Should we be able to trade cash for points

[Deleted]

Seems like a lot of discussion on this lately. I've been guilty of sending cash during my rebuild, but after reading comments I'm having to think through the strategy a little more.
Prohibiting this practice may lead to more league parity and interest.

[bigmark]

i voted no but maybe if people want it make a limit. that way teams cant go nuts. like you can only trade for like 5 mill a year or something.

[Danchevy]

I don't see the problem with it. Eventually it all catches up to you. Look at me, burning cash for almost 10 years in a row and now I don't have points for reversals. Eventually the bill becomes to much to sustain.

[Spencer]

Im voting yes.

I think trading for cash is a huge reason why some teams can contend longer. But its also an asset that Ive earned or acquired and I should be able to use my assets to get better.

[Reddington]

eh, I see it both ways, so I'll abstain

[Reddington]

but I do love the new Rockies avatar...

[Matt]

Another reason for the huge gap. Trade cash for points, tank longer, earn more cash, trade for more points, repeat.

Creates a bigger imbalance already exploited with differences in market size.

I'd go a step farther and say no points trading at all.  All that'll happen now is adding in a pointless player from both sides to "follow the rules"

[Boston Red Sox]

Yes it should be allowed.

It's the main reason low-middle income teams have been able to have runs last longer than 3-4 years

[dougiejays]

This is an interesting question. I think if you asked me in my first 2-3 seasons in the league I would have said no, but at this point it’s become a part of the economy of the league (and is self-correcting pretty nicely). It’s also really tough to finance a long-term run in this league.

I’ll abstain for now, need to think it through a bit more

[Deleted]

Smaller markets will get exposed if we don’t allow cash for points yrading

[jahallstar]

I've always said no.....Trading cash for in-game assets is fine. Not for points though. You need to trade picks or players for cash.

[greeme]

maybe we should just let smaller market teams do it, something to balance things out

[dougiejays]

Jul 2, 2021 6:25:05 GMT -5 greeme said:

maybe we should just let smaller market teams do it, something to balance things out

Hell no

[Reddington]

Jul 2, 2021 6:25:05 GMT -5 greeme said:

maybe we should just let smaller market teams do it, something to balance things out

maybe we should allow smaller markets to grow.  Teams that have a 16 year run as #1 or 2 in their division, teams that have 11 straight seasons of 100+ wins... historically those teams would end up with large markets.

[dougiejays]

Revenue sharing might work though

[dougiejays]

Honestly I know there are a few small-market teams being victimized, but that’s not really the core issue. Big market teams are broke too. The whole economy’s overextended because we’re all spending beyond our means.

Well, except Pittsburgh

[Spencer]

Jul 2, 2021 8:35:37 GMT -5 Reddington said:

Jul 2, 2021 6:25:05 GMT -5 greeme said:

maybe we should just let smaller market teams do it, something to balance things out

maybe we should allow smaller markets to grow.  Teams that have a 16 year run as #1 or 2 in their division, teams that have 11 straight seasons of 100+ wins... historically those teams would end up with large markets.

What if all money making factors are decided by standards we set instead of standards the game sets?

[Spencer]

For example my team market is good. Loyalty very good. Why would my market and loyalty be less then ideal after 7 straight WS appearances?

[jmich24]

I voted no only because I’m admittedly bitter about Spencers dominance. While I commend his domination I’m getting pretty frustrated with the Dodgers.

A little off topic, but I have been penalized twice for placing second place to the dominate Giants.

I have won 100 games, made the playoffs twice, won two playoff series, took the mighty Giants to a game seven in the second round.

Have lost two fan loyalty spots in 5 seasons. Not to mention losing 100ks of dollars as soon a the Giants clinch even though I’m in a the wildcard race.

Every thing San Fran has done to my knowledge is smart and within the rules. It doesn't make me any less frustrated

[Reddington]

Jul 2, 2021 12:40:53 GMT -5 Spencer said:

For example my team market is good. Loyalty very good. Why would my market and loyalty be less then ideal after 7 straight WS appearances?

or my team with 14 out of the last 15 seasons having 100+ wins, 16 post season trips out of the last 18 and 5 WS appearances in there too... 

[bigmark]

Ya both had the top 2 attendance raise your ticket prices lol

[Reddington]

Jul 2, 2021 15:52:17 GMT -5 bigmark said:

Ya both had the top 2 attendance raise your ticket prices lol

fyi, that strategy is not the way to maximize revenue 

[Reddington]

but with a bigger market, I could charge more and have the same attendance. the really stupid part is, merchandising. it's taken close to 20 winning seasons to almost get to the 10 million a year that it took SF to get to in 5 seasons

[bub6708]

Jul 2, 2021 12:30:28 GMT -5 Spencer said:

Jul 2, 2021 8:35:37 GMT -5 Reddington said:

maybe we should allow smaller markets to grow.  Teams that have a 16 year run as #1 or 2 in their division, teams that have 11 straight seasons of 100+ wins... historically those teams would end up with large markets.

What if all money making factors are decided by standards we set instead of standards the game sets?

Like a luxury tax for teams with payrolls over 127m?

[Danchevy]

Jul 2, 2021 17:17:41 GMT -5 bub6708 said:

Jul 2, 2021 12:30:28 GMT -5 Spencer said:

What if all money making factors are decided by standards we set instead of standards the game sets?

Like a luxury tax for teams with payrolls over 127m?

I like the idea of a luxury tax for over 100mil.