I noticed this comment of Matt's in his post and was not sure if everyone would see it or respond to it, so I am starting a thread with it so we can come to a conclusion to this talk.
Zev's suggestion is something I can support. With that framework in mind, and considering the comments above, I'm going to posit a few suggestions for voting or discussion. Would other owners support changes along the following lines?
1. Adjust media contracts to be roughly within $20 million of one another. Seattle's would stay at $70 million and other teams' media contracts would be adjusted upward with the lowest teams at $50 million. This is probably the best way to help league parity without taking money away from teams.
2. Increase the cash cap. There doesn't seem to be wide support for eliminating the cash cap entirely, so increasing the cap may provide a good compromise. Maybe $25 million?
3. Allow for free agent compensation.
4. Allow teams to spend extra cash on marketing or similar items as suggested in point 7 of my original post. This assumes that Zev and Michael are willing to shoulder the additional administrative burden of this change.
If the above framework is acceptable to other owners, my suggestion is that we implement them now while the issue is primed, rather than let another season go by.
Thanks to everyone for the good discussion so far.
I could support all of these. I note, however, that points 2 and 4 are not supportive of each other. With a limited cash cap some of the enhancements I had envisioned would be moot. I would suggest we offer these enhanncements as spending options:
ReplyDelete1. Cash cap set at $25MM
2. $1MM = 1000 new seats
3. $1MM = Walls in one segment of outfield moved 10 feet
4. $2MM = 1 point in fan loyalty
5. $10MM = 1 unit of market size
I am only for #2, adjusting/eliminating the cash cap.
ReplyDeleteI think that I need more data to say that media contracts are totally BS. I think that they will equalize in due time, and I am willing to be patient. While changing the stadium settings could be fun, to me it is not of interest to me. With the free agent compensation, I agree with the concept, but I do not think that Zev would have the time to truly fix the issues with the way the game does it. Therefore, I do not think it is a good idea to implement it.
So I am for getting rid of the cash cap or making it somewhere around $40M if we must have one. I am in a league where it is $30M and it is similar to the $10M cap, so I would want one higher.
That is what I think for better or worse. I am only against the FA compensation, I am abstaining from the being able to buy things and putting a range on the Media Contracts, and I am for eliminating the cash cap or making it $40M+.
In my opinion, the first point is the only one that increases league parity. Good teams can benefit just as much or more from points 2-4 as bad teams. (Or, to be more accurate, substitute "high revenue" for "good" and "low revenue" for "bad" and the point still stands.)
ReplyDeleteI also have grave reservations about the free agent compensation idea, because I know from the OEL how completely inadequate the game's version of it is and how many rules we had to create and much work I have to do in terms of overhead to make the system work. Either Zev and Michael are taking on a good-sized project or we're going to get something that leaves many of us wanting.
Finally, Jeremy's point may be right on target. The low revenue teams all appear to me to be ones who have not yet had their media contracts renegotiated yet. The game may well solve the problem on its own. But, I recognize it may not either and that some owners may be growing impatient.
So, all of that said, I don't feel strongly enough about any of the individual ideas to vote against any of them. My priority is to the league succeeding as a whole and if these changes make the league better for some owners, I'm ok with that.
P.S. I'm mostly ok with Nate's suggestions as to how to spend rveenue, but I think the price for adjusting market size is too low. I'd move it up to $25M.
I do not think you should be allowed to adjust market size, but if we do, I think it should be very large or equal to whatever the cash cap is.
ReplyDeleteSome good points made here. On reflection, I agree that it probably doesn't make sense to implement free agent compensation.
ReplyDeleteSince this has come up more than once, I think I shoul address the "patience" comments. They oversimplify the issue, IMHO. I am more than willing to be patient if I see evidence that the imbalance will "equalize in due time." I don't see any such evidence. What I do see is the high revenue teams increasing their monetary advantage over the low revenue teams. Cleveland did very well last year but its success did not translate into increased financial options this year. As stated previously, my own financial situation worsened this year despite an improved season last year. Maybe it takes a couple of years for the numbers to equalize; I don't know. But I don't see any evidence of it yet in this league. So, that's where I'm coming from.
Even if Jeremy and I are right that the game will eventually equalize more when media contracts are renegotiated, it seems to me that there's no harm in apseeding up the process and doing it now.
ReplyDelete