|
Post by woollala on Feb 8, 2009 15:49:35 GMT -5
I have a few questions now that we have a player with salary that will top out at 40Mil a year.
Do we anticipate raising the salary caps over the next few years? 40 mil might not be so harsh if cap increases to 200mil by 2014. I am opposed to an increase but thought I'd ask.
Also, will other teams besides the yankees be at $150mil next year? How close to real life caps will we use in future?
Will there be big fluctuations from year to year if real team cap changes? I propose a rule that you can change only one salary tier per year.
Might seem like a non-issue at this point, but the fact that you can bid a yearly amount at 250% of AAS means we should have a plan in place sooner rather than later, and make it known to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by skiracercb on Feb 8, 2009 19:17:56 GMT -5
Randy, it is in the league rules that your teams cap will fluctuate based upon real life cap situation changes to the team. However, it is very, very unlikely that any single team would be able to jump up multiple tiers per year. For example, one of the teams with 95M cap, the twins or indians for example, would have to increase their cap commitments by over 30M in a single season. Since i am an AL central guy, i will tell you that a 30M increase in a single season will pretty much never happen. Also, if it did happen by some unseen circumstance, that team would lose its additional tags and acquire the tags of the tier they move into. So this 100% offsets the salary gain. For example, i would never want the red sox to increase to 150M because i would only get one tag...and i think the tag is worth more than the money there.
Aside from the explanation, it might be a good idea to adjust yearly cap via inflation rates. Because it is inevitable that every team will increase cap by ~5% a year just due to the inflation of the dollar (so~6M for the red sox for example). That should be offset...meaning it doesnt count towards the tier increase somehow otherwise every team will be ascending to new tiers, and i think we just need to have the tiers move with inflation each year to an extent...just a thought
|
|
|
Post by bluejs4lf on Feb 8, 2009 21:02:40 GMT -5
Judging by the absolutely ridiculous amounts people are bidding on players I personally would rather have a team like the Rays or Nats and have a bunch of tags at my disposal.
Right now 1 Franchise Tag and 1 Restricted Tag doesn't seem like all that much...
I'm actually hoping that the Tigers drop down a tier or two...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2009 7:56:35 GMT -5
I understand that if a player retires under a Full Count contract, the owner is responsible for the entire cap hit of the contract. However if a player is signed by their real life contracts, by being either a keeper or franchised, and they retire, what is the cap hit for the owner?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2009 13:35:38 GMT -5
We have had discussions of changing this. The main reason for the full count contract is we don't want people signing someone at like 40 years old about done with their career a huge back loaded contract that when they retire they can just drop.
One idea is making a maximum years you can sign someone by there age. So if they were like 37 years old you could sign them for a maximum 2 years. Something like that. The thing with this is, this is very much like the MLB in my opinion. As in most guys over 37 - 38 don't get a deal more then 1 or 2 years. Or if you sign them for multiple years at a certain age you have to pay the same amount each year or within i don't know like 10% of the year before. Take Jamie Moyer for example. He is freaking old.
03:$6M, 04:$6.5M, 05:$8M one deal 07:$6M, 08:$5.5M next deal 09:$6.5M, 10:$6.5M next deal
He is a rare example of getting a 3 year deal at the age of 40 but the salaries were still similar, and that would prevent from back loading. Front loading isn't really an issue.
In my opinion I just don't think its fair to sign someone to a contract and then they quit or have a career ending injury and you be stuck with it. And I would be for amending this rule. The only reason it is there is to prevent backloading someones contract that is about to retire. And I think we could adjust the rule in some way for this reason. For instance if Manny Ramirez were to get a career ending injury, and someone still had to pay the contract, that would not be fair in my opinion.
|
|