|
Post by Oslo Mastodon on Aug 29, 2015 11:53:06 GMT -5
I would be against 2. I would be most in favour of 1, for Adam's sake. 3 is perfectly acceptable for me, as well, but we would have to keep the rule that any buyouts directly effect the cap for the duration of the contract. Although I don't think anyone would say otherwise, I feel it needs to be said just in the event someone votes for 3 with the idea of burying a contract, having the cap relieved, and then buying the player out thinking that it was stay relieved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 13:57:45 GMT -5
I'm obviously against any rash changes and I think we should make no changes that occur this season.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 29, 2015 15:19:13 GMT -5
1. Hard cap of $275 We already have trades that have been completed that adjust salaries for future years (up to 2018 ATM), and how would we fairly handle sorting that out? We can't roll things back to put everyone at $275 without fucking people over. On top of that, things were VERY rigid in this league initially, and many people found that to be too boring. They wanted more flexibility with rosters, transactions and finances, etc. So, steps were taken to open things up a bit to encourage movement through the league. If we take away the ability for people to include salary in their deals, trades will be few and farther between, which is a shame because I think trade negotiations are a popular feature of this league, no? Having flexibility with finances keeps things fluid in this league. There was mention of an idea where we could have this hard cap and limited salary exchange in trades (a % of salary from players being moved), but let me tell you that from a managerial stand-point, that's an absolute nightmare to handle. Not to mention it's a fine and dandy concept when you're trading just 1 player, but it would get really muddled when multiple players/contracts are involved in the same trade (determining what % of each individual player's contract is involved and such), not to mention that things have been kept at whole numbers in this league thus far, and going down the path of %s will fuck everything up. 2. Soft cap of $275 / Hard cap of $ ($300?) I think this is the simplest solution to our issue, and I like simple. Say we set a hard cap at $300, that gives managers looking to buy-in for a season a maximum of $25 to acquire, through whatever means. As a minimum annual salary on a 5y contract is $24, it gives them enough to acquire 1 big contract for a playoff run, or a handful of lesser players. This is a solution that's easy to implement as well, as NOT A SINGLE TEAM has a salary above $300 in any future seasons at the moment (and only 1, Nebraska at $326, is over $300 for this season). No one gets burned with this solution. 3. MINOR roster does not count against the cap This idea was toyed with early on in the formation of the league... and may have actually been the situation for awhile? I forget, to be honest. Anyways, I don't like the option for a number of reasons. First, I don't totally understand how not having the MINOR roster count against the cap helps solve the solution we're facing here. It solves it by giving teams a place to stash bad players they don't want to pay anymore? Second, from a managerial stand-point, I've built everything on the spreadsheet with the idea that every player in your franchise costs you cap space, specifically to avoid people having an "easy out" on players they signed recklessly. In order to get rid of a problem contract, you have to either bite the bullet and buy them out, or trade them to someone else while paying a pound-of-flesh with it. Sure, you're finding some relief, but at an added price. Also, going back to the spreadsheet/league management situation, this is a very radical change to the system. Personally, I'm most in favour of option #2.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 29, 2015 15:22:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Melbourne Bushrangers on Aug 29, 2015 15:46:49 GMT -5
Wowee. There are some interesting numbers on that yearly standings thread.
I would prefer a hard cap of $275. But...I wasn't around when this was the norm and people felt things were inflexible.
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Aug 29, 2015 16:10:49 GMT -5
Wouldn't a luxury tax of sorts fix all the issues while requiring least change?
If you implement a rule along the lines of: for every $10 you are over the cap you forfeit a draft pick, and if you have no pick to forfeit you lose out on $10 from the upcoming season? So:
$1-$9 over - 5th round pick the next season OR -$9 the next season $10-$19 over 4th round pick the next season OR -$19 the next season Etc Etc
Cash wise it seems harsh, but it would definitely deter teams from going over unless they were 120% going for it and willing to do so at all costs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 20:02:58 GMT -5
This is a long conversation, so i'll keep my sentiment short, and sweet.
I think if you can get a fellow owner to forego his salary, as he deems draft picks more valuable, and agree to trade his cash to you, fine.
It keeps things more interesting because owners can be more creative in structuring deals, and i don't believe this harms anyone, as the same opportunity can technically be extended to them as well.
|
|
|
Post by Simi Valley Kings on Aug 29, 2015 20:55:54 GMT -5
This is a long conversation, so i'll keep my sentiment short, and sweet. I think if you can get a fellow owner to forego his salary, as he deems draft picks more valuable, and agree to trade his cash to you, fine. It keeps things more interesting because owners can be more creative in structuring deals, and i don't believe this harms anyone, as the same opportunity can technically be extended to them as well. This may be well and good but there is something inherently wrong in giving a team $300 plus to spend on his team. There needs to be restrictions on how much you can spend on your team plain and simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 1:05:05 GMT -5
This is a long conversation, so i'll keep my sentiment short, and sweet. I think if you can get a fellow owner to forego his salary, as he deems draft picks more valuable, and agree to trade his cash to you, fine. It keeps things more interesting because owners can be more creative in structuring deals, and i don't believe this harms anyone, as the same opportunity can technically be extended to them as well. After thinking things over and remembering how difficult it was to make trades before allowing us to trade cap, this is what I agree with. I think the current system works. Honestly I had no idea my team had such a high cap number, but I feel a lot of it came from taking on bad contracts with some cap space thrown in.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 31, 2015 7:31:28 GMT -5
I'd lean towards the hard-cap of $300 option, or an idea like Morweena's proposal with the luxury tax.
The only issues I see with Morweena's proposal:
1) In the current system, every team starts with $275 in salary for every year. That's a league-wide payroll of $3300/year. As teams trade salary throughout the year, their budget varies from the $275 starting point, up and down the scale. However, no matter what, the league-wide payroll stays the same ($3300). That ensures that player values, across the board, stay consistent with the market, as long as that $3300 stays consistent. If we start having money "go to the banker" (to use a Monopoly analogy) by way of cap penalization, that money is coming out of the market and disappearing into the ether. I imagine this could have an impact on player values, similar to something like inflation. Larger player contracts can become more damning to teams as money leaves the $3300 salary pool, as there is less to go around than there was before. Now, I'm not a business major, so this could all just be wild speculation, but if you are more qualified and see holes in my theory, please fill me in. To make a quick real-world example of this: In the NHL, as the cap is tied to Hockey Related Revenue, it fluctuates every season. So far, the cap has only gone up each year, which makes contracts like Duncan Keith at $5.5m/y look better every year. We'd have the opposite effect in our pool, where the overall funds available for salary would only ever go down, which would make larger contracts actually cost a higher% of league salary as the salary money disappeared.
2) Value of draft picks varies for each team, I think there's a lot of people that would sacrifice their draft picks for extra cap flexibility. Are people okay with that? Similar to the league-wide-salary-pool mentioned in the previous point, these draft picks would be going into the ether, not to be used by anyone. At least now, in the current system, those draft picks are going to someone else who sees value in them (presumably to be used). Each manager gets what they want/value more (draft picks to one, salary to the other). I'm not that bothered by this, but it is something to consider.
3) How do we retroactively implement this luxury tax system? There are teams that are already all over the board financially for a few years to come. Do these teams retroactively lose draft picks because they are over the $275 cap? What if they traded those picks to another manager already (does THAT manager lose them instead)?
Personally, I still this the hard $300 cap is the simplest solution to our problem. Make it so the 2015 season has the same rules as previous years (as in no salary control, to keep things fair), but all trades from this point on are not valid if it puts the team over $300 of budget in any year.
Please share your thoughts, people. The sooner we get some decisions here, the sooner that trades with salary can be re-implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2015 7:55:01 GMT -5
Problem with an hard cap of 275$... It will become very hard to make trade.
I was thinking an hard cap of 290$/300$ at the beginning of the year and 325$ after all star break. It gives chance to non qualified team to rebuild with picks/prospects and some trading action. (Still the owner of a player like Oveshkin will have hard time to trade him if he wants)
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 31, 2015 8:04:00 GMT -5
Problem with an hard cap of 275$... It will become very hard to make trade. I was thinking an hard cap of 290$/300$ at the beginning of the year and 325$ after all star break. It gives chance to non qualified team to rebuild with picks/prospects and some trading action. (Still the owner of a player like Oveshkin will have hard time to trade him if he wants) I'd very much like to keep it a hard number all season long, and think it could be complicated if we start offering different limits at different points of the season. People can dictate themselves through the season when/whether they'd like to gain salary by way of trade at points like the all star break and such. In the current proposal, we'd all start with $275 salary to spend each year, but have the ABILITY to trade for salary from other managers, as long as you don't surpass the $300 mark, no matter when in the season/year you do it. As Jack has mentioned, I also think it's important we keep trade ability a priority in this league, and I think the $300 hard cap allows us to keep the flexibility we have currently on making trades, but limits it enough to keep it in line.
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Aug 31, 2015 8:40:33 GMT -5
Good points about the LuxTax. Hadn't thought of that. However I have thought of another, fairly simple solution...
If a trade involves both cash and picks, it must include a player and the cash being send by a manager may not exceed the total from the players contracts being sent by that manager in the trade.
Example:
Valid:
Morweena Sends: Hossa $12/1year 1st overall 2016
Vegas Sends: Benn $50/5years $48 2015
Invalid:
Morweena sends:
Hossa $12/1 year 1st overall 2016
Vegas send: Benn $50/5years $70 2015
|
|
|
Post by Vegas Aces Wild on Aug 31, 2015 9:06:57 GMT -5
I'm in for the $300 Hard Cap. It's simple and easy for everyone to know where they stand throughout the year PLUS it will be waaaaaaaaaaaaay easier on Adam. Of course, I'm not good with any sort of "retroactive" penalties for trades made before this discussion began. And Alex, I think I see what you're trying to say, but I also think that will become too confusing over time. Just out of curiosity...did you bean for your valid bid to be: Morweena Sends: Hossa $12/1year 1st overall 2016 Vegas Sends: Benn $50/5years $38 2015 - (the difference between $50 & $12...not $48... ) And finally...are we implementing this new system immediately? If so, is Tim cool with that seeing as he is the only one over the Max right now??
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Aug 31, 2015 10:01:27 GMT -5
If the cap is $300, why set it at $275 each year? Why not just set it at $300?
|
|