Salary cap or not

[noble]

I have always setup my leagues with a salary cap but I was toying with the idea of playing around with the max cash options instead.

Any of you testers seen that the economics on v2007 will lead to a few teams getting too big for the league without a cap?

[fhomess]

Originally Posted by noble

Any of you testers seen that the economics on v2007 will lead to a few teams getting too big for the league without a cap?

This is really a question of preference and your league settings. FWIW, I've never seen OOTP payrolls (AI generated) as disparate as the Yankees and Marlins in 2006 ($194 million vs. $15 million).

[gibby290]

I think you don't see a huge gap in payrolls due to real life value of money.

The Pittsburgh Pirate owner has a self-imposed cap of approx $45 million. Doesn't matter what he makes at the gate, through concessions, parking, etc., he does NOT deviate from that. Whether he imposed this to remain profitable or it is truely a limitation of revenue is not clear.

The Yankees, on the other hand, win at all costs. Of course it is easier to pay AROD crazy jack when the money you are spending isn't really yours anyway. They make so much money from ESPN, YES, merchandising, etc that their disposible income is much higher.

The Marlins seem to binge and purge every 6-8 years for some reason.

My point is, the cpu knows "I have $100 million to spend, let me spend down to zero." All revenues can be spent on players/ coaches in the OOTP universe. There is no real motivation to generate a profit.

Also, I notice for obvious game balance reasons, the markets tend to balance out over time. All you have to do is win a few years in a row and your income and fan interest will grow. I have taken Pittsburgh to a $100 million payroll in v. 6.5 and v. 2006 which will simply not happen in today's baseball world. If you don't beleive me, check the attendance in 1991 and 1992, the Pirates didn't even sell out the NLCS games v. the Braves or Reds!!

The A's have had arguably the best run for a 'small market' team in the past decade. Guess what, they are STILL small market. The Yankees can suffer YEARS of futility and people still love them. The Cubs are in the same position. Believe me, it hurts to admit that as a Pirates fan for years.

[briantheiceberg]

I set a salary cap at around 90 million then give each team a national contract of about 75 million so every team has no problems spending the full salary cap amount. I find that teams range from about $65 mil to $90 mil

[PSUColonel]

Do people here think a salary cap is needed to "force" the AI into being competetive?

[CubsFan915]

Salary caps are Communist.

[fhomess]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Do people here think a salary cap is needed to "force" the AI into being competetive?

No.

[noble]

Originally Posted by gibby290

My point is, the cpu knows "I have $100 million to spend, let me spend down to zero." All revenues can be spent on players/ coaches in the OOTP universe. There is no real motivation to generate a profit.

I hadn't thought of it like that. That seems to drive using the max cash option instead. At least for me.

[fhomess]

IMO, the cash max option is the best way to restrict spending without worrying too much about teams losing money. It's very easy to set the league settings for ticket price and media revenue low enough that teams have a really hard time making money. Much easier to let them make enough but skim off the top for "league fees".

[dankrzyz]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Do people here think a salary cap is needed to "force" the AI into being competetive?

I prefer a maximum cash number if I want to keep teams in the game financially. But more often than not, I like the financial inequity. Taking over a poor team is part of the challenge.