SIM COMPLETE - 1995 - SIM 20

[Matt]

Cut my 2 guys on waivers and back under $100m...sorry for the mixup.

My question is does the game really think I paid $21m for those guys? I guess I've never traded for anyone in season that had big salaries. Just wondering what it will do for my bottom line next season.

It's like Mississippi never paid a dime for their service...which to me is strange. I thought for sure it was like when you cut someone and it says "you owe xxxx much" because it's based off games left.

[Jake]

Cut my 2 guys on waivers and back under $100m...sorry for the mixup.

My question is does the game really think I paid $21m for those guys? I guess I've never traded for anyone in season that had big salaries. Just wondering what it will do for my bottom line next season.

It's like Mississippi never paid a dime for their service...which to me is strange. I thought for sure it was like when you cut someone and it says "you owe xxxx much" because it's based off games left.

There's a fair argument here; I don't think it's necessarily the one Matt's making, but if you trade for someone midseason the other party can only send so much money to the amount of cash owed the rest of the year.

However, if that's the case, then you could never "buy down" the contract like we've seen done before in the offseason. EI think there was a VIR-CAR trade where both sides sent cash to buy down contracts?

I could be wrong- but if I'm not- we should allow enough cash to be sent that would "buy down" an entire years salary -since that's the number counting towards the cap. Or... Just not buy down cap numbers in general.

[Clay]

Cut my 2 guys on waivers and back under $100m...sorry for the mixup.

My question is does the game really think I paid $21m for those guys? I guess I've never traded for anyone in season that had big salaries. Just wondering what it will do for my bottom line next season.

It's like Mississippi never paid a dime for their service...which to me is strange. I thought for sure it was like when you cut someone and it says "you owe xxxx much" because it's based off games left.

No, it will not count the full amount of the contract against your player expense. It was piling up on Mississippi all year and now will pile up on you. You'll see another $2.1 on LaRochelle and like $3.2 on Buzzell this season.

We use TOTAL PAYROLL as the Cap Figure because it's the only thing we can really track against in an immediate fashion. Player Expense is the more logical option, but the full story may not be told till the end of the season.

As always, I'm never opposed to revisiting how we use our rules and how they're enforced in the off-season.

[Clay]

There's a fair argument here; I don't think it's necessarily the one Matt's making, but if you trade for someone midseason the other party can only send so much money to the amount of cash owed the rest of the year.

However, if that's the case, then you could never "buy down" the contract like we've seen done before in the offseason. EI think there was a VIR-CAR trade where both sides sent cash to buy down contracts?

I could be wrong- but if I'm not- we should allow enough cash to be sent that would "buy down" an entire years salary -since that's the number counting towards the cap. Or... Just not buy down cap numbers in general.

You can buy all the way down to the minimum $280. Game doesn't allow contracts that are nill.

[BradZ]

Cut my 2 guys on waivers and back under $100m...sorry for the mixup.

My question is does the game really think I paid $21m for those guys? I guess I've never traded for anyone in season that had big salaries. Just wondering what it will do for my bottom line next season.

It's like Mississippi never paid a dime for their service...which to me is strange. I thought for sure it was like when you cut someone and it says "you owe xxxx much" because it's based off games left.

Think of it as an old school NBA style salary cap. You either have to have the cap space to fit their salary figure underneath your cap or be able to clear the cap space. It doesn't mean you are toting the full note on their salary. Each week your player expenses rise as you pay your players for the time spent on your roster.

[Matt]

Understood...thanks for the help Brad and Clay and sorry for screwing up...won't happen again.

Good to see my Player Expense is still lower than Baltimore YTD. That's all that matters for us!

[Jistic]

Pawtucket 5-1. Good enough to catch one game on the wildcard race (Wow the Porter is bad)

Overall felt good sweeping Batavia the proclaimed "only team that can beat Virginia".

Still, just lost Victor and Keppel had a setup. With 4 of our 9 starters out of the lineup I'm truthfully surprised we are in this thing.

You don't know anything about resting your starters.

[Clay]

Yeah.... it's more CAP NUMBER than PLAYER EXPENSE.

[Delandis]

Good to see my Player Expense is still lower than Baltimore YTD. That's all that matters for us!

You are going to pretty upset next sim.

[Jake]

You can buy all the way down to the minimum $280. Game doesn't allow contracts that are nill.

I guess I should start over because I'm not quite sure I even understood what I wrote.

First, I'd like to start by again pointing out that Matt has the biggest payroll in the league. Big market bastards...

Ok. So I guess what I'm saying is I believe that cash sent in trades should not count towards their CAP number, only to their EXPENSES.

One, I think that although it's currently legal and therefore there's nothing wrong with it, it does create a bit of a work around for the cap.

Two, I think that it creates an unfair situation regarding the timing of a trade. Hypothetical example:

Player A and Player B are both 31 year old SP's who are heading into the last year of their identical $20 million dollar a year contracts.

Team A and Team B both go into Spring Training with an identical $95 million dollar PAYROLL. Meaning that they would have $5 million dollars to work with under the CAP.

Team A trades for player A before the season; the trading team agrees to cover his salary for the rest of the year, and is allowed to, sending $19,780,000. Player A's payroll or CAP number is $280k.

Team B makes a move at the deadline for Player B. The trading team agrees to cover his salary for the rest of the year; however, they are only allowed to send what's owed for the remainder of the contract/season (minus roughly 280k). Without doing the math, let's say it's $8.5 million. Now Player B's payroll/cap number is $11.5, even though both players only cost the receiving team (roughly) 280k for the year. In this situation, Team B would not be able to acquire the contract unless they cut someone.

I guess I just feel like the CAP or payroll number should always be what the original contract was supposed to be. Sending cash in trades should go to the budget or expenses, but not allow a team to acquire a player truly worth more at a lesser cap number. IMO, it's a workaround for the competitive balance the cap is supposed to provide.

I think in the offseason we should discuss/explore three options:

1) Cash sent in trades is not applied to a player's payroll number; only applied to the teams budget/expenses
2) If not (1), players traded mid season should be able to also be "bought down" all the way to 280k (somehow- I realize you shouldn't be able to send more cash than the player is owed)
3) If we do keep sending cash to apply to payroll numbers, I believe that cash should only be allowed to be sent ONE WAY in trades, e.g., the Baltimore/Hartford trade.

Not sure if any of that made sense... but I tried.

[Clay]

I guess I should start over because I'm not quite sure I even understood what I wrote.

First, I'd like to start by again pointing out that Matt has the biggest payroll in the league. Big market bastards...

Ok. So I guess what I'm saying is I believe that cash sent in trades should not count towards their CAP number, only to their EXPENSES.

One, I think that although it's currently legal and therefore there's nothing wrong with it, it does create a bit of a work around for the cap.

Two, I think that it creates an unfair situation regarding the timing of a trade. Hypothetical example:

Player A and Player B are both 31 year old SP's who are heading into the last year of their identical $20 million dollar a year contracts.

Team A and Team B both go into Spring Training with an identical $95 million dollar PAYROLL. Meaning that they would have $5 million dollars to work with under the CAP.

Team A trades for player A before the season; the trading team agrees to cover his salary for the rest of the year, and is allowed to, sending $19,780,000. Player A's payroll or CAP number is $280k.

Team B makes a move at the deadline for Player B. The trading team agrees to cover his salary for the rest of the year; however, they are only allowed to send what's owed for the remainder of the contract/season (minus roughly 280k). Without doing the math, let's say it's $8.5 million. Now Player B's payroll/cap number is $11.5, even though both players only cost the receiving team (roughly) 280k for the year. In this situation, Team B would not be able to acquire the contract unless they cut someone.

I guess I just feel like the CAP or payroll number should always be what the original contract was supposed to be. Sending cash in trades should go to the budget or expenses, but not allow a team to acquire a player truly worth more at a lesser cap number. IMO, it's a workaround for the competitive balance the cap is supposed to provide.

I think in the offseason we should discuss/explore three options:

1) Cash sent in trades is not applied to a player's payroll number; only applied to the teams budget/expenses
2) If not (1), players traded mid season should be able to also be "bought down" all the way to 280k (somehow- I realize you shouldn't be able to send more cash than the player is owed)
3) If we do keep sending cash to apply to payroll numbers, I believe that cash should only be allowed to be sent ONE WAY in trades, e.g., the Virginia trade where both sides sent equal amounts of cash. (Not trying to call you out Clay, or that I think there's anything wrong with what you did - it was completely legal - it's just the one example I can think of.)

Not sure if any of that made sense... but I tried.

For the record, Baltimore/Hartford did a trade last SIM with the same $ so we can change up that reference.

[Jake]

For the record, Baltimore/Hartford did a trade last SIM with the same $ so we can change up that reference.

Done.

[Delandis]

For the record, Baltimore/Hartford did a trade last SIM with the same $ so we can change up that reference.

Don't use us. Our commish set the precedent.

We are just trying to make moves like the winners do. Plus who wouldn't like a rule called, "The Commissioner's Exception."

[Jake]

Don't use us. Our commish set the precedent.

We are just trying to make moves like the winners do. Plus who wouldn't like a rule called, "The Commissioner's Exception."

haha. Too late now. Plus Clay gets enough heat as it is.

[Delandis]

Plus Clay gets enough heat as it is.

Hmm, that's funny.

Pat said Clay NEVER gets enough of his heat.