Rollover Money

My issue with the cap rollover is that rich teams can abuse it harder than anyone else. If you're stringing together above average seasons, you can "take a year off" and then generate momentum using the artificial cap increase to create a real cap increase. Baltimore had seasons of 102, 54, 92, 47, and last year with 98. Because Baltimore started this cycle with a cap based on 3 100+ win seasons, he was able to literally take years off to save playing time on players (which is smart) and move around money (which is also smart). The unfortunate result is an unrealistic economic model which only exists in formulas like ours. Unless Cincinnati can balloon to 100+ wins in 2019, you're all correct that they won't have the base cap to support a massive spending effort. This is because Cincinnati is starting this cycle on an average of 81 wins per season (yes, I acknowledge that the seasons are weighted, so technically this is an estimate). This loophole in the league economy just exacerbates other resource differences between teams, but this is a resource issue that we have some control over. It's been proven over and over again that moderating trades of picks and prospects is just a recipe for unrest. We can't stop people from making bad decisions (I'm proof of that here). But should be encouraging teams to participate in the market. Encouraging teams to field their best roster every year. Rollover money doesn't do this.

Look there have been admissions on both sides of this "problem" from successful teams. Some say they abuse it and some say they have to push their spending to the limits. What I am saying is that it is not fundamentally what the league should be about. If we are playing this like a video game, then we should be doing other things to level the playing field that aren't realistic. We should be less inclined to suggest solutions like a 40 man roster and more inclined to suggest things like "once a player enters arbitration in real life, NSBL should start counting service time whether the player is on a team's active roster or not." If we're not concerned about how much money the players are getting, then we should be pushing the limits of our CE formula even further to match available spending and the contracts NSBL players are receiving. And if teams like Cinci are having trouble spending their money, then maybe we need to afford NL teams the option of signing players to play DH no matter how sacrilegious it sounds.

Mostly, I want a consensus from the committee and the participating GMs on what the league should be about so that everyone here can make an informed choice about how they choose to play the game. Again, I'm fine with being a try-hard. John doesn't seem to mind it either. But the point has been made on this message board that it's not for everyone. And though we shouldn't ever try to appease everyone, we should be trying to figure out what will retain our most active and invested GMs.

If our financial rules are daunting enough to scare away good baseball minds, we need to to understand why and figure out if that's ok with us.

Why not just make it a max of $10 million and call it good?

Not a fan of that but just want clarity for 2020 before 2019 FA begins. Could affect how I and maybe other teams spend their money.

I also think if you are going to lock it at a small number that 1 year contracts need to be opened back up before Tier 3. I am still against not allowing them until tier 3.

I am also in favor of allowing 1 year deals sooner.

+1

What if rollover money is taxed at a percentage of your previous seasons win total? 100 minus your win total, so if you win 65 games, your rollover cash is taxed 35%. you win 50 games, your rollover cash is taxed 50%, if you win 95 games, your cash is taxed 5%. This might reflect a loss of ticket revenue in a losing season, or if you perform better, you are taxed less.

That was my point though, buddy. Whenever I've brought up that the DH rule should be modified to make the league more balanced, I was told it was not the way it's done IRL. Well, we live in an era where the hometown discount no longer exists. Money is too big and player loyalty holds a premium price. Sure, in the NFL where contracts aren't guaranteed, you'll get the hometown boys to restructure. No one in baseball gets that sweet under-market deal anymore. This league has been around so long that we've seen it change. 5%/10% is more accurate/realistic. Just like continuing to mimic the real DH rules is more accurate/realistic.

I actually agree with you that it could be modified to make things more fun, but we still need to solve the rollover money issue otherwise you'll never have enough GMs to trade with.

I agree with this

PS Apparently people aren’t paying attention to this real-life MLB offseason either. Good free agents are accepting 1-2 year deals for less than $4MM each, because nobody is signing them. These are guys that would’ve easily gotten 8 figures a year only a few seasons ago.

Basically, the actual non-Sean-pulling-unfounded-opinions-our-of-his-ass reality of today’s MLB is that there’s 1-2 mega contracts every offseason, then an enormous gap with really good FA actually getting underpaid now.


JIm

Outside of players signing extensions to avoid arbitration, I can not find a single contract in the last 5 years that I would call a "hometown discount." Players that have signed below market value have all fallen into 2 categories, old guys that want to win and injured guys looking to prove themselves. Most of those players don't return to their "home team." You may have proven my logic wrong in the past, but I can not find a single report of a major free agent returning to their current team for less than another reported, higher offer. Now there are a lot of players being paid less than the value of their production, but that's a function of MLB free agency. Not because the players are accepting less from a team they're showing loyalty.

And Jim, if you want to talk about pulling ideas out of asses, you've had some pretty epic ones here as well. Specifically how you were really against giving players contract extensions (LTC) based on the market value of similar performing hitters at that position because "that's too much money" or "what about small market teams" or whatever other self-serving logic you used. You've also used the "that's not how they do it IRL" multiple times over the years. It's pretty convenient that you accept how "not real" this league is when you want something.

Look, NSBL economy is so far from the MLB economy that we need to stop comparing number for number. The stars that you want the HTD on don't give teams that anymore. You can always find players with a limited market making less. Priorities shift here and IRL, and that's what is dictating contracts. Not some fantasy about players feeling a sense of loyalty to the team that drafted and developed them.

Though is your argument is that returning to the old HTD levels is more fun, I'll happily concede that point. I think the NL having a DH would be more fun. Heck, there are days where I think our league would be more fun with an NFL style salary cap with a hard spending floor (and more draft rounds with a larger reserve roster). A lot of ideas sound fun even the ones that are pulled out of asses.

I'm actually scared if there will be a work stoppage, because if there is, it won't be pretty.

I'm pretty amped, though, that they're at least discussing universal DH.

Yes. Canadien teams will get a 100% rollover tax, which will redistribute its rollover cap to teams on the south side of Chicago.

So...any word on this?

You keep presenting stuff, but none of it has any relation whatsoever with a hometown discount. If Harper signs with Washington for less than what he's offered elsewhere, then you would have a piece of evidence.

Also amusingly, the Dodgers would have Machado's "hometown" discount rights in this case -- not the Orioles, the team he spent 8 and a half years with. The system is silly.