I want to use financials in my fictional league but...

[silvam14]

I feel like there are too many things that may need to be tweaked. I've always played my games without financials thereby missing out on free agency and other cool things. Are there any pitfalls about turning them on in the middle of a league?

[Who Killed Kenny?]

I've always played with financials on, so I can't answer your question. I am curious to what your back story for your league will be when you do add financials.

To be somewhat productive in this post: try it, but make sure you backup the league first! (But you of course know that)

[silvam14]

Originally Posted by Who Killed Kenny?

I've always played with financials on, so I can't answer your question. I am curious to what your back story for your league will be when you do add financials.

To be somewhat productive in this post: try it, but make sure you backup the league first! (But you of course know that)

I haven't thought of a backstory. My league is currently in the year 1937 so I could make some kind of story with the player's union just coming into being and demanding salaries. I wonder if I can just add certain financial features season by season

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by silvam14

I feel like there are too many things that may need to be tweaked. I've always played my games without financials thereby missing out on free agency and other cool things. Are there any pitfalls about turning them on in the middle of a league?

I've never had any luck with that. With fictional leagues I just leave them off.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by silvam14

so I could make some kind of story with the player's union just coming into being

Does anyone else find it ironic that a pack of multi-millionaires has a union?

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Does anyone else find it ironic that a pack of multi-millionaires has a union?

You mean the Screen Actors' Guild?

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Curtis

You mean the Screen Actors' Guild?

LOL, there's another one.

Multi-millionaires have rights, too!

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by silvam14

I feel like there are too many things that may need to be tweaked. I've always played my games without financials thereby missing out on free agency and other cool things. Are there any pitfalls about turning them on in the middle of a league?

The tough part about turning on financials (I always play with financials on) is that it takes teams some time to adjust to their revenue. In my leagues, teams generally find themselves in the red after the first season, which makes FA's, trading, and scouting during the first few years very difficult.

I tend to manipulate team markets and revenue sharing to create some parity, which is the cause of some of my problems.

Being able to set a budget on an initial draft is going to be a great change for my leagues. I've also dealt with this problem by increasing the tv contract and average ticket prices or attendance to generate additional revenue in the first few years.

[satchel]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Does anyone else find it ironic that a pack of multi-millionaires has a union?

In theory, unions exist to protect the rights of the powerless and disadvantaged, but in practice, the only American workers who can successfully unionize are craftsmen and professionals who already hold significant advantage and power.

[brewertoby]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Does anyone else find it ironic that a pack of multi-millionaires has a union?

Though it does appear odd on the surface that these multi-millionaires should pursue unionization, it really is solely because of the multi-multi-multi millionaires that pay their salary. Without the unions, we wouldn't see the athlete getting the proceeds, we would just see the owners getting richer and richer. I know that the next argument will be that that's what drives up the cost of going to a game, but really, owners will charge whatever people are willing to pay regardless of their profit margin. We're paying it now so there's no reason to believe owners would drop the price if there was less money going to the players.

Just my opinion. Sorry, I shouldn't have helped derail the thread from the original post.

[akw4572]

Originally Posted by brewertoby

Though it does appear odd on the surface that these multi-millionaires should pursue unionization, it really is solely because of the multi-multi-multi millionaires that pay their salary. Without the unions, we wouldn't see the athlete getting the proceeds, we would just see the owners getting richer and richer. I know that the next argument will be that that's what drives up the cost of going to a game, but really, owners will charge whatever people are willing to pay regardless of their profit margin. We're paying it now so there's no reason to believe owners would drop the price if there was less money going to the players.

Just my opinion. Sorry, I shouldn't have helped derail the thread from the original post.

Not only that........but before the unions, the players weren't millionaires.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by silvam14

I feel like there are too many things that may need to be tweaked. I've always played my games without financials thereby missing out on free agency and other cool things. Are there any pitfalls about turning them on in the middle of a league?

Silvam, if you make sure every team in your league has enough cash (like sufficiently high average crowds, ticket prices, and media and merchandising income, AND you put into effect a reasonable salary cap, you can get the free agency and other cool things without having to worry about financials. That's the situation that I now have in my league and I hardly ever look at my financial report. The salary cap is important when the league is flush with money, however, to avoid ridiculous player salary inflation.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by brewertoby

Though it does appear odd on the surface that these multi-millionaires should pursue unionization, it really is solely because of the multi-multi-multi millionaires that pay their salary. Without the unions, we wouldn't see the athlete getting the proceeds, we would just see the owners getting richer and richer. I know that the next argument will be that that's what drives up the cost of going to a game, but really, owners will charge whatever people are willing to pay regardless of their profit margin. We're paying it now so there's no reason to believe owners would drop the price if there was less money going to the players.

Just my opinion. Sorry, I shouldn't have helped derail the thread from the original post.

Free agency began in 1975 and started having a real impact a few years later as existing contracts expired. In 1980, baseball ticket prices began to increase in real terms. Coincidence? I doubt it.

[Mike Donlin]

Originally Posted by satchel

In theory, unions exist to protect the rights of the powerless and disadvantaged, but in practice, the only American workers who can successfully unionize are craftsmen and professionals who already hold significant advantage and power.

Like the janitors in SEIU? Or the autoworkers or miners back in the day?

Re the OP, the one thing you'll need to look out for is making sure that teams with top talent have comparatively high payroll, otherwise you'll see a massive sell-off/exodus of players, which wouldn't be terribly realistic, I should think. Unless of course it is VERY realistic--i.e. small-market team that goes from reserve clause control of star players to suddenly being priced out of the market.

I think it would be fine. And you're right, free agency is fun. So is trading would-be free agents for prospects--or hanging on to them now that compensation is finalyy going to work right.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Mike Donlin

free agency is fun

That depends on if you are the free agent about to roll in bucks or the team being squeezed for them.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Silvam, if you make sure every team in your league has enough cash (like sufficiently high average crowds, ticket prices, and media and merchandising income, AND you put into effect a reasonable salary cap, you can get the free agency and other cool things without having to worry about financials. That's the situation that I now have in my league and I hardly ever look at my financial report. The salary cap is important when the league is flush with money, however, to avoid ridiculous player salary inflation.

This definitely works. It holds back the human team too. You may have a huge budget and lots of money but your extension pot and FA pot are limited by the salary cap. I never have problems with FA going unsigned. The only problem is poor AI analysis of declining players. I'd go so far as to ask Markus to plug in some % discount applied after 31-32 to stop 36 yr old players getting 5yr/$15,000,000 contracts.

[silvam14]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Silvam, if you make sure every team in your league has enough cash (like sufficiently high average crowds, ticket prices, and media and merchandising income, AND you put into effect a reasonable salary cap, you can get the free agency and other cool things without having to worry about financials. That's the situation that I now have in my league and I hardly ever look at my financial report. The salary cap is important when the league is flush with money, however, to avoid ridiculous player salary inflation.

Thanks for the advice Bru!

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Does anyone else find it ironic that a pack of multi-millionaires has a union?

Part of the reason for higher salaries in the majors is because life in the minors is very poorly paid with few benefits. Thus those players who manage to make it through those lean years understandably expect the major league level to reward them for sticking it out.

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Free agency began in 1975 and started having a real impact a few years later as existing contracts expired. In 1980, baseball ticket prices began to increase in real terms. Coincidence? I doubt it.

That analysis only works if you ignore the vast increase in television revenue clubs began receiving starting in the 1970s. Do salaries go up and thus clubs must generate more revenue? Or is it that more revenue is coming in thus generating a rise in salaries?

What free agency really did was divert some revenue from club owners to the players. Player salaries only accounted for about 20% of revenues in the 1970s, whereas today it's roughly 50%.

[noble]

You guys that use salary caps, do the coach, staff, scouting numbers hit the cap or is it just player salaries?

[endgame]

What's the year of your current season, Silvam? Did I miss that somewhere? If it were me, I'd wait until the offseason and set the financials to some bare minimums, e.g. a minimum salary of $50,000 and maybe work your way up to the SuperSuper star status of a million dollar player +/-. That way the standouts, well, stand out and the rookies will have a lot to aspire to, especially with arbitration on and they'll have three years (or whatever you set it to) to live with at or near minimum. Cash willl be a lot easier to manage that way. In fact, after a season or two - if you decide to go that route - you may even see the number in the horizon that would work effectively for you as a salary cap. I think it'd provide a great new dimension for you and IMHO, it's adds a great deal more than it detracts. In my case, I haven't found it to detract at all, really.