Revised Financial Payout Discussion

Currently our payouts consist of this based upon the $1300 dollars we collect each year.

- CBS Commissioner League will cost us $150
- Monthlys in total will equal a payout of $180
- Each division winner receives $25; so in total $100 (An extra $10 to best record)
- 1st Place receives $500
- 2nd Place receives $200
- 3rd Place receives $95

There has been talk about revising the payout schedule first so that part of it is easier to follow when they are awarded (monthly winnings) and how much the league winner is actually taking home when it is all said and done.

The revision I suggest would be:

$150 League Fee
$240 Yearly Categorical Awards ($20 x 12 stats)
$400 1st Place
$200 2nd Place
$100 3rd Place
$100 Division Winners ($25 x 4 divisions)
$050 Best Regular Season Record
$040 Best Five week record ($10 x 4 periods)
$020 Random

We can have some discussion and then a vote whether we want to change the payout schedule. Then determine modifications if needed.

I'm good with the $65 league fee.

No, he's not talking about the owner fee. The League Fee is how much it costs to buy the league each season at CBS.

Well this one needs a bit of tweaking anyway. Currently our model only pays out $1235 because it was last modified when we only had 19 people paying. Last year, we compensated by adding $15 each to a division winner, and $5 to the 3rd place team. But we do need a vote on it.

Anyone else have ideas?

If we truly have "random" (I have not done the calc's, so I don't know), I think it should go to 4th place (a bit selfish having been there). I always thought the cruelest thing is sports is the loser of the bronze medal game. And since this would truly be "left over" money, why not give it as a sort of consolation.

I'd also like to take out the best 5 week record idea and replace it with money for Wild Card winners. Some wild cards (wonder who that could be) have had better records than division winners. They shouldn't lose out b/c of luck of the draw. Still not division winner money, but something.

I don't like the 5 week record idea, b/c it winds up being won by the division winners anyway (or the like). We tried this in another league, and it had none of the intended consequences (keep folks in until the end, spread the winnings, etc.). The good teams are going to win, the bad teams are going to lose. Having $10 at stake is not going to change that.

Oh, and should we renew the CBS league to save like $30? Not much, but that's winnings that can be given instead of the CBS (plus I think there's a trophy - so maybe, we could use the "Random" for shipping to the Champion)

jamcam13 wrote:

Oh, and should we renew the CBS league to save like $30? Not much, but that's winnings that can be given instead of the CBS (plus I think there's a trophy - so maybe, we could use the "Random" for shipping to the Champion)

That is already in the calculation, hence the league cost will be $150 instead of $180.

jamcam13 wrote:

If we truly have "random" (I have not done the calc's, so I don't know), I think it should go to 4th place (a bit selfish having been there). I always thought the cruelest thing is sports is the loser of the bronze medal game. And since this would truly be "left over" money, why not give it as a sort of consolation.

I'd also like to take out the best 5 week record idea and replace it with money for Wild Card winners. Some wild cards (wonder who that could be) have had better records than division winners. They shouldn't lose out b/c of luck of the draw. Still not division winner money, but something.

I don't like the 5 week record idea, b/c it winds up being won by the division winners anyway (or the like). We tried this in another league, and it had none of the intended consequences (keep folks in until the end, spread the winnings, etc.). The good teams are going to win, the bad teams are going to lose. Having $10 at stake is not going to change that.

Good suggestions, we could go with something like this:

$150 League Fee
$240 Yearly Categorical Awards ($20 x 12 stats)
$400 1st Place
$200 2nd Place
$100 3rd Place
$030 4th Place
$100 Division Winners ($25 x 4 divisions)
$020 Wild Card Winners ($10 x 2 spots)
$050 Best Regular Season Record
$010 Trophy Shipment

Knuckleball wrote:

$150 League Fee
$240 Yearly Categorical Awards ($20 x 12 stats)
$400 1st Place
$200 2nd Place
$100 3rd Place
$030 4th Place
$100 Division Winners ($25 x 4 divisions)
$020 Wild Card Winners ($10 x 2 spots)
$050 Best Regular Season Record
$010 Trophy Shipment

I like these!

Fair enough

what about having some sort of trade & transaction rule, where if you go too high and past a certain number you have to start paying for additional trades/moves.. with the $$$ going towards the pot. i think our league needs it, because i see some people are way more active then others, almost like a 100 to 1 ratio on moves made, which is way too big a difference for an even playing field

jake wrote:

what about having some sort of trade & transaction rule, where if you go too high and past a certain number you have to start paying for additional trades/moves.. with the $$$ going towards the pot. i think our league needs it, because i see some people are way more active then others, almost like a 100 to 1 ratio on moves made, which is way too big a difference for an even playing field

LOL!!! Hey guess what if you don't feel you can be up to par... Don't play. I guess you'd rather penalize others for actually trying to make their teams better huh? Maybe we just should have drafted our teams and froze the rosters forever too! LOL

bryanmurphy9 wrote:

jake wrote:

what about having some sort of trade & transaction rule, where if you go too high and past a certain number you have to start paying for additional trades/moves.. with the $$$ going towards the pot. i think our league needs it, because i see some people are way more active then others, almost like a 100 to 1 ratio on moves made, which is way too big a difference for an even playing field

LOL!!! Hey guess what if you don't feel you can be up to par... Don't play. I guess you'd rather penalize others for actually trying to make their teams better huh? Maybe we just should have drafted our teams and froze the rosters forever too! LOL

how did i know you were gonna chime in on this.. this is a real thing that alot of leagues do .. and its fucking brilliant.. i'd like to hear what everyone else thinks. give someone else a chance to speak

I want to apologize for my opinionated comments last night. Sometimes I just let whatever I'm thinking at the moment about a certain topic spill onto the forums. After thinking about it more, I still have the same overall opinion but I'd like to instead offer up some more clear thoughts.

1.) This is a pay league, everyone pays to play and should be able to put in as much time or as little time as they so choose. I believe you've seen teams that put in a little extra work reap the rewards of it and so they should. (If we have a team that is obviously not cutting it and not paying attention then we need to discuss their future in our league, after all, it's in our rules.)

2.) This is not REAL baseball and there is no "Revenue Sharing" where it helps out the teams that aren't very good. An incentive is what the MiLB Draft is for. If they are smart, do their homework, and make good decisions, bad teams can be turned into competitive teams in a year or two. It's a process though and you have to put in some effort. You can't not pay attention and expect to have a good team.

3.) Even though we've only seen two champions in our league (Pat & Craig), I believe there is a good amount of parity since it's inception in 2008. Just look back at the league history, last place teams have turned into division contenders and a couple division contenders have turned into last place teams. The teams that are always at the bottom, either haven't put in much work (and thats their choice) or are rebuilding and are sitting on fine MiLB systems and good young MLB talent that will pay off in another year or two.

4.) Why try to help the teams that don't try to help themselves? If you came in last place last year and you're not out trying to make your team better then guess where you deserve to be this year? Last place. Why punish the guys that put in work to make their team better? Because those are the teams you see 1 through 8 in the standings every year. My feeling is, don't like it? Try harder.

I'm against having to pay extra for transactions. I can barely afford the entrance fee as it is. And this would give someone an unfair advantage as they could literally just buy a championship.

bryanmurphy9 wrote:

more words

you talk TOO MUCH

headcase524 wrote:

I'm against having to pay extra for transactions. I can barely afford the entrance fee as it is. And this would give someone an unfair advantage as they could literally just buy a championship.

I don't see you making that many moves that you should be taxed for it.. i'm talking more about extreme over-actve owners or future owners .. especially with trading, which should be considered a privilege .. if one person makes 100 trades a year, and another makes 0 .. thats too big a difference ... that many trades can be a major advantage (or disadvantage) but overall it can make things too lop-sided

jake wrote:

headcase524 wrote:

I'm against having to pay extra for transactions. I can barely afford the entrance fee as it is. And this would give someone an unfair advantage as they could literally just buy a championship.

I don't see you making that many moves that you should be taxed for it.. i'm talking more about extreme over-actve owners or future owners .. especially with trading, which should be considered a privilege .. if one person makes 100 trades a year, and another makes 0 .. thats too big a difference ... that many trades can be a major advantage (or disadvantage) but overall it can make things too lop-sided

I think someone's out to propose a rule that'd help his cause since he can't find any takers when he asks retarded amounts for all his players. See you haven't been able to deal Beckham yet, I'm soooooooooo surprised no one's willing to give up an ace for him!

Come on guys, keep it civil.

I actually would go a different route and put a minimum moves limit out there for a season to ensure activity from idle managers, because I think that is the larger issue.

Something like a minimum or 20 moves a season which includes Adds/Drops, Bids on guys, Roster lineup setting, DL moves, trades, etc is more important that maxing moves.

I wouldnt mind a max moves per week rule that would minimize streaming (5 moves a week, etc), but dont really see a need to punish active owners.

That being said - none of this for this season would make sense. As I said before, I think all of these things should be discussed at the end of the season during a roster Freeze.

We need to have a two week period (or some set time frame) that is predetermined to discuss rules as part of our offseason. The voting and complaining could go there and it wouldnt drag out... All this rule bickering has been going on for too long and doesnt really show any signs of stopping. I have been part of one league that fell apart and it started something like this. I think our league setting are fine. It is pretty hard to change any fundamentals aspects 3 years in.

huztler wrote:

We need to have a two week period (or some set time frame) that is predetermined to discuss rules as part of our offseason. The voting and complaining could go there and it wouldnt drag out... All this rule bickering has been going on for too long and doesnt really show any signs of stopping. I have been part of one league that fell apart and it started something like this. I think our league setting are fine. It is pretty hard to change any fundamentals aspects 3 years in.

Totally agree

ThunderBalls wrote:

I actually would go a different route and put a minimum moves limit out there for a season to ensure activity from idle managers, because I think that is the larger issue.

I like that too - minimums and maximums, if done right, really help keep leagues competitive .. i wouldn't have brought it up if i didn't think this league needed it. we can charge $ if your under the min or go over the max, and add it to the prize money, but more importantly it levels out disparity

in defense of Bryan's accusations - i dont think i'm lacking on moves at all. i'm right in the middle.. this is for under-active owners Vs. over-active owners. the difference is too large

Well honestly, I don't understand how being over-active is a bad thing. Yes, there is a difference in activity, but it's not the fault of the owner who is over-active. I always thought owners who were looking to make moves and improve their teams was actually good for the league, rather than limit trades.

The King Maker wrote:

Well honestly, I don't understand how being over-active is a bad thing. Yes, there is a difference in activity, but it's not the fault of the owner who is over-active. I always thought owners who were looking to make moves and improve their teams was actually good for the league, rather than limit trades.

not if other teams don't keep up. if player A makes 300 moves and 100 trades, while player B makes 10 moves and 1 trade.. is that a good thing?

Stats - OUR LEAGUE:

in the last 2 months,

3 teams made 5 trades each
12 teams made 0 to 1 trade

pro-rate this for 3 years and you get:

3 teams with 90 trades
12 teams with 0 to 18 trades

thats a REALLY BIG difference.. i know - the 2 months is a small sample size, but I couldn't find trades in CBS before Nov . and i bet its not too far off reality

its nice in theory if the majority of the league can keep up with that pace, but it can't and won't ever happen. its more practical to try and bring both extreme ends of the spectrum together a little bit. nothing wrong with penalizing both sides a little bit.. if anything, it adds to the strategy. keeps some people moving and thinking a little differently then their used to

i didnt do these stats for add/drops, but it would be nice to see that too (hint, hint)