Suggestions for the Business Side of the Game

[wildcat000]

As someone that works in baseball, I really appreciate the stuff that's done off the diamond. I would love to see these additions:

1. Better stadium options: I would love to see more control of the actual stadium, rather than just editing capacity and name. I realize this is not a GM's job, but it would add to the fun of the business aspect. I would love to see the option to build a new ballpark, secure the funding, get it approved, and sell the naming rights (or name it yourself). Also, I would love to see changes/renovations to existing stadiums. Got a stadium that's not big enough? Add more seats above the bleachers. Can't fill the seats you got? Tarp them and lower capacity.

2. More realistic media contracts: I've noticed over the past few years teams have been able to negotiate mega TV deals with their regional carrier, for example the Rangers new TV deal. Rumor has the Nationals are asking MESN to triple the current rate of $29 million per year.

3. Realistic Payroll: I understand inflation, but within two years of starting a new franchise in 2011 20 of the 30 teams have a payroll of over $100 million.

[urbanlife]

I would definitely love to see more stadium controls that help make the stadium as much apart of the game as the baseball.

Also I like the idea of being able to negotiate with media contracts rather it be something that gradually goes up on its own.

[UWHabs]

I'd love to see stadiums evolving as a league evolution type thing. Especially playing in dynasty leagues, I'm now in 2035 and my Toronto team is still playing in the Rogers Centre. A few things that would probably happen in real life:

-Every few years, the stadium might change names. Some fields would not have naming rights "ie. Yankees Stadium", some would. It doesn't have to be complicated, just have a "You have agreed to sell the stadium rights to [insert random name here] for [4-8 years or whatever]". It gives a bit of cash per year, and you play in a different field every now and then.
-Every decade or so, your stadium might get "renovated". So maybe a few dimensions would shift slightly, or they would add or remove a handful of seats. Again, just a quick news story about "adding a new scoreboard in centre field" would be fine. Or some stadiums might go longer, and then get a larger revamp, where they change the luxury boxes or stuff.
-Then, every 30-50 (or longer), teams might build a completely new stadium, with different dimensions. It'd be even more awesome if they came with like 2-3 designs for dimensions, and you could choose one that you liked, but I'd even be fine with a basic, "Next season, new Yankees Stadium will be opened, featuring these dimensions".


It would definitely add some new immersion to the game, instead of always playing in the same field without any changes unless if you do them yourselves.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by wildcat000

3. Realistic Payroll: I understand inflation, but within two years of starting a new franchise in 2011 20 of the 30 teams have a payroll of over $100 million.

FWIW in real life 12 of the 30 MLB teams had a 2011 opening day player payroll above $100 million.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Also I like the idea of being able to negotiate with media contracts rather it be something that gradually goes up on its own.

There's a practical problem with this idea: how would these negotiations work? Who are the contract offering parties? How many are there? What are the parameters by which these parties offer their contract amounts?

[jlking]

Veeck's 1947 Cleveland Indians use to move their center field fence by as much as 15 feet each series depending on their opponent. If the Yankees were in town, he would move it back. When Washington visited, he could move it in because they still weren't going to hit it out of the park and his team might.

They had to make a rule against it, but in '47 there was nothing to stop him. And I guess you have to give him credit for not moving the fence during the game.

But I agree more control over the park would be great. As a Mariners fan I can't for the life of me figure out why they don't just move left field in.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

There's a practical problem with this idea: how would these negotiations work? Who are the contract offering parties? How many are there? What are the parameters by which these parties offer their contract amounts?

Currently the game issues media contracts for a number of years and raises them after each contract expires. It could still be a simplified version where it is based off the media market size of each city. Then their could be exclusive rights that offer more, but have a limited viewership, blackouts to raise the number of seats sold at the game, contracts that might be an obligation to reach certain goals to make more money and such...it doesn't have to be over complicated, but something that is a little bit more hands on would be nice.

[wildcat000]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

FWIW in real life 12 of the 30 MLB teams had a 2011 opening day player payroll above $100 million.


There's a practical problem with this idea: how would these negotiations work? Who are the contract offering parties? How many are there? What are the parameters by which these parties offer their contract amounts?

-True, but my issue is the teams that do have payrolls north of $100 million. Obviously those 12 will almost always have high payrolls, and throw in Texas because of it's big TV contract that's coming. But teams like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati (I wish), and Oakland will not have high payrolls in the near future.

-I do agree that this would be difficult to implement. My only suggestion would be to assign a value based on market size, and when teams move from market sizes or become more successful the value of the deal would increase/decrease.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by wildcat000

-True, but my issue is the teams that do have payrolls north of $100 million. Obviously those 12 will almost always have high payrolls, and throw in Texas because of it's big TV contract that's coming. But teams like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati (I wish), and Oakland will not have high payrolls in the near future.

-I do agree that this would be difficult to implement. My only suggestion would be to assign a value based on market size, and when teams move from market sizes or become more successful the value of the deal would increase/decrease.

That is a good point, if your team is on a roll with winning several championships in a row, or making the playoffs every time, then it would make sense for a team to be able to ask more for a media contract, but if your team has been on a losing slide it might be harder to ask for top dollar, which can also be tied to the fan support for the team. Maybe a team with strong support but on a losing streak might still be able to ask for a good media contract.

[Erik]

Speaking of stadiums...what about a storyline where after your stadium is 40-60 years old your Owner starts working with the City to build a new stadium. If the city won't help then its up to the Owner to pay for it all himself therefore limiting your funds for the next however many years while you pay off a new stadium.

Or have an option in dynamic leagues where if the city refuses to pay for a new stadium your owner decides to relocate the team to a city that will.

Edit: I guess most of my post just mirrored UWHabs post above...

[PSUColonel]

I have been advocating the stadium idea for some time, but it should really be up to the ownership, not the GM...but if the owners decide to build one, the GM surely benefits in that there is more money to go around for fa signings and such.

[Marinersfan51]

There isn't really inflation, there's mostly just a burst at the start of a modern game that tappers off in a few years. I would like to see inflation in the game.