Quote:
Originally Posted by CBeisbol
I mean
Sure, there are a lot of people that would think it is somehow better to keep a bad player on your team for 5 years then it is for 2 years. I just disagree with those people.
|
I can see that. To me the consequences are skewed. Because cash is limited you really get off hook by releasing a guy. Doing so has little to no effect on next year or the year after like it should because your budget resets and you are limited on carry over gains and losses through cash limits. It should have some carry over effects but this is little limited to 10 million carry over either way by default. So you will never have more than 20 million effect (-10 million instead of 10 million) You cut a guy with 3 more years at 20 million and you really are only paying 20 million of that at most since the other $40 million is limited by how much cash you can carry over. You just don't see a real world effect on profits because of that. Last year's profit only matters between -10 and 10 million. That is all you can carry over. That makes it gamey because you don't really have to pay for the cut since the carry over effect is limited to between -10 and 10 million. It makes 0 difference to the current year and not much to the next year. So it is gaming the system to me. The system severely limits stock for balance and focuses on flows that makes the real world effect of this decision negligible.
To get rid of cash limits means reworking the whole financial AI to make sure teams don't bankrupt themselves or become mega super powers over time. So I think a solution would be to have the owner evaluate the cut. If it is a rich club maybe he takes the 40-80 million hit now. A poorer club may not. So allowing the owner to say hell no you aren't paying that scrub to go home and watch the game would be a better option.