Salary Cap Issues/Financial Talk

[Jistic]

Worst part of this issue is the inevitable "told you so" post from Jistic.

What that OOTP 11 is awesome, or that you're cheating? Cuz yeah "I told you so" so both of them. Obviously your personal vendetta has also stricken my team as well. I don't know to blame you or OOTP 11 so I'll stick with both. Or we could look at this as another awesome new feature.

[Carlos]

That's not true. If we put in a rule that limits the incentive deals to players that want them, it would mean someone (likely the Commish) would need to know the wants of every player in the league.

Good point. I find that option the least favorable either way.


Sent from my mobile device.

[funclown]

What that OOTP 11 is awesome, or that you're cheating? Cuz yeah "I told you so" so both of them. Obviously your personal vendetta has also stricken my team as well. I don't know to blame you or OOTP 11 so I'll stick with both. Or we could look at this as another awesome new feature.

OOTP 11 has not been kind to ur team.

[Clay]

BACK ON TOPIC:

Thinking outloud, what if we used the "soft cap" angle for a CASH application.

In other words, whatever your PAYROLL is over $100.0 on Opening Day, that amount is removed from your CASH (which is a still capped). If you don't have enough CASH to cover the overage, you either have to cut to that point or are assessed fines of Draft Picks.

Just trying to contribute.

[Andrew]

BACK ON TOPIC:

Thinking outloud, what if we used the "soft cap" angle for a CASH application.

In other words, whatever your PAYROLL is over $100.0 on Opening Day, that amount is removed from your CASH (which is a still capped). If you don't have enough CASH to cover the overage, you either have to cut to that point or are assessed fines of Draft Picks.

Just trying to contribute.

I think this will allow teams to go over more often. I think if we are going to enforce the cap, it needs to be something punitive enough to discourage all teams from abusing it. Otherwise the small handful of teams that can afford to go over on a regular basis will probably do so.

[Jake]

Why don't we just stick with what we have now, and continue to monitor the random situations that something like this happens? Every owner knows the arbitration loophole now.

If it happens, just void the contract. Happens three times in the same year, owner loses a draft pick.

As far as bonuses, I think the only change that could be made is just outlawing them all together. But I'm fine with them the way they are.

[Clay]

I feel like we need to gain some resolution and common ground on this before the end of the season. Are we anywhere?

[BradZ]

I feel like we need to gain some resolution and common ground on this before the end of the season. Are we anywhere?

A question for you: what were you planning to do with your roster given the extensions were going to force you over? Were you planning on non-tendering or trading to reduce your payroll figure or did you feel that this would be a case of Arb decisions pushing you over?

[Clay]

A question for you: what were you planning to do with your roster given the extensions were going to force you over? Were you planning on non-tendering or trading to reduce your payroll figure or did you feel that this would be a case of Arb decisions pushing you over?

Well, without giving any details. There is a player (or two) that I am considering not tendering. A handful of $280k - 420k guys that will be released. Another I am considering trading before 1991. And a safe assumption that all of these guys would not reach their full requested dollar amount.

Most importantly, I still stand by the fact that I am not over the cap right now. My guaranteed money is in the $60.0 ballpark. I do not intend to be over $100.0 in 92.

[BradZ]

Well, without giving any details. There is a player (or two) that I am considering not tendering. A handful of $280k - 420k guys that will be released. Another I am considering trading before 1991. And a safe assumption that all of these guys would not reach their full requested dollar amount.

Most importantly, I still stand by the fact that I am not over the cap right now. My guaranteed money is in the $60.0 ballpark. I do not intend to be over $100.0 in 92.

Thanks (and I wasn’t prying for specifics). I was hoping you’d say it wasn’t your intention to exceed the cap in ’92, because I honestly think the “loophole” of creating cap space in future years is a useful tool that GM’s should be able to utilize as long as they have a full understanding of what it will take to get their payroll back in line prior to the next season.

The question becomes, and you alluded to it (“And a safe assumption that all of these guys would not reach their full requested dollar amount.”), how do we account for the Arb cases that a GM thinks will go in their favor and thus drop the payroll figure to an acceptable level that end up going against the team which forces the payroll above. It could be said (and perhaps justifiably so) that it was the Arb case decision that forced a team’s payroll above the cap, which we said was acceptable, but what if a team is counting on 2 cases going their way or 3? If a team loses multiple Arb cases that they were planning on winning in order to reduce the cap figure there’s a good chance that would push them well over the cap. I’m not sure that’s what was envisioned when the cap was first implemented.

When I think of an Arb case pushing a team over the cap in the spirit of the cap rule I think of a team that’s projected salary prior to the Arb hearings is at or below the cap level, but ends up over the limit due to lost cases.

That’s a long winded way of saying: Are we sure we’ve even really decided what we meant when we said you could go over the cap because of Arb cases.

Also, I personally like the idea of a tiered “punishment” system for violating the cap by opening day:

Less than 3.0mil over = lose 2nd round pick
More than 3.0mil over, but less than 8mil over = lose 1st round pick
More than $8mil over = release of contracts to lower payroll to less than $8mil over + loss of 1st round pick

It’s punitive, but it still allows a team some flexibility in the instance where they might otherwise be forced to deal from a weak position with the rest of the league knowing they are being forced to trade off pieces.

[Andrew]

Also, I personally like the idea of a tiered “punishment” system for violating the cap by opening day:

Less than 3.0mil over = lose 2nd round pick
More than 3.0mil over, but less than 8mil over = lose 1st round pick
More than $8mil over = release of contracts to lower payroll to less than $8mil over + loss of 1st round pick

It’s punitive, but it still allows a team some flexibility in the instance where they might otherwise be forced to deal from a weak position with the rest of the league knowing they are being forced to trade off pieces.

I like this approach as well. One question:

1) Will teams be allowed to exceed the cap with minor league call-ups during the season? If a team is at $100m, they add a guy to the 40 man he would then get a new 280k contract which could push them over. I don't think they should be penalized personally, but we should decide on this as well.

[Ryan]

I like this approach as well. One question:

1) Will teams be allowed to exceed the cap with minor league call-ups during the season? If a team is at $100m, they add a guy to the 40 man he would then get a new 280k contract which could push them over. I don't think they should be penalized personally, but we should decide on this as well.

I would say no punishment for calling a guy up.

[Pat]

I would say no punishment for calling a guy up to my bedroom.

That's weird dude.

[Ryan]

That's weird dude.

Mind your own.

[Clay]

I think Brad's notes are a good start, but we need to hash out the detail on the "punishment".

What if a team has multiple picks in a round? Which one is lost?

What if a team has dealt their picks?

Etc