|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 31, 2015 10:18:04 GMT -5
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?? 2015 would be the same as last year, with unlimited salary trading for 2015 budgets. Any trade that involves salary for a future year that brings a team's total salary spent above $300 is invalid. If the cap is $300, why set it at $275 each year? Why not just set it at $300? So salary can still be exchanged in deals so as to not stagnate the league's trade market. $275 "budget", $300 "cap".
|
|
|
Post by Vegas Aces Wild on Aug 31, 2015 10:25:16 GMT -5
Got it! Thanks Commish
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2015 11:36:48 GMT -5
What about teams that dump players for EL's... Is there really any difference!
I like the system as is. I know my team seems ridiculous this year (in cap) but that's only because I traded for unwanted players and got cap relief in return.
More importantly, can someone explain to me how Doig's deal makes sense? Seems completely one sided to me. Or at leastmoatly one sided.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2015 15:06:56 GMT -5
Sorry, took me awhile to read the whole thread.
First off, I'm confused by the "$275/ Budget; $300/ Cap" notion. That makes the cap $300, right? So why should I care about $275? If we decide that we should have a hard cap, then it's a hard cap. Period.
As someone who may have started all of this, I didn't think it would get to be so big. I understand the notion that all of us should be starting at the same point, and it is through good management that we are able to field good teams. We have options to ease salary cap burdens- terminating EL contracts with no penalty, buy outs- so we have those opportunities to use to manage our cap.
As someone who was very quickly out bid on any big players thanks to a big dumb contract, sure, I could use an extra $25-$50 this season and the next. And with the huge cap space I had last season, I used it to acquire players and draft picks. It was within the rules at the time, but I have zero problem with those rules changing immediately. If we institute a hard $275 cap for next season and outlaw future "cash" trades, I am all for it.
We should be able to RETAIN salary for traded players to allow some movement (I had to do this last year), and that allows some flexibility in moving expiring contracts for "rentals."
So, if we are voting, I say a hard cap- $275 or $300, but pick one, and allowing retaining salary on traded players for the remainder of the current season.
|
|
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 15:18:40 GMT -5
I'm in favor of a hard cap at $275. I think Mandalore and Melbourne also voted in favor of that so that's three. Trades would be tougher, that's true, but as my trade with Dynamo proved they would still be possible and the trades that did happen would keep the league fair.
Paul (Simi Valley) likes to pretend he was the upstart, plucky group of underdogs last year but he had a budget of $322. I had an absurd budget of $420(!!!) and both of our rosters were loaded with talent. It wasn't fair then, it's not fair now and as someone who is just as guilty of exploiting this as anyone else I'd like to see it end. $275 is very easy for Adam to enforce, it forces all of us to think twice when bidding on free agents or making trades and any stagnation in the trade market will be more than offset by fairness to the integrity of the league and the whole idea behind a salary cap. When teams can make huge salary increases at the trade deadline it changes the whole landscape of the league in the last month and that's not fair.
$275 is fair to all of us, easy to enforce and is most similar to the NHL. A vote for a $275 hard cap is a vote for fairness!
|
|
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 15:23:46 GMT -5
On a whole different topic, we can change the buyout rules to be similar to the NHL to help us all manage the cap. The cash is spread out as equally as possible over twice the number of years left. If I bought out Patrick Kane ($25 / 1y) he'd cost me $13 this year and $12 next year and then would be off my books. If I bought out Brent Burns ($25 / 5y) he'd cost me $13 for the first five years and $12 for the second five years. That would give us the flexibility to instantly add cap and roster space without allowing us to truly avoid the cap ramifications of a bad contract.
|
|
|
Post by Melbourne Bushrangers on Aug 31, 2015 16:00:35 GMT -5
I just think if we go with a $275 budget and $300 cap, then $300 is the cap. That just means we see 10% inflation on FA's by teams who are going for it and 10% inflation on how much money is sent to cover a bad contract by teams happy to trade down for higher picks.
I'll vote for a final cap of $275 (or $300 - whatever - they will both result in the same after inflation sets in). Let's not mess about with any 'budget' or secondary numbers which soon become irrelevant.
|
|
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 16:03:57 GMT -5
The problem with the $275 budget / $300 cap is this - it's only applicable to half the league.
There is a finite amount of money available each season. 12 teams with $275 to spend = $3,300. If six teams make trades to reach the $300 cap ($1,800) then the other six have just $1,500 to divide amongst themselves - an average of $250 per team. So half the league could spend $300, the other half could spend $250 and that's not fair. That's what MLB is and it's not fair or fun.
Keeping teams at $275, while allowing them some cap relief in the form of buyouts (as I explained above) is fair to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Simi Valley Kings on Aug 31, 2015 16:44:07 GMT -5
First of all, "plucky"? I vote to immediately have that stricken from the record.
As for the cap, I believe I have made my position clear. I support setting the cap at a number and making that number stick. In looking at each teams financial numbers $275 seems to be fair. Most, if not all the teams, can make that number work in the next year or two depending on when implemented.
The Champs have spoken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2015 19:44:33 GMT -5
Hmmmm i personally love trading cap for picks, but it does make sense to restrict that. I'm in for it, but we should talk more where to draw the line.
Edit: side note while on the topic of cash, i think the minimum bid per player should be increased to atleast $2/year. Minimum salary in the nhl is 575k, with thr cap at 71.4m that would be about 2.4 units of our cap. We should increase that to level the field.
On another note i think the static cap could use some spicing up. I'd love a small element of randomness, with a +/- percentage salary cap swing each season. Would make EL contracts more important for the league to function as some teams dont really bother with rookies.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 31, 2015 23:38:19 GMT -5
No one but me seems to be addressing how to implemented any of this. Ideas and theory are great and all, but if you are proposing something, you also have to explain how to implement it and how it impacts the existing landscape that we face. $275 budget and $300 cap is very, very easy to implement. If we put a hard cap solely at $275/$300, how do we introduce this fairly considering salary has been exchanged in our league up to the 2018 season already? If we put in a hard cap at $300, what, does that mean every team in the league will now get an extra $25 in salary from here on out? This late in Free Agency? Adding extra salary to spend for everyone right now throws things out of whack. Now for some responses: What about teams that dump players for EL's... Is there really any difference! More importantly, can someone explain to me how Doig's deal makes sense? Seems completely one sided to me. Or at leastmoatly one sided. People aren't "dumping" players for ELs. They are trading TERM players for prospects in return. Player value is subjective, and based on a number of different factors. Teams like Nebraska value TERM players over ELs and draft picks, teams like Vegas value the opposite, and there are range of managers throughout the spectrum. They wouldn't be making the deals if they didn't feel the compensation coming back was fair value. In Dynamo's case (I'm speaking from experience in talking trade with him the last week), he is focusing on exchanging his short-term signees for young players that he can build a longterm core around. He has made this very public he last few months. First off, I'm confused by the "$275/ Budget; $300/ Cap" notion. That makes the cap $300, right? So why should I care about $275? If we decide that we should have a hard cap, then it's a hard cap. Period. Budget of $275 is how much spendable salary each team has (and has had for a number of seasons) to start. However, if they would like to acquire more salary for a given season (in taking on expensive contracts from other teams, for spending in Free Agency, etc) they are allowed to take other teams' cash/salary in trades as long as it doesn't put them over $300 total in a given gear. You care about $275 because that is the salary that every team (including yours) starts (/has started) with each season. You can only ever acquire up to $25 more in a year by exchanging other assets to another team, in exchange for some of their $275. We should be able to RETAIN salary for traded players to allow some movement (I had to do this last year), and that allows some flexibility in moving expiring contracts for "rentals." The $275 Budget, $300 Cap system I'm talking about still allows player salary to be retained, but only to a point that doesn't put a team over $300 spent in any given year. It's just not tied directly to a lone player's salary. Trying to manage all this with portions of players salaries directly would be an absolute mess. These systems compliance the same thing, just with simpler solutions. On a whole different topic, we can change the buyout rules to be similar to the NHL to help us all manage the cap. The cash is spread out as equally as possible over twice the number of years left. I'd like to keep things on topic, especially in this thread. However, the quick answer is "No". This league is designed to only cover the salaries through 5 years (2015/2016/2017/2018/2019 for this season, for example). The spreadsheet is also built around that increment. Someone buying out a 5y contract this season would has implications that go all the way to 2024, and that's hell to remember to manage. The current system keels people honest, and punishes them for being reckless with the amount of years offered to their free agents. The problem with the $275 budget / $300 cap is this - it's only applicable to half the league. There is a finite amount of money available each season. 12 teams with $275 to spend = $3,300. If six teams make trades to reach the $300 cap ($1,800) then the other six have just $1,500 to divide amongst themselves - an average of $250 per team. So half the league could spend $300, the other half could spend $250 and that's not fair. That's what MLB is and it's not fair or fun. Though I think the example of 6 teams trading up to a $300 payroll and the other 6 all trading down to a $250 payroll is extreme and unlikely, I still think it would be fair either way. Those teams that are giving up some of their $275 salary are being compensated for it in some other way. Be it draft picks, prospects, or getting out of a bad contract. Because there is a more limited, finite amount of salary that can be moved, people will not be as willy-nilly about trading salary away like they have been previously. People acquiring salary above $275 will be paying a price to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 31, 2015 23:43:22 GMT -5
Long-story short:
A $275 budget/$300 cap system is exactly what we have now, but with a limit of how much salary you can acquire to keep things reasonable. It's easy to implement, easy to enforce, and easy to learn. It restricts people from getting too much of a short term advantage, while also allowing us the flexibility needed to keep our trade market healthy and thriving.
I do not see a downside to this whatsoever.
The $300 mark is easily adjusted if that's the sticking point for people.
|
|
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 23:52:23 GMT -5
Any deals already made for this, or future, seasons must be allowed to stand. Beyond that, though, no new deals will be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Sept 1, 2015 0:38:25 GMT -5
Any deals already made for this, or suture, seasons must be allowed to stand. Beyond that, though, no new deals will be allowed. Which is a reason why I think $275 Budget/$300 Cap system works well for us. From 2016 and and on, not a single team has a payroll over $300 at the moment. This can be implemented with all teams across the board for years to come and everyone is already compliant with it. No retroactive adjustments or outliers from day 1. With the other systems put forth, I don't see a way to implement them without having people with an advantage over others (doing deals before the change) or penalizing them for making deals that were valid in the old system but wouldn't be in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas Aces Wild on Sept 1, 2015 8:10:38 GMT -5
Great explanations here Commish and Vegas is on board for the $275 Budget/$300 Cap system to take effect whenever agreed upon.
|
|