Strat-O-Matic Baseball Players Championship 2015 (Rules)

I agree with your assessment. You'd have to make some major moves to dump $8m in salary....and I would be hard-pressed to believe a squad could be competitive with such a big handicap on their bankroll.

If for no other reason, it can just be a rule, period. We have caps, so this is just a floor.

Are there any examples of a manager winning a ring with less than 90% of starting salary?

Here is some information/answers to your question. I hope you find it useful.

Here is a '01 20xx team that won the Championship with a 69+m salary. So dropping below 72m definitely doesn't keep one from doing so:
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/511569

Here are two championship teams--one 80's, one 90's--using the Tournaments current 5/10/20 model that won their league championships with salaries below 72m:
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/view/1388957
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1381060

Here is my '02 20xx team that made the Finals with a final salary of 67,000,000. So I know firsthand 20xx teams can win and make the finals with a final salary below 72m:
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/535092

Again, this is just information. The commissioner and tournament participants are free to use it as they like.

Lolling at STrether volunteering his opinion even though JPav made clear he only wanted those who signed up to weigh in.

I support the rule proposal/penalty for those who drop below 90% of starting cap salary. And for the reasoning JPav has stated.

Thx strether. Here's what we'll do. I don't have time to respond right now. So you can go back and delete your last post, sign up for the 2015 Tour and we'll forget this ever happened. Agreed?

Gentleman Jeff
The Friendly Commissioner

Thx strether. Here's what we'll do. I don't have time to respond right now. So you can go back and delete your last post, sign up for the 2015 Tour and we'll forget this ever happened. Agreed?

Gentleman Jeff
The Friendly Commissioner

Actually this is very helpful. Here is the rest of the story. It supports the case that Roster value is relative and a salary dumper cannot compete unless the rest of the league's salary also declines. That will not happen.

The poster's TEAM: Cape Fear Corsairs Roster value: $64,130,000
Didn't go through the whole league, but we find salary dumping all over
TEAM: doowrag jets Roster value: $70,920,000
TEAM: Dallas Hammers Roster value: $72,420,000
TEAM: ziffers zebras Roster value: $64,890,00
League Champion Roster value: $69,120,0000


http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/511569

Scumby, you really should give all the information before saying "here is the rest of the story." Here are teams in that league who didn't significantly cut salary:

Fabulous Freebirds: 79, 580,000
St. John Lobsters: 79, 980,000
Farrar Farmers: 78, 826, 000
Long Island Rough Riders: 75,604,000
B.C. Crusaders: 78, 196,000

So, the whole league wasn't dropping salary. Also, your statement that managers wouldn't--without a punitive policy restricting them--drop salary in a 5/10/20 league is inaccurate. All of the 5/10/20 leagues I--and most people--have been in have had managers who have substantially dropped salary without trying to tank.

Good luck in the Tournament.

My reference was strictly to the PC. Salary dumping like this would not happen there and a rule to prevent single teams from going too far is a good idea.

First of all, if it could help you win, it's not "salary dumping." Secondly, you can't know players would never drop salary below 72m in a 5/10/20 PC without a restrictive policy punishing it. Since players have successfully done so before, there's no reason not to expect they wouldn't do so again. And since the examples I gave show players can and do win with roster salaries below 72 million, then dropping salary below 72 million is not going too far.

Good luck in the Tournament.

Let's be clear about what we're trying to do here. My role, as commissioner, is to protect the field. You should not have to lose ground to competitors across leagues who are benefiting from someone else playing with two thirds of a team while you play against a strong division.

Any time I've posted anywhere on these boards a friendly suggestion about maintaining your salary as a good general idea, strether pops up to argue for the exact opposite. Repeatedly.

Let's see what he's found.

Here is a '01 20xx team that won the Championship with a 69+m salary. So dropping below 72m definitely doesn't keep one from doing so:
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/511569

Well, unfortunately for our Tour protester, scumby was exactly right. Strether had to go back to when dial-up computers made a ding-a-ling sound in 2001 to find a league with a team that won the Championship with a $69+m salary. In this league, the average ending team salary was $70 mil and the winner came in at $69 mil. 99% of the average ending salary.

Now, maybe it's just your choleric commissioner being unkind, but isn't this example in the team photo for irrelevance here?

Here are two championship teams--one 80's, one 90's--using the Tournaments current 5/10/20 model that won their league championships with salaries below 72m:
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/view/1388957
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1381060

Two Mystery leagues, right? Apples and oranges? Covered wagons and spaceships? Champs were 93% of the league average ending salary in the first league and 93% of average team salary in the second league. It looks like somebody didn't do all their homework. Again.

Here is my '02 20xx team that made the Finals with a final salary of 67,000,000. So I know firsthand 20xx teams can win and make the finals with a final salary below 72m:
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/535092

Surely not four for four, right? Well, back when strether was downloading his N'Sync hits off of Napster in 2002, the Champs team here was 105% of an ending average team salary of $71 mil. Even strether's low budget team was at 91%. This is about as irrelevant as what color gym shoes to buy for your goldfish.

Again, this is just information. The commissioner and tournament participants are free to use it as they like.

This is not just information. This is strether trolling the boards for attention. Again. He's not even playing the Tour, right? And didn't he say goodbye forever like, what, two days ago? Really? And the irony, lost on him, is that he just provided four additional reasons to monitor salary drops and that 90% really is a good compromise. So thanks for that!

Well, anyway, that's my opinion. Does anyone, tour manager or interested spectator, agree with anything that strether has posted here? Please stand up and be heard.

Even though this should be the end of it, we have to endure the post where strether bescumbers himself and declares victory and reports that I've been debunked. Okay, that's part of the process here. Can anyone say I didn't give him ample opportunity to step away from this?

Lastly, some all caps: STRETHER. JOIN THE TOUR OR STOP POSTING ON THESE THREADS. THEY ARE TOUR INFORMATION THREADS, NOT PLATFORMS FOR YOUR FAUX OUTRAGE AND OTHER PERSONAL ISSUES.

Jeff, that maniacal post of yours just shows your continued talk of "personal issues" is projection. You clearly have many of them. Now, this is truly friendly advice. I saw my Father-in-Law maniacally rant and rave himself into a stroke. I suggest, for your sake, you get some help before it happens to you.

Also, you are a commissioner of an official tournament, so you are representing Strat-O-Matic. So, try to represent them well and stop making childish insults and personal attacks on me. I wasn't "trolling" for anything. You explicitly asked for proof that players could win championships with less than 72m in salary. I gave it to you, and now you're ranting and throwing an unhinged, venomous tantrum about it.

Also, your bringing up our past debates about salary cutting is both inaccurate and inappropriate. Not only is your summary of our exchanges completely false, it has no place in this Tournament Forum. Again, your decorum is terrible.

As to your "arguments," I'll make this quick:

1. 2001 leagues were 20xx leagues. If you mistakenly think they were that different to not be relevant, then you are just reaching. You asked for an example, and I gave a solid one.

2. Are Mystery league teams and 20xx different teams different? Sure. However, it is not significantly harder or easier to win with 72m in salary in either league. So it is not apples and oranges, it is different kinds of apples, and the examples were relevant.

3. Your obsession on the salary percentage of a league is a red herring. I already showed that a team won with sub72m in salary with other leagues not doing the same. So, your emphasis on it in my example is irrelevant. You are clearly doing anything to twist your incorrect position into looking correct.

Finally, I have no desire to talk on these boards. If you and the participants just talk about the tournament, as you should, I will stay away. However, if you continue to talk about tournament policies that could affect next year's tournament, I will contribute as any future participant should. I know you love censorship, Jeff, but you don't have the right to censor. End of story. So, I suggest you start more positive threads like discussing past tournament experiences. That would be good for everyone.