Salary Cap Issues/Financial Talk

[Lintyfresh85]

Whatever the case, I don't think Clay was actively trying to get one over on the system.

[Delandis]

Looks like I missed the party.

[Pat]

After offering $10 mill to Abbott, it allows me to offer up to $29 mill for Carlton. It looks like the game calculates the arb eligible players into their contract offer page.

Everyone, look at your own available money and then look what happens when you go to the contract screen on an arb eligible player. Their arb money is included in the "money left over for player contracts."

Dude... It's Clay... It's the BLB...it's all good.

[Andrew]

There's definitely something funky with the arb eligible players. If I try to offer a contract to Kubota (a FA) it says I have no money left and the game doesn't let me submit an offer. If I try to offer something to McGuire (arb eligible) the game factors in the arbitration amount and says I have $4m left but then let's me offer anything I want.

I don't think O'Hegarty or Poling were arb eligible though so not sure why it allowed Clay to submit offers. Based on the amount he had left for extensions, Poling's offer should have been OK but O'Hegarty's shouldn't have been allowed.

[BradZ]

After offering $10 mill to Abbott, it allows me to offer up to $29 mill for Carlton. It looks like the game calculates the arb eligible players into their contract offer page.

Everyone, look at your own available money and then look what happens when you go to the contract screen on an arb eligible player. Their arb money is included in the "money left over for player contracts."

Dude... It's Clay... It's the BLB...it's all good.

Yeah, I don't think that actually answers the question. In our scenario the game should have allowed you to offer the contract to the Arb eligible player and then theoretically allowed you to offer more to Carlton than you previously had been able to (since offering the Arb player a deal was supposed to free up his Arb amt, at least that was a theory). Instead it appears to have reduced your amt that you can offer Carlton by an amt that appears to correspond (I'd have to know the exact $$'s to say for certain) to the amt you went over the Arb estimate in the offer to Abbott.

At this point the important question is probably no longer "How did it happen" (the contracts and finances of the game have never been locked down airtight), but "What do we do about it?"

[BradZ]

There's definitely something funky with the arb eligible players. If I try to offer a contract to Kubota (a FA) it says I have no money left and the game doesn't let me submit an offer. If I try to offer something to McGuire (arb eligible) the game factors in the arbitration amount and says I have $4m left but then let's me offer anything I want.

I don't think O'Hegarty or Poling were arb eligible though so not sure why it allowed Clay to submit offers. Based on the amount he had left for extensions, Poling's offer should have been OK but O'Hegarty's shouldn't have been allowed.

Would it let you go above $13.5 for McGuire? Based on your projected payroll for next season, that should be the breaking point.

[Andrew]

Would it let you go above $13.5 for McGuire? Based on your projected payroll for next season, that should be the breaking point.

No, after looking again it won't let me offer more than $11.52 which his arbitration estimate for next year. So I guess that makes more sense. My team is a lousy test though because I'm constrained by my budget, not the cap.

[Andrew]

I think Clay identified what happened in a PM he sent me. He made several offers to arbitration eligible players in the last sim along with Poling and O'Hegarty. Because of his current salaries, these offers were backloaded. If you offer a backloaded contract to an arbitration eligible player it reduces the arbitration number used in calculating 1992 salaries and consequently increase the $ available for extensions.

I tested this and that is exactly how it works. Maine currently has $0 for extensions. If I offer Tino Suarez (whose estimated arb number is $11.5m) a contract offer of $280k, I all of a sudden have money available for extensions.

In Clay's case this was a perfectly reasonable approach to dealing with his current salaries and the salary cap. Because of this, I think the contracts should stand.

However, I think this potentially creates a loophole.

The arbitration eligible player who was offered a contract doesn't need to sign it for the money to be freed up. An owner could potentially offer a player whose arbitration number is $10m, 280k just to give the team a temporary boost in money available. The player would obviously decline the offer but the owner could sign other players with the freed up money and then still retain the other player in arbitration at the end of the season. Or he could even still re-sign him during the season since the game seems to let you offer a contract up to the arbitration estimate regardless of budget or cap room.

[BradZ]

That makes sense. Now, what do we do about the loophole? We’ve stated previously that Arb cases can conceivably push a team over the threshold, but in this instance if all Arb cases are allowed to go through in this case we are guaranteeing that he’ll be over. I think our original thought was, Team X is really close to the $100mil Cap and he loses an Arb case that bumps the payroll over the mark. That’s not really the case here.

[Andrew]

That makes sense. Now, what do we do about the loophole? We’ve stated previously that Arb cases can conceivably push a team over the threshold, but in this instance if all Arb cases are allowed to go through in this case we are guaranteeing that he’ll be over. I think our original thought was, Team X is really close to the $100mil Cap and he loses an Arb case that bumps the payroll over the mark. That’s not really the case here.

The options I see are:

1) Make sure everyone understands the loophole and allow people to use it.

2) Create a rule that says you can never trade for, sign a FA or extend a player that brings you over $100m for the current or following year. This may still cause issues when contracts are offered to multiple players at the same time and they all sign.

3) Do away with the salary cap altogether.

[BradZ]

The options I see are:

1) Make sure everyone understands the loophole and allow people to use it.

2) Create a rule that says you can never trade for, sign a FA or extend a player that brings you over $100m for the current or following year. This may still cause issues when contracts are offered to multiple players at the same time and they all sign.

3) Do away with the salary cap altogether.

Well, if we allow people to use it Wild West style, then the cap is meaningless. If people are allowed to use it knowing that they have to get their payroll back in line before the start of the next season it gives them the flexibility to run their team the way they want, extending players that they want to keep knowing that they are going to lose an Arb eligible player because for all intents and purposes they are making the financial decision to take the money from that player and offer it to the player being extended.

[Clay]

Just to be clear, in my case I didn't offer $280k deals. I offered Maeda, Pancho and Phillips long term deals with escalating money that would hit high end till after the Woodbury contracts. I didn't even realize it impacted my money till someone said it because before I traded EG I had like $24.0 to offer. That changed, it appears, because Rod Philips arby estimate went from 4.0 to 10.something (thanks Linty).

We obviously need to figure something out. We either need to make the 100 a hard cap or come up with another proposal. Example, off the tob of my head, if your team is over the soft cap you lose a 1st Round pick or something. I don't know the answer.

[Z]

Remind me why exactly we have a cap. Is there a reason other than limiting spending?

[Lintyfresh85]

Lets split the money talk off into its own thread.

You guys are spamming the Sim results thread.

[BradZ]

Remind me why exactly we have a cap. Is there a reason other than limiting spending?

I think it is to bring the "Haves" closer to the "Have nots".