Salary Cap Issues/Financial Talk

[Ryan]

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

1. Best one.

2. Next available applicable pick.

If you guys need anything else, I'll be in the shitter.

[BradZ]

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

You lose the highest pick.


Would it be too difficult to come up with a standardized equivalency chart? Almost like the old NFL draft pick value chart, except dumbed down (not taking into acct round position)?

If a team is missing its 1st round then they forfeit their 2nd and 3rd (or 4th, or whatever was decided upon for the equivalence chart).

[BradZ]

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 personally think callups on BLB min contracts would not cause a penalty.

[Clay]

I would disagree that it's the highest pick. I think it should be YOUR pick that goes first versus one you acquired. Just my 2 cents.

[BradZ]

I would disagree that it's the highest pick. I think it should be YOUR pick that goes first versus one you acquired. Just my 2 cents.

Fair enough, and there's a good argument to be made there.

[Jake]

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.

When you put it like this, I don't think we should make exemptions for arbitration cases at all. If you want to gamble on winning a couple, like Clay's doing, that's fine... but come Opening Day, we should all have to do what it takes to be at or under 100 mill. There should be enough time between the Arb sim and opening day to make something happen.

[Carlos]

When you put it like this, I don't think we should make exemptions for arbitration cases at all. If you want to gamble on winning a couple, like Clay's doing, that's fine... but come Opening Day, we should all have to do what it takes to be at or under 100 mill. There should be enough time between the Arb sim and opening day to make something happen.

I agree with this.

You lose an arb case and go over, well, now you need to find a new home for that player or someone else on your squad.

If a team has a $100 million dollar payroll, do they really have an incentive to care about a 2nd round pick?

I realize that we have GMs that understand the importance of the draft, but that's a philosophy, not a fact. Not all 2nd round picks are successful. So, there's a good chance a GM says: "Screw my pick, I want the guy that's going to cost me $6 MM."

[Clay]

I am kind of getting into the camp of a rule that is simple. You must be at $100.0 or under in guaranteed contracts on Opening Day. Period.

Obviously PLAYER EXPENSE can go over (in case you have to outright release).... and I think you can go OVER $100.0 after Opening Day due to call ups only.

But I think that might be the simplest.

As far as the "what if" someone is over and the Commish has to intervene in order to run Opening Day? I don't really have a fear in that department.... but I think that would just fall into Commissioner discretion and "for the good of the league." Obviously, I would cut someone's best player. I would make the moves I think are necessary.

That being said... I honestly don't see it being a big issue and, furthermore, I think it could really help create parity because I think more players are going to now be available in the off-season (CUT or available via trade at a good price).

[Andrew]

Yeah the draft pick penalties might get messy if a team doesn't have picks. I think we need to have something concrete in place though just to avoid the argument later on. I'd say the best process would be to just go down the team's transactions list from top to bottom and start releasing recently acquired players until they're under the cap.

[funclown]

I think the only real concern basically would be the call-ups and September roster expansion for going over.

[BradZ]

I am kind of getting into the camp of a rule that is simple. You must be at $100.0 or under in guaranteed contracts on Opening Day. Period.

Obviously PLAYER EXPENSE can go over (in case you have to outright release).... and I think you can go OVER $100.0 after Opening Day due to call ups only.

But I think that might be the simplest.

As far as the "what if" someone is over and the Commish has to intervene in order to run Opening Day? I don't really have a fear in that department.... but I think that would just fall into Commissioner discretion and "for the good of the league." Obviously, I would cut someone's best player. I would make the moves I think are necessary.

That being said... I honestly don't see it being a big issue and, furthermore, I think it could really help create parity because I think more players are going to now be available in the off-season (CUT or available via trade at a good price).

Excellent. Simple and easy to abide by. Everyone must be below the cap by opening day or cuts happen. I like it. Sign me up.

[Pat]

That was easy.

[Carlos]

I feel like that was decided back on Page 1.
[/Mugatu]