Current time: 01-26-2020, 10:42 PM
Shoutbox

« archive

avatar
Speaking of outrageous bids... Here I come!
25 Jan 21:25
avatar
Bath salts
25 Jan 18:50
avatar
What are the options?
25 Jan 05:31
avatar
what drugs were i on when i offered hosmer $50M
25 Jan 05:19
avatar
indeed!
23 Jan 09:27
avatar
autcorrect
23 Jan 09:16
avatar
; )
23 Jan 09:13
avatar
Female dawg?
23 Jan 09:13
avatar
extensions are a girl
23 Jan 08:13
avatar
i have too many teams to realize where the Fudge i am with all of them
23 Jan 08:13
avatar
Apparently he set the twitterverse / cub nation ablaze
23 Jan 06:48
avatar
23 Jan 06:46
avatar
The Rays tried "aggressively" to re-sign Maddon, during that period, but Maddon opted out of his contract.[38] Maddon finished his tenure with a record of 754 wins and 705 losses.
23 Jan 06:46
avatar
With due respect to "bob nightingale" (Pretty sure I know the name), Maddon wasn't fired.
23 Jan 06:46
avatar
Damn kyle my bad
22 Jan 13:57
avatar
Laim, check that Georges Niang post in KTR.
22 Jan 12:53
avatar
@threetwocount has the early lead for 2020 Chat MVP
21 Jan 13:57
avatar
Mountaineers dry fuct the Longhorns - you all don't need your own network- hook em horns,hah - you need somewhere to go and hide
21 Jan 13:13
avatar
Mb3 guys, Houston around to deal
20 Jan 03:27
avatar
your heart is dead if you don't like some Cassius Winston
18 Jan 12:05

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Salary Cap: Minimum Spending + Signing Bonuses
#1
A few conditions have lead me to believe that two additions to the rules (which would come into effect for the 2021 season) may be of net benefit to the league.

(A) We have fairly stable ownership
(B) Dumping bad contracts has been a problem
© Rebuilders would benefit more from signing FA to frontloaded deals and trading them once cash can be paid
(D) Teams wanting to make the next step toward competing have been getting stuck in the middle

I therefore have two proposals which i think are fairly simple and solve these issues.

1. Opening day payroll must be at least $90m (70% of cap).

2. Teams can give signing bonuses to FA signed before opening day, max of 30% of total value with a cap of $10m. So if you won a player at $20m then you could pay a $6m bonus and then award a $14m contract (undecided whether max length would be 3 or 4 years).

Let me know what you think.
BTL-Twins, BTN-Cards, NP-Rockies
Reply

#2
1. I'm a fan of having to meet a minimum payroll.  

2. Interesting concept, not sure I have an opinion as much as that I'd like to hear the details on how it would work.  My 1st question is what you mentioned about changing the contract length.  And is $10M a total cap or per player? I'd have to think about this but it sounds within limits of what we do.
David
NP-PIT, BTL - MIL, MB3 - NYM
(But a REAL Cubs fan bleedin' Cubbie blue through and through!)

Reply

#3
I like #2.  Great idea there.  I'm not sure about a min payroll of $90M, at least at the beginning.  Some teams payroll is much lower right now, such as ChW currently at 55M and Atl & Cinn at about $64M.  Do you think we should start with a lower min payroll and increase it each year for a few years to $90M?
BTL- Pit, NP- KC
Reply

#4
1.) mixed feelings but it's workable maybe:

Not into an opening day payroll.. At least not one so high. I feel like taking on contracts, especially in season for rebuilding teams escalates the open cap as a trade asset. Which is a good thing.

Would be okay if it's like 55-60mill tho I think.

2.) so long as not everyone (I. E. Upper 8 teams or even all playoff teams or top 15) is allowed to do this I feel it's a helpful move toward both activity and competitive balance. If everyone can do so I feel it adds an unnecessary helpful boost to all, and will benefit those with more time to absorb rules and those with the knowledge to figure them out (maybe btl vets more so). Plus it doesn't seem necessary  to make things more complex slightly but adding the rule, if the competitive balance boost isn't there as much. 

3.) Alans point is fair that when coming into a team as owner or gm, one should have a year or two to adapt first. Granted, those coming into these situations are also the ones likely with more cap which makes things more difficult. And will further complicate the initiative. I'd say all in all, 1. Isn't necessary. 

Thanks for the ideas, Ace
MB3, NP =  Dodgers
BTL =  Phillies (Former GM, Now owner!)
KTR  (Suns) - GM , QFL (Falcons) - GM
NFLC (Chiefs) - Owner

Reply

#5
fine with a minimum cap although whats the penalty for not hitting the cap floor? with inactive owners the 3-4  there may be, they probably wont hit it every year.

i dont see a reason to add signing bonuses, just another issue on illegal bids and what not keep it as is.
BTL Angels - NP Ray - QFL Jaguars -  NFLC  Packers -  LOR2  Lakers - FCP Nuggets
Reply

#6
1. Don't really like a salary floor. It has the potential to:
     a. Cause teams with a lot of cap space at the beginning of the year to overpay in FA and be saddled with bad contracts
     b. Force teams with a lot of cap near the end of the year to take on bad contracts.

2.  I really like the signing bonus idea. I think as you've laid out is a pretty ideal system. I don't think there should be any differentiation for these rules for playoff/non-playoff, etc.
BTL - Mariners : BTN - Mariners : NP - Astros
Reply

#7
(01-17-2020, 10:10 AM)fantasysportsdc Wrote: $10M a total cap or per player? I'd have to think about this but it sounds within limits of what we do.

Per player.

(01-17-2020, 12:19 PM)alanv25 Wrote: Do you think we should start with a lower min payroll and increase it each year for a few years to $90M?

It's an option.

(01-18-2020, 01:56 AM)WilliamX Wrote: 2.) so long as not everyone (I. E. Upper 8 teams or even all playoff teams or top 15) is allowed to do this I feel it's a helpful move toward both activity and competitive balance.

Perhaps reserve bonuses for non-playoff teams.

(01-18-2020, 02:00 AM)Forbz23 Wrote: fine with a minimum cap although whats the penalty for not hitting the cap floor? with inactive owners the 3-4  there may be, they probably wont hit it every year.

If you're $10m under the min threshold then you just get assessed a $10m roster charge.

(01-18-2020, 02:25 AM)grantklein Wrote: 1. Don't really like a salary floor. It has the potential to:
     a. Cause teams with a lot of cap space at the beginning of the year to overpay in FA and be saddled with bad contracts
     b. Force teams with a lot of cap near the end of the year to take on bad contracts.

See above. Also the cap penalties are such that deals that turn bad can be bought out very easily.
Obviously one condition i forgot to mention is that J2 guys are now part of the draft which took away a major way to spend money in-season.

With regard to taking on bad deals during the season being more difficult, the returns on those trades have been pretty pitiful such that teams would clearly do better by splitting their money between:

(A) Frontloading free agent contracts and flipping with them with cash paid from June till the deadline (or keep them and enjoy their production at on lower salaries when you try to compete again).

(B) Bidding on pop-up prospects.

© Making a few small deals to take on $5m or so from teams that are tight against the cap and need to make a couple of in-season moves.
BTL-Twins, BTN-Cards, NP-Rockies
Reply

#8
Ace, Did you mean a Rerserve bonus as in an extra pool for them (while still applying basic rule to all)? Or did you mean to reserve (as in set aside) the rule itself, solely for non-playoff teams. 

If    it's the former then I just don't see why non play-off teams should have a(ny) signing bonus option whatsoever. So that they can re-sign their own PC deals /players who are likely better than non playoff teams? That doesn't seem helpful toward competitive balance in the least. Which is the purported goal, right?

If both competing and non-competing teams get any kind of signing bonus, I'm not for it. I don't want a rules addition to make things not just more complex, but unneccessarily so, and one that I don't see a use for, unless it's purpose is competitive balance. 

If there's not consensus on whether or not to apply it to competing owners; then, since some owners are against while some are for, it may be a good idea to table the idea (till midseason at least) since we likely won't have a majority who support this. Although if Grant (and any others who feel it should apply to top 12ish teams) are OK with it only being for non top X teams, that's a different story and there's probably enough momentum.
MB3, NP =  Dodgers
BTL =  Phillies (Former GM, Now owner!)
KTR  (Suns) - GM , QFL (Falcons) - GM
NFLC (Chiefs) - Owner

Reply

#9
(01-18-2020, 09:13 AM)WilliamX Wrote: Or did you mean to reserve (as in set aside) the rule itself, solely for non-playoff teams.

Obviously this.

The idea is to increase competitive balance as well as encourage rebuilding teams to be more active. The trend has been for a number of teams to make glacially slow progress while largely sitting out free agency. This back-seat approach then tends to bleed into a lack of in-season bidding plus they end up with no assets to flip at the deadline or if they've had a few guys graduate early and do well they have no vets to fill out what could have been a possible playoff team.
BTL-Twins, BTN-Cards, NP-Rockies
Reply

#10
i like having the option to front load a contract
QFL - NYG
2MW - Dagobah Rebels
NP - STL
LoR2 - TOR
BTL - LAD
MB3 -MIL
KTR - DAL
Reply






Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)