|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on Sept 23, 2016 0:32:51 GMT -5
Tim and I have discussed it and we would prefer to keep cap as it is for this year. This will put pressure on the richer clubs to release some higher priced talent and will therefore help in the balance of talent. We are happy to revisit this again next year but there will be no cap increase this offseason.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Sept 23, 2016 15:45:57 GMT -5
I understand that Tim & Andrew are the President and VP of the league but shouldn't something like this be up to a vote at the very least?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 15:49:35 GMT -5
Tim and I have discussed it and we would prefer to keep cap as it is for this year. This will put pressure on the richer clubs to release some higher priced talent and will therefore help in the balance of talent. We are happy to revisit this again next year but there will be no cap increase this offseason. I can live either way, that being said I don't agree with this reasoning. Yes no cap increase means that more players will likely be made available, but the rich teams won't be the only ones cutting them. The way cap increases are done here, they have a greater impact on the poor clubs. a $5M bump for a team with $100M cap is a 5% boost. That same bump for a team with $150M cap is only 3.33%. Cap increases help poorer teams compete. |
|
|
|
Post by rangers on Sept 23, 2016 15:57:39 GMT -5
shouldn't we really just use chained CPI?
I have a lower cap team and I'm fine leaving it as is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM on Sept 23, 2016 16:03:37 GMT -5
Tim and I have discussed it and we would prefer to keep cap as it is for this year. This will put pressure on the richer clubs to release some higher priced talent and will therefore help in the balance of talent. We are happy to revisit this again next year but there will be no cap increase this offseason. I can live either way, that being said I don't agree with this reasoning. Yes no cap increase means that more players will likely be made available, but the rich teams won't be the only ones cutting them. The way cap increases are done here, they have a greater impact on the poor clubs. a $5M bump for a team with $100M cap is a 5% boost. That same bump for a team with $150M cap is only 3.33%. Cap increases help poorer teams compete. the cap will make it easier for a high cap team to keep a high priced player than a low cap team to sign someone like that kind of high priced player. so yeah the % is better for the lower cap teams but it doesnt help them sign anyone really good. |
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Sept 23, 2016 18:55:03 GMT -5
And look at how much spare cap teams have. I legitimately think that forcing teams to cut these high salary players and open them to TPB signings is the way to handle the inflating MLB salaries. Plus we aren't very far off average cap compared to MLB right now. I'll look at numbers again once I'm back on my computer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 19:05:28 GMT -5
Can we at least agree that the total cap space in TPB should at least equal the total opening day payroll in MLB from the prior season? I'd actually suggest 2M extra per team to account for inflation due to using a metric that lags a year.
I'd also have to take a look at where we are vs. that number, I'm not sure how far off we actually are currently.
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on Sept 23, 2016 19:19:10 GMT -5
I think the problem with KC theory is that it doesn't account for TPB contracts and the number of players like Porcello, David Wright, CC Sabathia, etc who are well below their real life salary.
These TPB contracts are the main reason we wanted to hold off on salary increases again this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 19:25:19 GMT -5
I'd point out guys like Yu Darvish (34M TPB), Yasiel Sierra (10M TPB), and Yulieski Gourriel (18M TPB) who's deals have the opposite effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on Sept 23, 2016 19:51:08 GMT -5
If anything, excessive contracts like Gourriel are only evidence that there isn't the cap pressure out there to justify increasing cap league wide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 20:07:42 GMT -5
So small TPB deals show that there's too much cap while large TPB deals show that there's too much cap?
Honestly I don't care about TPB deals in the discussion, since a comprehensive analysis of spend in TPB vs. spend in MLB would include TPB deals (both large and small).
I also don't necessarily care where the anchor is set MLB salaries - 10%? The point is that we should be anchored to something. We could even anchor to cap being utilized instead of max cap for the league if you want. The point is having an anchor vs. free floating number.
|
|
|
|
Post by Halejon/Nationals GM on Sept 28, 2016 22:01:02 GMT -5
^^This. Do whatever, but make it consistent. In a league where long-term cap decisions play such a big role, playing the guessing game of which way things are going from one year to the next is frustrating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Sept 29, 2016 9:24:26 GMT -5
I agree. And we're going to put out a poll of some different implementation plans shortly. Please continue to discuss options of ways to deal with the MLB cap inflation as they are helpful to us in coming up with plans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 10:20:44 GMT -5
My favorite idea so far would be determining TBP cap using the following formula
TBP Cap utilized at start of TPB playoffs (salaries, TBP deals, penalties) + x = MLB opening day payrolls * 90%
x = total change needed to TPB cap
Each team new cap allotment would equal x/30 (rounded to nearest 1M)
This would ensure TPB deals remain a part of the league by being pegged to less than actual MLB salaries, while allowing for growth based on utilization of cap.
Using cap utilization vs. max cap accounts for TPB deals and also penalties.
I would also avoid decreasing TBP cap, the nice thing about the equation is that is isn't dependent on year over year changes so it won't run into issues if we don't have an increase because salaries dropped in a given year.
Just throwing that idea out there, as I said before I'm happy as long as we're pegged to something.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Feb 10, 2017 1:38:19 GMT -5
So we're going to up the cap by 5 mil next off-season right? Would be absurd not to with all of the big contracts for mediocre players in real life.
I think it's been tossed around to make empty spots cost no money but that only partially combats the ridiculous inflation in real life. A cap increase in the 5 mil range shouldn't even be debatable to be honest. Should've been implemented this off-season.
Want to see updated thoughts from the league head honchos.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mets GM on Feb 10, 2017 7:09:43 GMT -5
with all of the big contracts for mediocre players in real life. Chris Carter would disagree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Feb 10, 2017 7:46:26 GMT -5
with all of the big contracts for mediocre players in real life. Chris Carter would disagree with you. Carter isn't mediocre. He's worse. Why nobody wanted him. |
|
|
|
Post by Mets GM on Feb 10, 2017 9:15:11 GMT -5
if 40 homers and 100 rbi is worse than mediocre, id be afraid to know your definition of mediocre
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 9:32:04 GMT -5
www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/MLB average team salary (rounded and based off 25 man roster only) = 120M So if you figure we have 6 extra 500K mandatory roster spots, i'd say our TPB average payroll should be at 123M Anybody remember what we're at?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds - Chris on Feb 10, 2017 9:34:41 GMT -5
www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/MLB average team salary (rounded and based off 25 man roster only) = 120M So if you figure we have 6 extra 500K mandatory roster spots, i'd say our TPB average payroll should be at 123M Anybody remember what we're at? The last time I added all the teams salary availability up we sat at 3.86b |
|
