|
Post by Arizona on Dec 12, 2018 18:55:59 GMT -5
This was brought up by Pat in the thread about league turnover. It usually works better if a specific topic has its own thread.
It does seem kind of crazy that teams can carry over tens of millions to the next year.
I like the progressive aspect of it now. If you have a small surplus, you get to keep all of it for the next year.
I propose:
Up to $5M, you keep all of your overage Then half of the amount over that, up to $15M in surplus the previous year.
That way, the most anyone gets to rollover is $10M (All of your first $5M, then half of the next $10M)
This would of course be for next offseason, since the roster is already released.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Dec 12, 2018 19:26:39 GMT -5
I like the idea of a cap, but I think it should be more flexable for the bottom tier of payroll teams.
Something like up to $10-15M if below league average payroll and no more than $5-10M if above league average.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Dec 12, 2018 22:46:27 GMT -5
I thought this got fixed after the Baltimore fiasco?! WTF guys!
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Dec 12, 2018 22:52:03 GMT -5
This was brought up by Pat in the thread about league turnover. It usually works better if a specific topic has its own thread. It does seem kind of crazy that teams can carry over tens of millions to the next year. I like the progressive aspect of it now. If you have a small surplus, you get to keep all of it for the next year. I propose: Up to $5M, you keep all of your overage Then half of the amount over that, up to $15M in surplus the previous year. That way, the most anyone gets to rollover is $10M (All of your first $5M, then half of the next $10M) This would of course be for next offseason, since the roster is already released. Thoughts? I agree and have been saying to Ian this very point since I created the system for the league in 2015. The system models the exact total mlb payroll figures from the previous season. I don't feel that the league should be flooded with hoarded money. That's not to say I don't believe that teams should be able to save money for a run in the next season, but saved money needs to be luxury taxed. The performance based, win-share, program should keep as at our base cap and anything over that is creating an artificial inflation v the exact amount of money that real mlb spends. If I was to tweak anything, it would be to luxury tax everything over $10M and an extra tax if you hoard it in back to back seasons. Like has been said here, not this season, but starting next year. The only solace we can take right now is there is about 300M less money available v this time last year and a bumper crop of FA that will eat some of this up. The fix is somewhat easy and, with a 1 year advanced notice, won't harm anyone. Find a luxury tax percentage over 10M, one for over 20M and then make it a 50% tax on anyone that stashes more than X amount (20M?) two straight years. This stops inflation on contracts, cash buying draft picks and valuable assets too easily and gets this "dead money" off the books, while keeping us in line with the true $ spent by MLB owners. Right now, it's an ugly loophole that is disfiguring a very functional cap system.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Dec 12, 2018 23:13:12 GMT -5
Just one more time. I swear to gravy that this issue was supposed to be addressed after the Baltimore tanking. There were a series of posts about it. I just thought it had gotten taken care of. Gerbil crispies!
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Dec 13, 2018 10:21:54 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought it was addressed too.
|
|
|
Post by bigredmachine on Dec 13, 2018 10:37:38 GMT -5
For the record, I didnt really want to carry over all this money but I did because no one would take it from me. I spent 11 mil on Dixon Machado last year just to get rid of some of it. I flat out offered to buy picks and players but no one was interested. I think the "problem" seems worse than it is due to only having 27 mil in contracts on the books as well. I still would've had 100mm in free cash with all the expiring deals coming off my books. The money was in plain sight all season, its funny to me how its just now a problem.
If I was a real MLB team and wanted to put that money in the bank, I'd be able to use it any time I'd want. The current system seems to properly adjust for pv/fv of money and/or taxes so I'd hate to change the system because it appears unfair. My team needed a drastic rebuild so I took drastic measures. I'd hate to see any other manager not be able to take the same course of action if they wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Dec 13, 2018 11:53:15 GMT -5
If I was a real MLB team and wanted to put that money in the bank, I'd be able to use it any time I'd want. The current system seems to properly adjust for pv/fv of money and/or taxes so I'd hate to change the system because it appears unfair. My team needed a drastic rebuild so I took drastic measures. I'd hate to see any other manager not be able to take the same course of action if they wanted to. If I was a real MLB team there would be no NCAA like sanctions artificially penalizing me in terms of payroll for the sins of the previous GM. Also being a top 10 market by just about any benchmark I'd have another 100M of spending power each year. The current system is artificial by just about any measure. We use MLB payroll, yet have a salary cap. We also use that value to calculate a base cap which is adjusted for success, yet then add on 100% of the carryover which re-balances the "balancing on merit" portion of the system to balance based on stashing. Granted none of this is your fault or problem, it is they system we are a part of. It should be considered when you look at GM turnover. Of the 12 GM changes in just the past few years (including now) only 2 are from the top 15 payroll teams. Only 5 of the bottom half payroll teams have seen stable ownership. There is something in the system that breeds failure which creates turnover.
|
|
Whitesox
AAA
I'm just here for the free kool-aid
Posts: 773
|
Post by Whitesox on Dec 13, 2018 13:13:14 GMT -5
For the record, I didnt really want to carry over all this money but I did because no one would take it from me. I spent 11 mil on Dixon Machado last year just to get rid of some of it. I flat out offered to buy picks and players but no one was interested. I think the "problem" seems worse than it is due to only having 27 mil in contracts on the books as well. I still would've had 100mm in free cash with all the expiring deals coming off my books. The money was in plain sight all season, its funny to me how its just now a problem. If I was a real MLB team and wanted to put that money in the bank, I'd be able to use it any time I'd want. The current system seems to properly adjust for pv/fv of money and/or taxes so I'd hate to change the system because it appears unfair. My team needed a drastic rebuild so I took drastic measures. I'd hate to see any other manager not be able to take the same course of action if they wanted to. I dont blame you at all Colby. There is just no realistic possibility that Uncle Sam would tax a team with 70M in holdover money a measly 15%.
|
|
|
Post by bigredmachine on Dec 13, 2018 13:24:03 GMT -5
If I was a real MLB team and wanted to put that money in the bank, I'd be able to use it any time I'd want. The current system seems to properly adjust for pv/fv of money and/or taxes so I'd hate to change the system because it appears unfair. My team needed a drastic rebuild so I took drastic measures. I'd hate to see any other manager not be able to take the same course of action if they wanted to. If I was a real MLB team there would be no NCAA like sanctions artificially penalizing me in terms of payroll for the sins of the previous GM. Also being a top 10 market by just about any benchmark I'd have another 100M of spending power each year. The current system is artificial by just about any measure. We use MLB payroll, yet have a salary cap. We also use that value to calculate a base cap which is adjusted for success, yet then add on 100% of the carryover which re-balances the "balancing on merit" portion of the system to balance based on stashing. Granted none of this is your fault or problem, it is they system we are a part of. It should be considered when you look at GM turnover. Of the 12 GM changes in just the past few years (including now) only 2 are from the top 15 payroll teams. Only 5 of the bottom half payroll teams have seen stable ownership. There is something in the system that breeds failure which creates turnover. It seems like more than just the rollover needs to be looked at then. Maybe its as simple as not factoring in carryover from the previous season when establishing the base cap? For example, when my 2020 base salary is factored, the starting figure would be 139.672 instead of 199.225. I agree the system is far from perfect. I don't think its necessarily all the fault of the economic system that lower tier teams leave but it certainly doesn't help that you cant increase your money until you become a winner. When I came into the league I took over a low level contender. I tried to do a slow rebuild but when I saw how much it killed your cap space, I started trading all my prospects to win in order to increase cap since it was the only way to really do so. I will say though, those that have stayed have certainly raised the level of GM intelligence from when I came into this league. It was far too easy to exploit some of the weaker owners in the past which only compounded the problem.
|
|
|
Post by bigredmachine on Dec 13, 2018 13:25:56 GMT -5
For the record, I didnt really want to carry over all this money but I did because no one would take it from me. I spent 11 mil on Dixon Machado last year just to get rid of some of it. I flat out offered to buy picks and players but no one was interested. I think the "problem" seems worse than it is due to only having 27 mil in contracts on the books as well. I still would've had 100mm in free cash with all the expiring deals coming off my books. The money was in plain sight all season, its funny to me how its just now a problem. If I was a real MLB team and wanted to put that money in the bank, I'd be able to use it any time I'd want. The current system seems to properly adjust for pv/fv of money and/or taxes so I'd hate to change the system because it appears unfair. My team needed a drastic rebuild so I took drastic measures. I'd hate to see any other manager not be able to take the same course of action if they wanted to. I dont blame you at all Colby. There is just no realistic possibility that Uncle Sam would tax a team with 70M in holdover money a measly 15%. Well currently in the US, its a flat rate of 21% so its not that far off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2018 14:42:26 GMT -5
The fan backlash if you had a 60 mil payroll and pocketed 100 mil would be insane. We dont have to deal with that so we can manipulate player experience and hoard cash moreso than a real life mlb team. We are struggling with this in my other league. How do we get each team to put its best roster at the mlb level
|
|
|
Post by rockiesgm on Dec 13, 2018 15:10:39 GMT -5
The fan backlash if you had a 60 mil payroll and pocketed 100 mil would be insane. As a Pirate fan (I use that term loosely nowadays), I can assure this happens every year in real life. F Bob Nutting.
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Dec 13, 2018 16:23:57 GMT -5
How do we get each team to put its best roster at the mlb level Do real life teams put their best possible MLB roster together? It may not be to the level that Ty did a few years ago, but you often hear of teams keeping likely MLB-ready prospects down at least a few months to delay their clock. It sucks, but it happens.
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Dec 13, 2018 16:42:24 GMT -5
I would not really lump in the 15 day hold back to gain the extra year as a means of stashing. The union would never allow for a player like Kris Bryant to be demoted in year 3 or in all reality a 27 year old with 5 years experience to still be a XXX without ever playing a game. The rule V/option rules are a protection against players like Polanco sitting for 5 years or Bryant for even 1.
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Dec 13, 2018 17:20:50 GMT -5
I'm not singling out anyone here. The base cap system is working perfectly. We just need to tax "free cash" just like a millionaire's revenue would be. On top of that, find a way to stop it being hoarded for more than one season, ie luxury tax penalties.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals on Dec 13, 2018 22:17:53 GMT -5
Using MLB playing time to start the arbitration clock would force teams to play their best player.
Say for instance:
Players with 175 ABs or a pitcher with 25IP, or 75IP if a player recorded a GS. Those are your threshholds for starting time.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Dec 14, 2018 1:45:49 GMT -5
I'm on board with taxing carry-over money. That not only seems fair, but a realistic solution to the problem. Colby is correct with his assessment of his roster. He would have still had a ton of money available. That's not what I'm clambering about.
I don't think the system breeds failure as much as it might not reward progress for teams going thru a rebuild process. Part of the continued success of some GMs is their skill in the draft which has allowed them excess resources. Many of the long standing and winning-est GMs have turned those resources into additional high round picks. Those resources have very little to do with the financials and a lot to do with GMs like myself that made poor decisions.
As far as "stashing" goes, I would be in favor of finding a formula that forces a clock on players, but not in order to mirror real-life. Greg Polanco is an extreme case, but I don't think he should be in his 4th or 5th year. He probably should have been forced onto a roster a season or 2 ago when he had fully established himself.
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Dec 14, 2018 9:21:39 GMT -5
I'm on board with taxing carry-over money. That not only seems fair, but a realistic solution to the problem. Colby is correct with his assessment of his roster. He would have still had a ton of money available. That's not what I'm clambering about. I don't think the system breeds failure as much as it might not reward progress for teams going thru a rebuild process. Part of the continued success of some GMs is their skill in the draft which has allowed them excess resources. Many of the long standing and winning-est GMs have turned those resources into additional high round picks. Those resources have very little to do with the financials and a lot to do with GMs like myself that made poor decisions. As far as "stashing" goes, I would be in favor of finding a formula that forces a clock on players, but not in order to mirror real-life. Greg Polanco is an extreme case, but I don't think he should be in his 4th or 5th year. He probably should have been forced onto a roster a season or 2 ago when he had fully established himself. The only way I'll get on board with some kind of mechanic like this is if it mirrors real life, i.e. 40 man roster, options, and rule 5 draft. I don't like the idea behind forcing someone onto a roster. It should be entirely up to the GM, but with mechanics in place that encourage not stashing someone forever. As far as carryover money, the problem is that in real life, it would all be pocketed by the owner rather than put back into the salary figure. I don't know what the answer is.
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Dec 17, 2018 11:41:36 GMT -5
COPIED FROM OTHER THREAD:
My proposal is forget about the requirement to tell someone who they have to have on their roster. As far as excess cash. I propose that when the final opening day rosters are submitted, any leftover cash up to $10M goes untaxed, any amount from 10m - 20m gets taxed 25% and anything over 20M gets the luxury/penalty tax of 75%. At the end of the year, all of our current rules and taxes applicable to carryover cash still apply.
Example A: TEAM A has 80M to spend and improve his team in FA and trades this off-season. They spend 50M and turn in a final opening day roster showing a final 30M in leftover cash. Based on this model, they will retain $20M of that 30M.
EXAMPLE B: TEAM B has 80M to spend and improve his team in FA and trades this off-season. They spend 20M and turn in a final opening day roster showing a final 60M in leftover cash. Based on this model, they will retain $27.5M of that 60M.
EXAMPLE C: TEAM C has 80M to spend and improve his team in FA and trades this off-season. They spend NOTHING and turn in a final opening day roster showing a final 80M in leftover cash. Based on this model, they will retain $32.5M of that 80M.
This does nothing to mess with the base cap that we have, creates incentive to field a competitive team, still leaves cash for in-season improvements or the ability to carry some excess cash to the next season, yet rids the league of some excess cash and works to maintain a competitive balance through penalties on hoarding cash.
It does NOTHING to stop any team from clearing tons of cap space for the following season and spending it in the offseason to improve their team. It simply takes away portions of cash unspent on opening day.
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Dec 17, 2018 15:16:34 GMT -5
COPIED FROM OTHER THREAD: My proposal is forget about the requirement to tell someone who they have to have on their roster. As far as excess cash. I propose that when the final opening day rosters are submitted, any leftover cash up to $10M goes untaxed, any amount from 10m - 20m gets taxed 25% and anything over 20M gets the luxury/penalty tax of 75%. At the end of the year, all of our current rules and taxes applicable to carryover cash still apply. Example A: TEAM A has 80M to spend and improve his team in FA and trades this off-season. They spend 50M and turn in a final opening day roster showing a final 30M in leftover cash. Based on this model, they will retain $20M of that 30M. EXAMPLE B: TEAM B has 80M to spend and improve his team in FA and trades this off-season. They spend 20M and turn in a final opening day roster showing a final 60M in leftover cash. Based on this model, they will retain $27.5M of that 60M. EXAMPLE C: TEAM C has 80M to spend and improve his team in FA and trades this off-season. They spend NOTHING and turn in a final opening day roster showing a final 80M in leftover cash. Based on this model, they will retain $32.5M of that 80M. This does nothing to mess with the base cap that we have, creates incentive to field a competitive team, still leaves cash for in-season improvements or the ability to carry some excess cash to the next season, yet rids the league of some excess cash and works to maintain a competitive balance through penalties on hoarding cash. It does NOTHING to stop any team from clearing tons of cap space for the following season and spending it in the offseason to improve their team. It simply takes away portions of cash unspent on opening day. Why do we care about opening day cash? We currently average it out throughout the season as teams make trades. Shouldn't we be doing this with the end of season average for the 26/27 weeks? I'm good with the percentages above but I don't see why you are using opening day leftover cash.
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Dec 17, 2018 15:50:17 GMT -5
[/quote]
Why do we care about opening day cash? We currently average it out throughout the season as teams make trades. Shouldn't we be doing this with the end of season average for the 26/27 weeks? I'm good with the percentages above but I don't see why you are using opening day leftover cash.
[/quote]
I was looking for a way to protect the GM's that are gearing for a rebuild and trying to divest themselves of bad contracts and such. I thought taxing them for making smart moves was worse than having them pay the tax man on cash they they are just walking away with by opening day. I wanted owners to have all the resources they can heading into the offseason, but was just asking them to spend it and not hoard it, thinking they'll have it forever. In other words, nothing holding you back entering the offseason, but getting a portion back that didn't get used to improve your team. I do like hearing all sides to the argument though.
|
|
|
Post by Arizona on Dec 17, 2018 20:42:02 GMT -5
After presenting my initial idea, then reading some feedback from different perspectives, here's what I think:
- I think we have to use end of season over/under cap amounts. It's a nice cutoff point, and a few GMs have brought up potential issues with using any kind of Opening Day payroll numbers.
- I can see the logic that Colby mentioned...He tried to spent the money. At some point, it is possible for a GM to be better off saving the money until next year, as opposed to paying Dixon Machado $11M. For this reason, I think any cap has to be a little more forgiving than what I initially proposed.
- I'll refer to salary surpluses as overages getting taxed. I just mean that if the money is taxed, a GM doesn't get to keep all of it.
- I'm thinking the first $10M can pass to the next season without being taxed.
- The next $20M gets taxed at 30%. That means a team gets to keep 70% of it.
- Anything after that gets taxed at 60%. That means a team only gets to keep 40% of it.
- Example: 2018 Reds - $70M in leftover money after 2018 season - First $10M = $10M - Next $20M = $14M - Last $40M = $16M - Total of $40M carried over to 2019
- This allows for the 'hold onto the cash' strategy to a certain degree, but gives GMs a very strong incentive to spend most of their available money.
- As for stashing players, I'll leave that to a separate discussion, since it's only loosely related to this rollover cash. But outside of a 40-man roster and Rule V draft, I don't think we can tell a GM when or how to manage their roster.
- Thoughts??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2018 7:35:39 GMT -5
After presenting my initial idea, then reading some feedback from different perspectives, here's what I think: - I think we have to use end of season over/under cap amounts. It's a nice cutoff point, and a few GMs have brought up potential issues with using any kind of Opening Day payroll numbers. - I can see the logic that Colby mentioned...He tried to spent the money. At some point, it is possible for a GM to be better off saving the money until next year, as opposed to paying Dixon Machado $11M. For this reason, I think any cap has to be a little more forgiving than what I initially proposed. - I'll refer to salary surpluses as overages getting taxed. I just mean that if the money is taxed, a GM doesn't get to keep all of it. - I'm thinking the first $10M can pass to the next season without being taxed. - The next $20M gets taxed at 30%. That means a team gets to keep 70% of it. - Anything after that gets taxed at 60%. That means a team only gets to keep 40% of it. - Example: 2018 Reds - $70M in leftover money after 2018 season - First $10M = $10M - Next $20M = $14M - Last $40M = $16M - Total of $40M carried over to 2019 - This allows for the 'hold onto the cash' strategy to a certain degree, but gives GMs a very strong incentive to spend most of their available money. - As for stashing players, I'll leave that to a separate discussion, since it's only loosely related to this rollover cash. But outside of a 40-man roster and Rule V draft, I don't think we can tell a GM when or how to manage their roster. - Thoughts?? Has anyone gone back to look and see how many teams this would have affected over the past 3-5 years? Without looking I am willing to bet that this would actually add cash to most teams since we are moving the tax threshold from $6MM to $10MM. I am 100% against this idea and think it is a knee-jerk reaction to a point in time rather than a reasoned response to an actual problem.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Dec 18, 2018 9:27:00 GMT -5
After presenting my initial idea, then reading some feedback from different perspectives, here's what I think: - I think we have to use end of season over/under cap amounts. It's a nice cutoff point, and a few GMs have brought up potential issues with using any kind of Opening Day payroll numbers. - I can see the logic that Colby mentioned...He tried to spent the money. At some point, it is possible for a GM to be better off saving the money until next year, as opposed to paying Dixon Machado $11M. For this reason, I think any cap has to be a little more forgiving than what I initially proposed. - I'll refer to salary surpluses as overages getting taxed. I just mean that if the money is taxed, a GM doesn't get to keep all of it. - I'm thinking the first $10M can pass to the next season without being taxed. - The next $20M gets taxed at 30%. That means a team gets to keep 70% of it. - Anything after that gets taxed at 60%. That means a team only gets to keep 40% of it. - Example: 2018 Reds - $70M in leftover money after 2018 season - First $10M = $10M - Next $20M = $14M - Last $40M = $16M - Total of $40M carried over to 2019 - This allows for the 'hold onto the cash' strategy to a certain degree, but gives GMs a very strong incentive to spend most of their available money. - As for stashing players, I'll leave that to a separate discussion, since it's only loosely related to this rollover cash. But outside of a 40-man roster and Rule V draft, I don't think we can tell a GM when or how to manage their roster. - Thoughts?? Has anyone gone back to look and see how many teams this would have affected over the past 3-5 years? Without looking I am willing to bet that this would actually add cash to most teams since we are moving the tax threshold from $6MM to $10MM. I am 100% against this idea and think it is a knee-jerk reaction to a point in time rather than a reasoned response to an actual problem. Normally, I would agree to this being a knee-jerk reaction. Under very different circumstances, this is consecutive years where an obscene amount of rollover money is about to dramatically shift power in the league. Yes, Baltimore tanked and dumped salary. I understand that Cinci wasn't looking to purely hoard cash, yet the end result is the same. This is why I think there needs to be a better fix, because it promotes rich teams getting richer. When you don't actually lose money while rebuilding, it continues to distort our economic imbalance. A winning team can "take a year off" after trading contracts or having to retool after a bunch of contracts expire, and the penalty ends up being nonexistent. All the money that would have gone back into other areas of the team in real life just rollover into players pockets the following year. We can look at past seasons, but the problem is for future seasons. I mean, I'm not going to spend a damn dime beyond fielding a valid starting roster this season. It's easier to make money by not spending money than it is trying to win enough. I'll just take the back door like everyone else. As it's already been stated, it's proven strategy. It's certainly not one that mimics real life unless you consider Wayne Huizenga a model of ownership because he won a WS title. I think our current system discourages the try-hards like myself who always want to be doing "something" to try to win. This system encourages doing nothing. Also, I'm lying. I am going to spend money because I enjoy the offseason too much not to. I'll always be a try-hard and I'll always be here. I'm probably the exception though.
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Dec 18, 2018 10:33:08 GMT -5
Have we actually determined a problem that everyone agree's upon? I am not in favor of rules or taxes just to say we did something. I also do not see a point in making rules that do not correct a problem. Is cap spending an actual problem, or a consequence of a bigger problem? Trying to apply bandaids to consequences generally do not help a situation.
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Dec 18, 2018 10:41:13 GMT -5
Also, I'm lying. I am going to spend money because I enjoy the offseason too much not to. I'll always be a try-hard and I'll always be here. I'm probably the exception though. Nope. Not the exception. I've always spent practically every penny I have available for two reasons: 1) The off-season is my favorite part of these leagues... even more so than drafting. I want to be a part of free agency. 2) I'm not smart enough to have realized that NOT spending all of your money was a wise financial move. I honestly thought you already lost a good chunk of left-over money, so I would've rather spent it than not spend it.
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Dec 18, 2018 11:07:01 GMT -5
I spend almost all of my money every year, whether it be through contracts or buyouts. I do it because while the rollover money can be a powerful infusion for one year, it isn't sustained growth. Now, you can parlay the burst of cash into a good record and a corresponding improved base salary, but it seems dangerous (to me) to start rolling over money with the intention of using it.
So if I don't want to use rollover money in this manner, it makes sense to spend up to my break even point each year.
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Dec 18, 2018 12:22:39 GMT -5
I spend almost all of my money every year, whether it be through contracts or buyouts. I do it because while the rollover money can be a powerful infusion for one year, it isn't sustained growth. Now, you can parlay the burst of cash into a good record and a corresponding improved base salary, but it seems dangerous (to me) to start rolling over money with the intention of using it. So if I don't want to use rollover money in this manner, it makes sense to spend up to my break even point each year. Yup. Same. If you carry 50 mil from season 1 to season 2, you'll have a ton of money to spend in season 2, but your base cap will be super low and you'll likely be over budget in season 3 (unless you only sign 1 year deals in season 2).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2018 13:54:21 GMT -5
I don’t know that I have ever hit the $6MM mark in carryover. I used to try and spend right up to it but for the last 5 years or so I have typically spent to between $1-$5MM over.
|
|