, they could get some good deals (and make their teams more competitive.) Even if that does happen, the GMs should win this one.

Black Sox and San Fernando could merge and still be $20M under the cap.

Hmm, just spitballing here but “the Chicago Bears” has a nice ring to it.

I prefer San Fernando Sticky Socks

[GoldenOne]

With still having 10+ teams that are at least $20M under the cap - its still hard to call this one. If those teams decide to wait until the next couple of sims, they could get some good deals (and make their teams more competitive.) Even if that does happen, the GMs should win this one.

Black Sox and San Fernando could merge and still be $20M under the cap.

Hmm, just spitballing here but “the Chicago Bears” has a nice ring to it.

I prefer San Fernando Sticky Socks

That's a US Navy Sailor deployment special, right @usnspecialist ?

[ae37jr]

I'm about to start scooping up all these free agents and then play weakest link with my roster.

[Trebro]

I'm about to start scooping up all these free agents and then play weakest link with my roster.

I am fortunate in my budget situation to be eyeing a similar plan. we may be eating some lower salaries if I can land superior players.

[Trebro]

With still having 10+ teams that are at least $20M under the cap - its still hard to call this one. If those teams decide to wait until the next couple of sims, they could get some good deals (and make their teams more competitive.) Even if that does happen, the GMs should win this one.

I feel like part of that is the talent drop off point. There are definitely some good, 5 to 8 million dollar players out there IMO, though many have the misfortune of being 1b/DH types so they may be forced to retire.

On the other hand there's a slew of million or less so even if many get signed I feel like there's going to be a lot of teams with cap space into the season. Curious to see how it gets used.

[cheekimonk]

I'm about to start scooping up all these free agents and then play weakest link with my roster.

I am fortunate in my budget situation to be eyeing a similar plan. we may be eating some lower salaries if I can land superior players.

Halfway ahead of you. After banging my head, in prepping for ST I realize that I essentially rebuilt my rotation from last year only by buying them as FA.

[RonCo]

With still having 10+ teams that are at least $20M under the cap - its still hard to call this one. If those teams decide to wait until the next couple of sims, they could get some good deals (and make their teams more competitive.) Even if that does happen, the GMs should win this one.

We have six teams with budgets under the salary cap, so there's that.

[GoldenOne]

With still having 10+ teams that are at least $20M under the cap - its still hard to call this one. If those teams decide to wait until the next couple of sims, they could get some good deals (and make their teams more competitive.) Even if that does happen, the GMs should win this one.

We have six teams with budgets under the salary cap, so there's that.

That CAN be helped though.

[RonCo]

With still having 10+ teams that are at least $20M under the cap - its still hard to call this one. If those teams decide to wait until the next couple of sims, they could get some good deals (and make their teams more competitive.) Even if that does happen, the GMs should win this one.

We have six teams with budgets under the salary cap, so there's that.

That CAN be helped though.

That's true. And it's also true that there are NINE MORE teams with budgets at $120M - $130M. So, assuming $5-$7M for staff, and maybe $3M-$5M (minimum) for draft picks, and 15 of our 32 BBA teams are almost guaranteed to not be able to spend to cap. They can do so on 1-year contracts, I suppose, by spending cash, too. That's an interesting question. I'm rusty there, so I don't know.

Regardless, that's a lot of budget that needs to be bought with PPT across the league. And when you do that, it only bumps the budget for one season, so longterm deals don't fly.

This is what I used to mean when I said raising the salary cap from $110M to $120M mostly just helps the big budget teams. Small-budget teams have a hard time spending to cap anyway. But the extra $10M is nice to be able to spend on players if you've got the grub.

[7teen]

I've honestly been confused ever since we moved to v24. I felt I had financials finally solved and then the new game has thrown me for a loop. Gone is that $20 million in cash we used to have. Since moving to v24 I've had a starting balance in the negative. Is that where I can use PPs/Bonus funds to erase and bump that back up to the old CASH option?

I couldn't sign draft picks last season because I didn't have budgeted space to do so.

[RonCo]

I've honestly been confused ever since we moved to v24. I felt I had financials finally solved and then the new game has thrown me for a loop. Gone is that $20 million in cash we used to have. Since moving to v24 I've had a starting balance in the negative. Is that where I can use PPs/Bonus funds to erase and bump that back up to the old CASH option?

I couldn't sign draft picks last season because I didn't have budgeted space to do so.

Yes, the "Starting Balance" is what we used to know as "Cash on Hand" ... so just roll bonus cash into it and you're good.

[GoldenOne]

We have six teams with budgets under the salary cap, so there's that.

That CAN be helped though.

That's true. And it's also true that there are NINE MORE teams with budgets at $120M - $130M. So, assuming $5-$7M for staff, and maybe $3M-$5M (minimum) for draft picks, and 15 of our 32 BBA teams are almost guaranteed to not be able to spend to cap. They can do so on 1-year contracts, I suppose, by spending cash, too. That's an interesting question. I'm rusty there, so I don't know.

Regardless, that's a lot of budget that needs to be bought with PPT across the league. And when you do that, it only bumps the budget for one season, so longterm deals don't fly.

This is what I used to mean when I said raising the salary cap from $110M to $120M mostly just helps the big budget teams. Small-budget teams have a hard time spending to cap anyway. But the extra $10M is nice to be able to spend on players if you've got the grub.

True. But I've been in that spot more recently than you. Bump your budget, sign good players that bring in some fans, win some games that brings in more fans, and your revenue increases. When revenue increases, your owner sees that and maybe gives you a little more for the next season. Spending PPTs for one year, maybe two, and you can fix things. Look how quickly Aaron and Randy changed things in Des Moines. There was a 45 year absence from the playoffs and now they have seen over 4M fans in attendance in the last few years and have grown their budget. You have to spend money (and some PPTs) to earn money.

[RonCo]

Well...we're talking at different angles here, but that's fine. There are choices a team can make to help spend more. But that's a theoretical operational conversation, and on the whole I agree with you. But your first point (I think) was that there were a whole lot of teams who had lots of cap space left, so they could splurge at the end and do well. If you just look at Cap Space, that's true. But I think that's missing the ocean for the forest, or whatever.

My point was that, from the viewpoint of reality on the ground in spring of 2056, there are literally 15 teams that CANNOT spend to that cap without digging deep into their cash on hand -- and many of those 15 are already digging into that cash for simple operating expenses of coaches and draft picks. As it stands today, doing some quick math, 10 teams are almost certainly not in the mix for Free Agents today. At all. Five could spend a little, but not much. Of the 17 teams remaining, seven of them can probably spend between $4M and $8M before digging deep into cash (assuming they did not already spend much on minor league FA, which I am not accounting for). That's workable, but you're not getting more than one solid guy for that right now. Maybe wait until June?

Alternatively, to your point above, while there are currently ten teams that are at least $15M under cap, of those ten, eight of them are already underwater when it comes to budget-expense, so are living off their cash on hand. One of the others, Chicago, is clearly just not spending. Only Yellow Springs would seem to have some flexibility.

I often hear people say that FA price themselves out of the market because they look at the cash in the league and ask for it, and GMs are unwilling to pay it...or something like that. But the reality is that looking at cap space as if it is real spending power is deeply problematic. Across the league as I type, we have $454M in "free" cap space. And I guarantee that there are guys in the FA pool that could help teams now. You are, of course, right to say that teams could have increased their budgets -- for this year at least. But as we stand today, if I calculate Cap Space - Budget Remaining, the league has only about $125M "free" ... not $454M. So -- given where we sit today -- those FA sit in the pool because the cap/budget/revenue/expense structure of the league is constraining that spending.

[GoldenOne]

Well...we're talking at different angles here, but that's fine. There are choices a team can make to help spend more. But that's a theoretical operational conversation, and on the whole I agree with you. But your first point (I think) was that there were a whole lot of teams who had lots of cap space left, so they could splurge at the end and do well. If you just look at Cap Space, that's true. But I think that's missing the ocean for the forest, or whatever.

My first point was answering the question. The question was who won the offseason. My response was that with so much open cap space (not budget room) still, the GMs were winning. They did not need to overspend to still get quality players, They could hold on to whatever cap space (and budget room) they still had left and get bargains.

As for my other points and your other points, it doesnt matter. As you have said since I came into the league in 2034, this game is a financial game first and foremost. I learned that the hard way when I first walked through the door and had to deal with the mess that the Nashville Goats were in. There are many ways (were more back then) to build a team and increase revenue and budget. I tried them all. The Plan® was working when I left to build a franchise from the ground up in Charlotte. The expansion draft rules were not too much in favor of the expansion teams back then so I had to do it all over again. It took 6 seasons but the Cougars managed to increase their budget and make the playoffs in 5 of 6 seasons. I've had El Paso/Rocky Mountain for 4 full seasons and budget has increased every year and we've made the playoffs (the only playoffs in franchise history) in 3 of those 4 seasons.

My point here is, all the cap space, budget limitations, etc. you bring up, while sure, they are issues, are nothing that teams cant find a way to fix. Everyone is worried about their prospects that might make the roster in 5 years from now, well, fix your team for next season and bring in the fans. The rest can and will fall in line. If you have to maybe not draft the guy you like cause he will cost you $10M to sign, skip him and draft the next guy in your list that will only cost you $2M and spend that $8M somewhere else.

But back to the original question and point - looking at cap space, yes, "as if it is real spending power is deeply problematic." But, there is not one of those teams that can say they could not spend that cap space on making their team better (even if it took some PPTs to increase their budget.) They just werent spending. So, not spending will eventually mean players will/should/may decrease their asking prices as the season gets closer. Hence, the GMs were winning the offseason.