2009 CP Reward Selections

[John]

2009 CP Reward Selections

NOTE #1: Teams selecting Ballpark Rewards (including expanded seating) are expected to submit an article on the expansion of at least 750 words. The article must be submitted prior to the start of the regular season.
NOTE #2: Cash costs for non-Ballpark Rewards are waived for LRS owners.

PEBA Awards

Arlington: (210 CP + $3M + 750-word article)

• $3,000,000
• New team art: Caps/Jerseys
• Winter Ball: SS David Teague (Avoid Ks)

Aurora: (270 + $1.5M + 2M BF + 750-word article)

• +1 Fan Loyalty
• +5,000 seating capacity

Bakersfield: (160 CP)

• $4,000,000

Canton: (120 CP)

• $1,000,000
• +4 Fan Interest

Charleston: (205 CP + $1M + 2M BF + 750-word article)

• Winter Ball: SP Wesley Scott (Control)
• +5,000 seating capacity

Connecticut: (120 CP)

• +6 Fan Interest

Crystal Lake: (240 CP + $1M + $2M BF + 750-word article)

• Winter Ball: SP Shawn Burris (Velocity)
• Winter Ball: SP Yoshitora Koyama (Velocity)
• +5,000 seating capacity

Duluth: Elected not to purchase a reward

Fargo: (100 CP)

• $2,000,000
• +1 Fan Interest

Florida: (310 CP + $4.5M)

• +1 Market Size
• Winter Ball: RF Kwang-Chih Zhu (Eye)
• Winter Ball: SP Dustin Moyer (Endurance)

Gloucester: Elected not to purchase a reward

Kalamazoo: Elected not to purchase a reward

Kentucky: (120 CP + $4M + 750-word article)

• +1 Fan Loyalty
• Move Fences: LL in 10', LC out 10', RC out 10'

London: (295 CP + $2.5M)

• +6 Fan Interest
• +1 Fan Loyalty
• Winter Ball: SP Cipriano Pena (Control)

Manchester: (145 CP)

• +6 Fan Interest
• Add Nickname:
  • Sugimoto "Sleepy" Hara
  • Yukio "Killer" Fujita
  • Augusto "Prince" Leon
  • Glen "Boots" Hester
  • Michael "Scooter" Kelly

New Jersey: (370 + $5.8M + 750-word article)

• +1 Market Size
• +4,000 seating capacity

New Orleans: (286 CP + $3.7M + $120k BF + 750-word article)

• +1 Market Size
• +1,300 seating capacity

Omaha: (80 CP)

• $2,000,000

Palm Springs: (175 + $1,000,000)

• $3,000,000
• Winter Ball: SP Roberto Rodriguez (Control)

Reno: (200)

• $5,000,000

San Antonio: (165 CP)

• $4,000,000
• Add Nickname:
  • Armando "Bullfrog" Perez

Tempe: (200 CP)

• $5,000,000

West Virginia: (210 CP + $3.1M)

• +1 Market Size
• Convert Player to Personnel: C Donald Lawrence (ML Bench Coach)

Yuma: (100 CP)

• $2,000,000
• +1 Fan Interest

LRS Awards

Edo: Elected not to purchase a reward

Fushigi Yugi: (320 CP)

• +1 Fan Loyalty
• +1 Market Size

Hyakujuu: Elected not to purchase a reward

Kawaguchi: (200 CP)

• +1 Market Size

Kure: (480 CP)

• $4,000,000
• +1 Fan Loyalty
• +1 Market Size

Kuwana: (440 CP)

• +2 Fan Loyalty
• +1 Market Size

Lupin: (290 CP)

• +1 Market Size
• Improve Personnel: ML Scouting Director Tamotsu Yoshida (Minor Leagues / International)
• Improve Personnel: ML Pitching Coach Sadakuno Kouki (Teach Pitching)

Naha: (440 CP)

• $6,000,000
• +1 Market Size

Neo-Tokyo: Elected not to purchase a reward

Niihama-shi: Elected not to purchase a reward

Seoul: (40 CP)

• $1,000,000

Shin Seiki: (80 CP)

• $2,000,000

[Daniel Diemer]

Well, the Japanese market sure has grown this year. Half the LRS teams took that option.

[Steel Dragons]

I was looking forward to seeing how this went. Looks like most LRS teams are on the same page. I thought for sure that there would be some that sent all their prospects to winterball disregarding that just about all of us are in bad financial shape.

Also interesting to see how PEBA teams do this since they are essentially 3 years ahead of us. Seems like a good formula for success is to put fans in the seats and when your all out of seats...add some more. Of course having a winning team helps too.

[Leones]

The fact that, as expected, most people put at least part of their points into market size makes me wonder something. In a few years will we "normalize" the market sizes by pushing everyone down a size or two, presumably with some increase in league revenue to keep everyone making the same amount of money? Otherwise it seems we will be barreling towards a future where every single market size is on the higher end of things, though I guess the cool down will help with this.

[klewis]

It will be interesting to see how it turns out in a few years once revenue sharing is fully implemented. It seems most financially stabled teams have increased seating capacities to put more butts in the seats. I suppose there is not much else to focus on (for those teams) aside from Winter Ball. Fan interest and fan loyalty are pretty high or even maxed out for those teams. Exchanging CP for money is always an option but most of these teams are pretty well set as is. In contrast, fan interest/fan loyalty along with money seems like a pretty popular pick for small to mid-market teams.

It still kinda feels like a Civilization game where every civilization is racing towards space exploration as the final tech to win the game (bonus points if you get that reference). The bigger market teams have already started with increased stadium seats among other financial-generated related awards..

So I think in time, the bigger markets will reach their destination first (max markets, increased seating capacities, and max fan loyalty). The lower and mid-market teams will slowly reach there too but may be slightly sidetracked by emphasis on exchanging CP for money and fan interest to help keep the team afloat annually.

I hope that does not come off the wrong way. I enjoy running Florida and this league very much. So I certainly don't feel sorry for myself or intend to use small vs. big market as a crutch. I was just pointing out an observation/trend.

The only concern I would have is for teams struggling real badly, how long will it take for them to make a turnaround? We average about 2 in-game seasons per real life year. So if it takes 4-5 seasons for a turnaround, that would equate to about 2-2.5 real life years. Teams like London has shown it can be quicker than that. So there is hope.

This is probably an unpopular idea and I'm doubt I would vote for it myself if it was ever on the ballot but there's always the idea of expanding the playoff berths. I don't think it is a very popular idea because that what's make baseball unique from sports like football and basketball where half of the league is in the playoffs. Also with 24 teams, that's already a fairly good percentage of playoff teams. 8 teams out of 24 make it, which is 33%. The next step logical increment would take it up to 16 teams, which is 66%. That probably would make a mockery of the playoffs heh. But if PEBA ever expands to say 32 teams, a 16-team playoff system is not too bad.

The only reason I would consider playoff expansion is because it keeps more owners interested and also it provides some underdog stories (seeing the #8 seed go all the way). Then again, I was plenty excited this past season because in September it felt like it was the playoffs for a lot of teams who barely just missed out. So I doubt you need extra playoff spots to increase excitement. The regular season in September is essentially playoff atmosphere.

Anyway sorry for the rambling. It's the end of the work day and I want to go see my A's beat up on the Halos tonight (hopefully).

[Evas]

The fact that, as expected, most people put at least part of their points into market size makes me wonder something. In a few years will we "normalize" the market sizes by pushing everyone down a size or two, presumably with some increase in league revenue to keep everyone making the same amount of money? Otherwise it seems we will be barreling towards a future where every single market size is on the higher end of things, though I guess the cool down will help with this.

Yeah I agree with this. Especially when larger market teams are prohibited from getting bigger. It seems eventually all teams will be even. Though in reality, at 3 seasons a calendar year, it won't be for a while.

That part of things just seems out of place in a baseball game to me. What GM in MLB can spend $ to literally grow the city he works in? It doesn't seem to belong with the rest of the rewards. It has no relation to reality what so ever.

[Evas]

The only concern I would have is for teams struggling real badly, how long will it take for them to make a turnaround? We average about 2 in-game seasons per real life year. So if it takes 4-5 seasons for a turnaround, that would equate to about 2-2.5 real life years.

I think an answer could be to increase the frequency of sims. That is one way to be sure that the cycles go quicker.

[klewis]

That part of things just seems out of place in a baseball game to me. What GM in MLB can spend $ to literally grow the city he works in? It doesn't seem to belong with the rest of the rewards. It has no relation to reality what so ever.

I previously planned on writing an article that Florida's mass marketing compaign in the offseason that has generated an increase buzz around the Jacksonville area and neighboring cities to try to help explain the market size increase.

I kinda axed that idea though because there are still other articles to write (team season preview..... really hoping to come up with a good article in response to the Richardson trade)

[klewis]

The only concern I would have is for teams struggling real badly, how long will it take for them to make a turnaround? We average about 2 in-game seasons per real life year. So if it takes 4-5 seasons for a turnaround, that would equate to about 2-2.5 real life years.

I think an answer could be to increase the frequency of sims. That is one way to be sure that the cycles go quicker.

I think in the past we voted down the idea of more sims. I actually kinda like this pace. It allows me to "soak in" the experience. With more sims, I usually just get caught up with lineup changes and other maintenance related work. This pace allows me to look around the league and see what's going on. It helps to provide an atmosphere rather than feel like a text sim where are you are doing is looking at results.

Anyway time to leave work!

[Nigel]

I think it's interesting to see how different owners try and build their teams through CP. Cash seems to be a very popular choice. With the prices free agents are asking for you would think the league is drowning in cash. I'm actually happy CP costs money now. It will help keep things from getting out of hand on the free agent front.

[Iyou Seigyoki]

If markets can be forced up by the GM/owner over time, to me it makes sense for markets to be forced down or frozen for a certain extended period by the league. The criteria could be a mix of performance (either good or bad) combined with some type of randomness. Maybe the market becomes stale like many thought of Atlanta in the 90's where the city just expected them to win.

I hate to see everything just level off at the same point. I would like some dynamic market changes up and down over a slow period time, even if it is somewhat unrealistic.

[John]

The fact that, as expected, most people put at least part of their points into market size makes me wonder something. In a few years will we "normalize" the market sizes by pushing everyone down a size or two, presumably with some increase in league revenue to keep everyone making the same amount of money? Otherwise it seems we will be barreling towards a future where every single market size is on the higher end of things, though I guess the cool down will help with this.

That's a very good point Noel, and you'll be happy to know it's a future I've been planning for. You have my word that I won't allow a situation where all teams are mashed together financially. It's our diversity of circumstances that makes this league so unique and I have no intent to lose that diversity. That being said, we're still a ways away from that future. For the time being there's no need to take any special action; I believe we're fine allowing owners to pursue their "space race" (as Kevin puts it) as best they see fit.

I think an answer could be to increase the frequency of sims. That is one way to be sure that the cycles go quicker.

This idea has been broached with the owners in the past and hasn't garnered enough support to implement. A majority of owners seem to prefer the more deliberate pace we set. Personally, I can see benefits both ways. Obviously a more rapid pace would allow us to build a history more quickly, not to mention crown new champions more often. Our current pace allows owners to really absorb what's happening, though, and I believe that leads to more activity than you see in many online leagues (manifested in trades, articles, etc.).

The 2009-10 floater mailing will be sent out very soon and you'll likely see an accelerated sim pace included on the list once again. I wouldn't count on it getting voted in, but it will be interesting to see what the new owners think.

[Evas]

Could it make sense to speed up certain portions of the calendar? Maybe sim a few extra in game days per sim in the off season or some thing like that.

I like the pace when a lot is happening, but I could see opportunities to go a little faster now and then. It would take some studying to decide what makes sense, but i think there are opportunities burn through the calendar a little faster without messing with the overall feel.

[John]

The feedback I've received from owners has favored the current pace. You're never going to be able to please everyone, but as long as the majority are happy with the pace then I'm happy with it. Also bear in mind that this offseason is going more slowly because of the LRS expansion.

[Iyou Seigyoki]

I am extremely happy with the pace of the sims. While I update the league file late at night as soon as I can and continue to analyze my team for the next two days wishing I could get some faster feedback from contract year players/free agents, I can envision a period of time where I cannot devote this much time and will need some flexibility.