|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 16, 2017 18:01:12 GMT -5
So this is going to come up, and it already has in a way, but we probably need to fix the contract buyouts and rollover money loophole. I am in no way innocent, and many teams have done it, but this past year it was really put to the test where some teams held onto a large amount of cap space until the very end of the year, then bought out contracts. Not only does this remove the player from the payroll for the next season, but since we take the average over/under for weekly cap space and use that for rollover calculations, it can leave teams with a very large rollover amount. As I said, this has been exploited for awhile, but it's always been small so no one said anything. I can guarantee someone is going to say something this year. Travis is still working on some numbers, but what do people think of this. For illustration purposes, here again is the weekly over/under for every team and their weekly average. Look at Baltimore. Because Ty waited until Week 26 to buyout his contracts, he has an average over/under of over $54 million. Because Sean waited to do the same, his is over $17 million. Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions, or are people good with leaving well enough alone?  |
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Nov 16, 2017 19:50:00 GMT -5
So this is going to come up, and it already has in a way, but we probably need to fix the contract buyouts and rollover money loophole. I am in no way innocent, and many teams have done it, but this past year it was really put to the test where some teams held onto a large amount of cap space until the very end of the year, then bought out contracts. Not only does this remove the player from the payroll for the next season, but since we take the average over/under for weekly cap space and use that for rollover calculations, it can leave teams with a very large rollover amount. As I said, this has been exploited for awhile, but it's always been small so no one said anything. I can guarantee someone is going to say something this year. Travis is still working on some numbers, but what do people think of this. For illustration purposes, here again is the weekly over/under for every team and their weekly average. Look at Baltimore. Because Ty waited until Week 26 to buyout his contracts, he has an average over/under of over $54 million. Because Sean waited to do the same, his is over $17 million. Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions, or are people good with leaving well enough alone? Despite being one of the heaviest abusers of this rule in years past, I would be all for eliminating contract buyouts (or only allowing them in the offseason or something, when they could severely impact your budget for a full season) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 20:01:13 GMT -5
Just spitballing, but I would suggest for rollover purposes the calculation would not include any money used to buy out a contract, ie, if an owner held onto 50MM for the entire season and then bought out $48MM worth of contracts at the end of th year then the $48MM would be subtracted from the o/u and the carry forward calculation would be based on $2MM rather than $50.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 16, 2017 20:12:18 GMT -5
Just spitballing, but I would suggest for rollover purposes the calculation would not include any money used to buy out a contract, ie, if an owner held onto 50MM for the entire season and then bought out $48MM worth of contracts at the end of th year then the $48MM would be subtracted from the o/u and the carry forward calculation would be based on $2MM rather than $50. Oh! I like that one. I don't like the idea of eliminating buyouts or confining when they can happen (like MLBSA does), but the idea that any money that was used can't be counted as rollover. Might mean more work for Travis and I though, because it's not always cut and dry. Some teams don't just use their own money for it. For example, Milwaukee used money that was traded to them from Baltimore to buyout Castillo to instead rid himself of several other players. Toronto traded for money at the end of the season to afford those buyouts. I like where this is going, but I want to hear more, which is why I posted on the board. Travis and I have already been emailing back and forth about the issue and I wanted to open it up more. |
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Nov 16, 2017 20:48:49 GMT -5
I need to ask about the calculation in DMBO. I know it is done a little different than here but I think it somehow works something like being discussed into the equation. I know we have a # on our team page that shows Room Salary Cap Base Cash
Salary is your salary spent on your team, Cap is your cap # after traded cash, base is your cap at the beginning of the season (offseason traded cash and calculations figured in), cash is the amount you have acquired/given in trades. The "Room" # isn't the cap-salary. Whomever made it (I don't think they are in the league anymore) has it set so that it is a rolling # that takes into account your cap-salary + what week it is. Is the amount of salary you can acquire on a given week that puts you at 0 cap space.
After week 1 it is just a straight cap-salary but it changes every week once the week is simmed.
I'll see if I can get the formula.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 16, 2017 21:25:15 GMT -5
I need to ask about the calculation in DMBO. I know it is done a little different than here but I think it somehow works something like being discussed into the equation. I know we have a # on our team page that shows Room Salary Cap Base Cash Salary is your salary spent on your team, Cap is your cap # after traded cash, base is your cap at the beginning of the season (offseason traded cash and calculations figured in), cash is the amount you have acquired/given in trades. The "Room" # isn't the cap-salary. Whomever made it (I don't think they are in the league anymore) has it set so that it is a rolling # that takes into account your cap-salary + what week it is. Is the amount of salary you can acquire on a given week that puts you at 0 cap space. After week 1 it is just a straight cap-salary but it changes every week once the week is simmed. I'll see if I can get the formula. If you can send me a copy of the roster file, if it's a spreadsheet, I can try to deconstruct it. Tomorrow is an Admin Day at work, so all the higher ups aren't going to be there (leaving me as the highest ranking person there). So, I either am not going in (and the minions will just think I am at the Admin Day), or if I go in, I don't have shit to do and can work on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Nov 16, 2017 21:58:51 GMT -5
So this is going to come up, and it already has in a way, but we probably need to fix the contract buyouts and rollover money loophole. I am in no way innocent, and many teams have done it, but this past year it was really put to the test where some teams held onto a large amount of cap space until the very end of the year, then bought out contracts. Not only does this remove the player from the payroll for the next season, but since we take the average over/under for weekly cap space and use that for rollover calculations, it can leave teams with a very large rollover amount. As I said, this has been exploited for awhile, but it's always been small so no one said anything. I can guarantee someone is going to say something this year. Travis is still working on some numbers, but what do people think of this. For illustration purposes, here again is the weekly over/under for every team and their weekly average. Look at Baltimore. Because Ty waited until Week 26 to buyout his contracts, he has an average over/under of over $54 million. Because Sean waited to do the same, his is over $17 million. Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions, or are people good with leaving well enough alone? Despite being one of the heaviest abusers of this rule in years past, I would be all for eliminating contract buyouts (or only allowing them in the offseason or something, when they could severely impact your budget for a full season) Couldn't agree more. Ian and I were discussing abuse of rollover money too. I think he felt there should be a cap, while I thought it should be a percentage of your cap. Either way, it's not good for the league. The cap formula I created works, but this abuse is a wrench in it. |
|
|
|
Post by KC Royals Nate on Nov 16, 2017 22:56:30 GMT -5
Just spitballing, but I would suggest for rollover purposes the calculation would not include any money used to buy out a contract, ie, if an owner held onto 50MM for the entire season and then bought out $48MM worth of contracts at the end of th year then the $48MM would be subtracted from the o/u and the carry forward calculation would be based on $2MM rather than $50. When I joined last year, this is how I thought it went. So yeah, I'd be for this |
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Nov 17, 2017 1:17:22 GMT -5
I think the problem is solved simply by capping the rollover amount. Let's face it, if an owner is saving that much money, then they aren't putting it ALL back into the team. They're buying property so they have a place to store their vices. Yachts and blow. Condos and mistresses. Warehouses and candy-filled pinatas. The Cheesecake Factory and various pies. Just some examples.
Just cap the amount you can rollover. It incentivizes teams to spend more. It lets teams buy-out contracts at times that are convenient for them rather than having to remember to buy them out at the end of the season. And since we're still using the weekly averaging system, any team that starts season way above or way below the cap can still realistically get to the rollover cap in the middle of the season via trades and other salary purchasing/dumping.
This also would eliminate the particular type of tanking that Baltimore implemented this year. Tanking for a high draft pick would still be realistic, but you would have to find a better way to make it financially advantageous to your team. Rollover monies would only be a flat number.
I think 10 million is a reasonable amount of money to rollover from one year to the next. I'm glad to have my 17.5+M this coming season because I planned it that way, but I wouldn't be unhappy if a rollover limit was in place. I just would have managed that Baltimore deal a little differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxtim on Nov 17, 2017 1:48:36 GMT -5
Just as there is a salary cap, there should also be a salary floor. There should also be a deadline to buy out players (say, the end of July trade deadline). This way if a team buys out players, it affects at least the last two months of the season and evens things out a bit more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 8:18:03 GMT -5
oh man, was there a loophole where I might have gotten rid of some of the crap on my roster??
I should've read the rules more carefully. sit the hell down Gallardo! and take the bitch Weiters with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Nov 17, 2017 8:44:35 GMT -5
I think the salary cap structure was one of the biggest things I had to wrap my head around when I first joined. I still do not fully understand the concept of having a league with a non level playing field yet hoping for parity. I can fully understand how the previous Philly owner went down the rabbit hole he did and just kept digging. Tanking sucks, but also having $20-40M less than your competition sucks more. Adding this next level of system gaming on top of a system that is already anti real world just seems to tilt the playing field even more.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Nov 17, 2017 10:04:19 GMT -5
I think the salary cap structure was one of the biggest things I had to wrap my head around when I first joined. I still do not fully understand the concept of having a league with a non level playing field yet hoping for parity. I can fully understand how the previous Philly owner went down the rabbit hole he did and just kept digging. Tanking sucks, but also having $20-40M less than your competition sucks more. Adding this next level of system gaming on top of a system that is already anti real world just seems to tilt the playing field even more. We started this with the thinking that it would be easier to mimic the real life spending habits of teams, but it's become more of a problem over time as we gain and retain better gamers. I kinda wish we had a level playing field with a base cap that was shared by every team, but there is no good way to make that conversion. The hard floor/hard cap model is super interesting and can be very challenging. Alas, it's better to try to fix our current system because I have always liked the idea of mimicking the revenue generated by attendance. |
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Nov 17, 2017 10:20:52 GMT -5
I guess I don't understand the modeling of real world spending which is cyclic (see PHI and ATL) by nature but we have made it fixed on a relatively random point in time. Other than the team name, there are no ties with the real world teams, why add this seemingly random data point? Especially one that can directly influence the success of this league. We don't assign any players or draft picks based on the real world team, why use current spending characteristics?
|
|
|
|
Post by sanfran on Nov 17, 2017 10:31:42 GMT -5
Just spitballing, but I would suggest for rollover purposes the calculation would not include any money used to buy out a contract, ie, if an owner held onto 50MM for the entire season and then bought out $48MM worth of contracts at the end of the year then the $48MM would be subtracted from the o/u and the carry forward calculation would be based on $2MM rather than $50. This is how I thought it was working before as well. But there were very few buyouts of more than 4M, mostly around 2M. So it was never an issue I looked into. Not to pick on Ty, but Billy Butler (and a couple other teams) really shows the problem. He saved his money all year to buy Billy out at about 48M of future dollars. I have no problem with that. But by waiving him the last week, he effectively paid him 48M /26 weeks = 1.85M total to get rid of that contract. His weekly balance is fine, but we only calculated one week's salary on that buyout. His average weekly cash on hand is around 50M. Then we subtract 1.85 from his 50M cash on hand and BAL starts next year with 48.15M cash on hand. What I proposed - and I think Hayes is saying - is that BAL can still buyout Butler because his weekly balance can absorb it - but we only charge 2017 during the season. Then in December [now] we remove all the future salary (buyout) from his cash on hand. That way he ends the season with 50M cash minus the 47M buyout and starts next season with 3M cash on hand. Billy Butler gets paid 100% of his salary and the GM pays out 100%. To me that is what the intent of buyout was always meant to be - mirror real life costs. |
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Nov 17, 2017 10:35:42 GMT -5
We're trying to mimic the spending habits of successful teams versus unsuccessful teams. The problem with the model was starting at a fixed point in time instead of starting with a level playing field. It's been fixed somewhat with the current model using a fixed amount per win based on an average number of wins. Real life win totals aren't taken into account.
I'm interested in seeing how teams handle the cycle of winning and losing and how it impacts their revenue. That's why the model was designed initially and why it was fixed to not be dependent on a previous amount of revenue. The cap now uses performance over time to determine each team's cap number. The big loophole is the rollover money that allows teams to artificially boost their cap number for a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Nov 17, 2017 10:37:57 GMT -5
Just spitballing, but I would suggest for rollover purposes the calculation would not include any money used to buy out a contract, ie, if an owner held onto 50MM for the entire season and then bought out $48MM worth of contracts at the end of the year then the $48MM would be subtracted from the o/u and the carry forward calculation would be based on $2MM rather than $50. This is how I thought it was working before as well. But there were very few buyouts of more than 4M, mostly around 2M. So it was never an issue I looked into. Not to pick on Ty, but Billy Butler (and a couple other teams) really shows the problem. He saved his money all year to buy Billy out at about 48M. I have no problem with that. But by waiving him the last week, he effectively paid him 48M /26 weeks = 1.85M total to get rid of that contract. His weekly balance is fine, but we only calculated one week's salary on that buyout. His average weekly cash on hand is around 50M. Then we subtract 1.85 from his 50M cash on hand and BAL starts next year with 48.15M cash on hand. What I proposed - and I think Hayes is saying - is that BAL can still buyout Butler because his weekly balance can absorb it - but we only charge 2017 during the season. Then in December [now] we remove all the future salary (buyout) from his cash on hand. That way he ends the season with 50M cash minus the 47M buyout and starts next season with 3M cash on hand. Billy Butler gets paid 100% of his salary and the GM pays out 100%. To me that is what the intent of buyout was always meant to be - mirror real life costs. That explanation is more clear, and I would be able to work with those parameters. |
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Nov 17, 2017 10:47:41 GMT -5
The problem I still see is that we don't care what the real world team does, we don't draft or utilize ANY players from our counterpart so why pick revenue to tie our teams to them?
We should have a baseline that is level for all teams and then adjust it based ONLY on the success / failure of the owners in this league. There should not be a 50% gap in revenue between the top and bottom teams in this setting. The average base cap was almost $125M. Set that for all teams then come up with a formula for W's over the last 5-10 years to push up or down next years cap. I have no idea how much each win is currently worth. I would like to know that going forward.
I would rather see no carryover of salary. A use it or lose it system which only allows for teams to buyout future salary and cash considerations from trades. This coupled with the previous win for cash system might limit super tank situations and also the rabbit holes that probably got me into this league in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bal-Ty-more on Nov 17, 2017 12:50:27 GMT -5
Just spitballing, but I would suggest for rollover purposes the calculation would not include any money used to buy out a contract, ie, if an owner held onto 50MM for the entire season and then bought out $48MM worth of contracts at the end of the year then the $48MM would be subtracted from the o/u and the carry forward calculation would be based on $2MM rather than $50. This is how I thought it was working before as well. But there were very few buyouts of more than 4M, mostly around 2M. So it was never an issue I looked into. Not to pick on Ty, but Billy Butler (and a couple other teams) really shows the problem. He saved his money all year to buy Billy out at about 48M of future dollars. I have no problem with that. But by waiving him the last week, he effectively paid him 48M /26 weeks = 1.85M total to get rid of that contract. His weekly balance is fine, but we only calculated one week's salary on that buyout. His average weekly cash on hand is around 50M. Then we subtract 1.85 from his 50M cash on hand and BAL starts next year with 48.15M cash on hand. What I proposed - and I think Hayes is saying - is that BAL can still buyout Butler because his weekly balance can absorb it - but we only charge 2017 during the season. Then in December [now] we remove all the future salary (buyout) from his cash on hand. That way he ends the season with 50M cash minus the 47M buyout and starts next season with 3M cash on hand. Billy Butler gets paid 100% of his salary and the GM pays out 100%. To me that is what the intent of buyout was always meant to be - mirror real life costs. I would be in favor of changing the rule, but we've never changed rules after the fact and then imposed them retroactively. If I operated my team outside the rules, that would be one thing, but I didn't. I operated within the confines of the rules but now people are talking about changing the rules to specifically target me because they don't like that I exploited a loophole that almost everyone knew about. People have been saying for years that we should have a cap on rollover amount because they were afraid of a team holding onto a lot of their money one year to roll it over and have a big cap the next season. The majority were fine with that happening since it would be a one year boost. Now that it's actually come to fruition though people are up in arms about it. Let's change the rules, but don't punish a team for doing what was allowed. I would have done things differently if the rule was different. How can you expect us to run our teams when you threaten to change the rules and apply those rules to actions we've already made? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 13:31:28 GMT -5
The problem I still see is that we don't care what the real world team does, we don't draft or utilize ANY players from our counterpart so why pick revenue to tie our teams to them? We should have a baseline that is level for all teams and then adjust it based ONLY on the success / failure of the owners in this league. There should not be a 50% gap in revenue between the top and bottom teams in this setting. The average base cap was almost $125M. Set that for all teams then come up with a formula for W's over the last 5-10 years to push up or down next years cap. I have no idea how much each win is currently worth. I would like to know that going forward. I would rather see no carryover of salary. A use it or lose it system which only allows for teams to buyout future salary and cash considerations from trades. This coupled with the previous win for cash system might limit super tank situations and also the rabbit holes that probably got me into this league in the first place. The Phillies cap has no ties to the Phillies and only to the average wins over the past 5 years. The league is operating the way you are arguing it should. Your problem is just that the previous owner did a crappy job of managing. |
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Nov 17, 2017 16:09:50 GMT -5
The problem I still see is that we don't care what the real world team does, we don't draft or utilize ANY players from our counterpart so why pick revenue to tie our teams to them? We should have a baseline that is level for all teams and then adjust it based ONLY on the success / failure of the owners in this league. There should not be a 50% gap in revenue between the top and bottom teams in this setting. The average base cap was almost $125M. Set that for all teams then come up with a formula for W's over the last 5-10 years to push up or down next years cap. I have no idea how much each win is currently worth. I would like to know that going forward. I would rather see no carryover of salary. A use it or lose it system which only allows for teams to buyout future salary and cash considerations from trades. This coupled with the previous win for cash system might limit super tank situations and also the rabbit holes that probably got me into this league in the first place. The Phillies cap has no ties to the Phillies and only to the average wins over the past 5 years. The league is operating the way you are arguing it should. Your problem is just that the previous owner did a crappy job of managing. Yeah, what Hayes said with some other key details. It's a sliding scale on the snapshot of the last 5 years, with the most recent year carrying the most weight, then descending for each previous year of the 5 year snapshot. The league operates on the premise of allocating the same exact sum of total payroll as MLB did the previous year, but is distributed based on those weighted results. It's as fair now as can be and each GM is in control of his cap fate. |
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Nov 17, 2017 18:20:33 GMT -5
This is how I thought it was working before as well. But there were very few buyouts of more than 4M, mostly around 2M. So it was never an issue I looked into. Not to pick on Ty, but Billy Butler (and a couple other teams) really shows the problem. He saved his money all year to buy Billy out at about 48M of future dollars. I have no problem with that. But by waiving him the last week, he effectively paid him 48M /26 weeks = 1.85M total to get rid of that contract. His weekly balance is fine, but we only calculated one week's salary on that buyout. His average weekly cash on hand is around 50M. Then we subtract 1.85 from his 50M cash on hand and BAL starts next year with 48.15M cash on hand. What I proposed - and I think Hayes is saying - is that BAL can still buyout Butler because his weekly balance can absorb it - but we only charge 2017 during the season. Then in December [now] we remove all the future salary (buyout) from his cash on hand. That way he ends the season with 50M cash minus the 47M buyout and starts next season with 3M cash on hand. Billy Butler gets paid 100% of his salary and the GM pays out 100%. To me that is what the intent of buyout was always meant to be - mirror real life costs. I would be in favor of changing the rule, but we've never changed rules after the fact and then imposed them retroactively. If I operated my team outside the rules, that would be one thing, but I didn't. I operated within the confines of the rules but now people are talking about changing the rules to specifically target me because they don't like that I exploited a loophole that almost everyone knew about. People have been saying for years that we should have a cap on rollover amount because they were afraid of a team holding onto a lot of their money one year to roll it over and have a big cap the next season. The majority were fine with that happening since it would be a one year boost. Now that it's actually come to fruition though people are up in arms about it. Let's change the rules, but don't punish a team for doing what was allowed. I would have done things differently if the rule was different. How can you expect us to run our teams when you threaten to change the rules and apply those rules to actions we've already made? If we were to implement a new method of cap space rollover, I would vote for it not being put into action until the 2018 season (after this offseason). Otherwise it would be unfair to BAL/MIL who made moves over the past 12 months with the current rules in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Nov 17, 2017 18:21:25 GMT -5
Like I said, this is the one area I understand the least about this league. I see 50% less payroll than the top teams and I assume something is out of whack. Then I see the Philly transaction history and can see the thought process of his actions, completely wrong for the system of this league, but clear to see nonetheless.
I definitely misunderstood where the BeerCrew was going with his points. I thought he meant it was an active system.
It still seems a little aggressive considering the hard cap no floor but virtually unlimited rollover. It artificially extends the life of successful teams who can over supplement rosters with high end talent and suppresses rebuilding franchises that need talent to make the next jump on the competitive scale.
My fear is I will build my franchise and slowly gain wins each year but never have the payroll to really leap as a title contender until years into my success at which point my talent will begin to go away through attrition and the window will close on the rebuild success without the salary for the extra player or two to be a top end team. Conversely high end teams can tank, rebuild and save to not miss a beat and have plenty of payroll to buy talent to sustain a higher payroll and outbid teams like me every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 17, 2017 19:21:51 GMT -5
My fear is I will build my franchise and slowly gain wins each year but never have the payroll to really leap as a title contender until years into my success at which point my talent will begin to go away through attrition and the window will close on the rebuild success without the salary for the extra player or two to be a top end team. Conversely high end teams can tank, rebuild and save to not miss a beat and have plenty of payroll to buy talent to sustain a higher payroll and outbid teams like me every time. I will try to explain to the best of my knowledge. I'll let others correct any mistakes I make. So, the founders of this league in 2003 used 2002's salary numbers for each team and framed the league that way. When Sean (MIL) wrestled control away from those idiots we stayed the course. A couple years ago we realized we were going down the wrong path and Travis (SF) along with Mark (TEX) and a few others implemented a new system. I had little to do with it because number crunching isn't my strong suit. I can throw in theories and ideas, but after that I'm as useless as tits on a pig. Now, your current salary cap has no bearing on future salary cap with the exception of limkiting your ability to build a team. Each off-season we take the average team salaries of all 30 real life teams and use that as our average. Then, based on your last five sim seasons, weighted heavier for recent seasons, we create new salary caps for all 30 teams using a percentage corresponding to your win% over or under over the last five years. Hope that made sense. I had a kid screaming in each ear while typing. Others can probably put more detail into it. But just know if you build a winner, your current cap will not hold back your chance of having a higher future cap. They are independent of each other. |
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 17, 2017 20:22:49 GMT -5
If we were to implement a new method of cap space rollover, I would vote for it not being put into action until the 2018 season (after this offseason). Otherwise it would be unfair to BAL/MIL who made moves over the past 12 months with the current rules in mind. I can't see myself ever voting for a rule change that punishes a team that operates within the rules. I don't like retroactive rule changes. |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 18, 2017 5:00:15 GMT -5
This is how I thought it was working before as well. But there were very few buyouts of more than 4M, mostly around 2M. So it was never an issue I looked into. Not to pick on Ty, but Billy Butler (and a couple other teams) really shows the problem. He saved his money all year to buy Billy out at about 48M of future dollars. I have no problem with that. But by waiving him the last week, he effectively paid him 48M /26 weeks = 1.85M total to get rid of that contract. His weekly balance is fine, but we only calculated one week's salary on that buyout. His average weekly cash on hand is around 50M. Then we subtract 1.85 from his 50M cash on hand and BAL starts next year with 48.15M cash on hand. What I proposed - and I think Hayes is saying - is that BAL can still buyout Butler because his weekly balance can absorb it - but we only charge 2017 during the season. Then in December [now] we remove all the future salary (buyout) from his cash on hand. That way he ends the season with 50M cash minus the 47M buyout and starts next season with 3M cash on hand. Billy Butler gets paid 100% of his salary and the GM pays out 100%. To me that is what the intent of buyout was always meant to be - mirror real life costs. I would be in favor of changing the rule, but we've never changed rules after the fact and then imposed them retroactively. If I operated my team outside the rules, that would be one thing, but I didn't. I operated within the confines of the rules but now people are talking about changing the rules to specifically target me because they don't like that I exploited a loophole that almost everyone knew about. People have been saying for years that we should have a cap on rollover amount because they were afraid of a team holding onto a lot of their money one year to roll it over and have a big cap the next season. The majority were fine with that happening since it would be a one year boost. Now that it's actually come to fruition though people are up in arms about it. Let's change the rules, but don't punish a team for doing what was allowed. I would have done things differently if the rule was different. How can you expect us to run our teams when you threaten to change the rules and apply those rules to actions we've already made? 1. You’ve bragged all year about what you were doing. 2. When the rule was created, people did not realize it would be abused to this degree, as others have said. JIm |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 18, 2017 5:02:06 GMT -5
If we were to implement a new method of cap space rollover, I would vote for it not being put into action until the 2018 season (after this offseason). Otherwise it would be unfair to BAL/MIL who made moves over the past 12 months with the current rules in mind. I can't see myself ever voting for a rule change that punishes a team that operates within the rules. I don't like retroactive rule changes. In fairness though, that’s exactly what shortening the CE time from 2-year extensions down to only +1 did. JIm |
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 18, 2017 11:29:32 GMT -5
I can't see myself ever voting for a rule change that punishes a team that operates within the rules. I don't like retroactive rule changes. In fairness though, that’s exactly what shortening the CE time from 2-year extensions down to only +1 did. JIm No. That would have been taking existing CEs and shortening them to make them comply with the change. We let them stand as they were. Just as we did old pre-existing options. We have them as no buyout costs. All these rules we're talking about weren't changed retroactively, they were changed going forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 19, 2017 7:10:16 GMT -5
Not entirely. For GMs that had acquired specific players based on the ability to extend to +2, they were out of luck.
My intent is not to start another CE scuffle, but only to point out that rulings like this have happened before. You aren’t making Ty retroactively give back money or sell players off, but you can tell him an advantage is no longer available.
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by sanfran on Nov 19, 2017 13:07:58 GMT -5
I agree that retroactive rules changes are horrible. This however, I feel is a gross violation of the spirit of the rules. And I truly think people should consider whether we are truly harming the affected teams if we enforce the spirit of the rule while fixing the effect going forward. Alternately, we can offer teams that weren't aware of this exception a possible alternative.
Problem:
Say a team signed a player from 2017-2020 for 15M per year. That's a 60M contract. If that player retired or became worthless, do you waive or buyout?
Waive during 2017 (or any year) pay the full salary as if he is on the roster, but does not use a roster spot. Cost: 60M over 4 years.
Buyout last week of 2017 - Cost = 15.577M Plus carry over 44.5M cash to next season.
Buyout effective at the end of the season (proposed rule) Cost = 60M. 15M in 2017 + 45M cash spent after season.
It's immensely clear two of these options payout full contract value, the other is a ridiculous math error.
The reason I don't think enacting the correction now affects the teams is because they are required to have the cash to buyout those contracts. Should we enact the proper rule, the cash is spent instead of saved to apply to next season (cash is one time money).
So to make this equitable, we can also allow 2 options. If we enforce full value now, then those teams buying out a player can choose to re-instate a waived player at their previously negotiated salary, no harm no foul.
OR if we want to keep the buyout rule as is for this offseaon - allow teams that did not know about this stupid loophole - and who have cash - to buyout a player now (as if it was the last week of season) and before the off-season roster is released. This is a one-time only exception, and teams can spend down to the -5.0M cash per rule.
Please consider the proper action.
|
|
