SQL Utilities/Financial Utility

[BradZ]

Anyone else have anything relevant to add to the discussion? I've seen a lot of discussion over the last couple weeks and in the past about frustrations with the financial system. However, when the opportunity to do something about it comes up only a handful of people want to participate in the discussion.

Since we’re trying to keep it all in game, I think we’re somewhat limited on what we can actually enact. It’s certainly a good time for the airing of grievances, however. Any small market teams want to propose anything? Big market teams?

[Pat]

Fine. I'll chime in.

I love the idea of a cap. I know we try to replicate what the MLB is with different market sizes, no cap, etc, but personally, if I had it my way, I would have had every team on an even playing field from day one, with a salary cap. I couldn't voice my opinion on the matter during the inaugural season because, well, I wasn't in the league yet. Don't get me wrong. I love that I started as one of the biggest budget teams. I think when I took over in '89 we had the 5th largest budget and has seen grown. But I'd prefer it the other way.

I'm all for instituting a cap and I think the lower it is, the better. I like the league dynamics of having small budget that can win (Windy City, etc.) and the big budget teams that don't (Baltimore, etc), but I think it would be better if it was a more even playing field.

[Lintyfresh85]

I'm fine with a cap.

[Delandis]

I like the league dynamics of having small budget that can win (Windy City, etc.) and the big budget teams that don't (Baltimore, etc), but I think it would be better if it was a more even playing field.

Now was that really necessary?

[Pat]

Dude...

Stout vs. the World...





You know this.

[Z]

I actually really like how we've imitated MLB by not having every team on an equal playing field. I'd prefer to keep something resembling the status quo.

I'm opposed to the cap, but I don't have any solutions to offer, so I won't fight it either.

[BradZ]

I actually really like how we've imitated MLB by not having every team on an equal playing field. I'd prefer to keep something resembling the status quo.

I'm opposed to the cap, but I don't have any solutions to offer, so I won't fight it either.

I think with the cap you'll still see the disparity between haves and have nots, but it will give the little guys a better chance to compete.

[Pat]

Personally, I think MLB as well as the BLB would improve the quality of the product with a cap.

It's really unfortunate that at the MLB level, there are several teams that year after year after year are nowhere near competing. In professional sports, if you are going to have free-agency, you have to have a cap, IMO.

[Delandis]

The MLB doesn't have a cap? I thought they did.

[Pat]

The MLB doesn't have a cap? I thought they did.

No, they don't.

And teams like Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee, etc, year in year out, don't even compete.

[Carlos]

But, even if there was a hard cap in MLB, what would it be?

This is the issue I have with the "for" side on the MLB cap issue and I can see it spilling into BLB. I know many will think I only say my piece because I'm a Yankees fan, but I guess you'll just have to trust that I'm a bigger fan of baseball.

Anyway, you set a cap in MLB and does KC and Pittsburgh suddenly compete? I say no. They are still tens of millions below the $90 MM mark - which I assume is where everyone would want the cap.

A hard cap would drive salaries down so the top teams can still sign the best players. Maybe not as many, but there's a hard cap in the NFL and the same teams still win the championship. The NBA has a better cap and the same teams still win titles. It's more about the franchise and how it is built that affects the true dynamics of a salary cap.

I don't see any proof from OOTP that allows players to recognize a cap and take less money. So, while big market teams will be limited in their spending, it doesn't mean that small market teams will make up much of the difference.

1. They don't have the money to reach the cap, so it doesn't matter to them. It just means that maybe one more free agent is available to them.

2. If that free agent still demands $20 MM a year then small market team might still be unable to sign him. If they have a budget of $60 MM, sit at $50 MM payroll and the cap is $90 MM, what difference does it make? None, really. It's still the same situation and all we'll get is more players waiting to sign during Spring Training. Sure, salary demands will drop but by how much? Can that small market team still sign the guy? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't like maybes. We have definites and they are:

1. Players will demand a lot of money.
2. There will be teams that don't have enough money to sign an impact player.

Rather than looking to limit spending only, we have to find ways to boost spending for the smaller market teams.

What Andrew proposed by bumping their markets helps very much. That new chart showed much more balance between budgets.

But, what we can do from that point forward depends on what guys want in this league. Do they want ultimate balance or do they want varying markets?

[Plastic]

I am for the Cap for the same reasons that Pat just wrote a few posts ago.

Those of us that were in the WLB played with a cap and it worked pretty well IMO. But its certainly not a deal breaker for me either way... I hope to be in charge of Morgantown till you guys kick me out.

[Andrew]

Some very good points Carlos, some of which I didn't think of. Here's another potential issue that your post made me think of:

We know that the amount of cash available in the league will have an affect on FA demands. More cash/available budget, the higher demands are. So if we limit spending by the top teams by imposing a salary cap, it will mean more free cash/budget room will be available. If FA's don't take the salary cap into consideration, which I don't think they do, their demands will go way up.

The net effect would be the small market teams are no better off than they are now. The large market teams would get first pick of the FA's and the small market teams would get whoever is left when their demands go down during Spring Training.

[Andrew]

With that in mind, maybe a better approach would be to further narrow the gap between largest market and smallest market and not implement a hard cap.

The proposal I posted earlier had 6 teams at each market size level from 5-8. Maybe we should consider bumping it to 6-8 instead. This, along with revenue sharing, would give us some variety in market size but make the gap narrower.

Assuming the average media contract stays constant, raising the average market size won't create a large influx of cash into the league.

[BradZ]

With that in mind, maybe a better approach would be to further narrow the gap between largest market and smallest market and not implement a hard cap.

The proposal I posted earlier had 6 teams at each market size level from 5-8. Maybe we should consider bumping it to 6-8 instead. This, along with revenue sharing, would give us some variety in market size but make the gap narrower.

Assuming the average media contract stays constant, raising the average market size won't create a large influx of cash into the league.

I liked the original thought of narrowing the gap between the market sizes, so squeezing them even more while still allowing for some diversity between club sizes sounds great to me.