|
|
Post by Houston Astros on Jan 23, 2018 15:10:38 GMT -5
What happens if a player is traded during the offseason and is at 0.5M and signs an extension which puts a team over the cap?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 15:17:26 GMT -5
I liked the modified suggestion that potentially John made in the chat that said we could just have a one year team cap traded which may be easier to track and make more sense than attaching said temporary cap to a player.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Jan 23, 2018 15:26:14 GMT -5
What happens if a player is traded during the offseason and is at 0.5M and signs an extension which puts a team over the cap? If the player is originally at $500K then the team trading him isn't paying any of the salary... |
|
|
|
Post by Houston Astros on Jan 23, 2018 15:29:29 GMT -5
Okay lets say he's at $4.0M and he is traded and the team agrees to pay the whole salary (just for shit and grins and to get a better prospects) and then he signs a new contract and his salary goes up to $10.0M
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Jan 23, 2018 15:36:50 GMT -5
Continuing our discussion from the chat, what I see happening is rebuilding teams trading for a pricey contract, getting them on the cheap cause no one wants the contract, then dealing them for value while eating the contract. Then good teams have all the good players on minimum contracts.
I'm not crazy about the idea, regardless of the ease/difficulty of keeping up with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 15:40:07 GMT -5
Just read the thread.
Easy no from me. There is already an issue with all the processing this league has. If you want to take on a project, why not help process on the google docs before we go adding another layer?
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Jan 23, 2018 15:42:33 GMT -5
Okay lets say he's at $4.0M and he is traded and the team agrees to pay the whole salary (just for shit and grins and to get a better prospects) and then he signs a new contract and his salary goes up to $10.0M That's a very rare case but I think the fair and practical thing to do is to keep the team paying 4 mil at 4 mil and the team that traded for the player and only paying $500K at $500K. The team paying $500K would be on the hook for whatever the following year's salary would be, whether it again be 10 mil or whatever else. If that was a common occurrence then it'd make this thing tough to implement but I think it's no different than the grey area in IFA bidding. Just too rare an occurrence to ruin this new rule. |
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Jan 23, 2018 15:45:41 GMT -5
Okay lets say he's at $4.0M and he is traded and the team agrees to pay the whole salary (just for shit and grins and to get a better prospects) and then he signs a new contract and his salary goes up to $10.0M How is that a new concept? The more money a team takes on, the less value he has to give up, and vice versa. |
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Jan 23, 2018 15:47:06 GMT -5
Just read the thread. Easy no from me. There is already an issue with all the processing this league has. If you want to take on a project, why not help process on the google docs before we go adding another layer? I did read the thread, and responded to the questions brought up. I take it you haven't read my posts. |
|
|
|
Post by Houston Astros on Jan 23, 2018 15:50:15 GMT -5
Lets take this for instance - Siegrist is $20M on his TPB contract. Lets say I trade him to you for a 5th round pick and take on $15M. And then he signs a contract the next day and makes $6M a year. Am I still on the hook for $15M? And what if that new contract puts you over the salary cap?
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Jan 23, 2018 15:59:48 GMT -5
Lets take this for instance - Siegrist is $20M on his TPB contract. Lets say I trade him to you for a 5th round pick and take on $15M. And then he signs a contract the next day and makes $6M a year. Am I still on the hook for $15M? And what if that new contract puts you over the salary cap? I've already addressed this. You agreed to pay 15 mil so you're still on the hook for it, and then for the guy receiving Siegris who is paying 5 mil, stays at 5 mil. I will say that making this rule only applicable during the season would be the best use for it, that way something like that isn't happening often, but rarely, since there are rarely new contracts and salaries during the season. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 16:01:09 GMT -5
Okay lets say he's at $4.0M and he is traded and the team agrees to pay the whole salary (just for shit and grins and to get a better prospects) and then he signs a new contract and his salary goes up to $10.0M That's a very rare case but I think the fair and practical thing to do is to keep the team paying 4 mil at 4 mil and the team that traded for the player and only paying $500K at $500K. The team paying $500K would be on the hook for whatever the following year's salary would be, whether it again be 10 mil or whatever else. If that was a common occurrence then it'd make this thing tough to implement but I think it's no different than the grey area in IFA bidding. Just too rare an occurrence to ruin this new rule. How is this not a common occurance? It happens every offseason with players signing FA deals. |
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Jan 23, 2018 16:08:07 GMT -5
That's a very rare case but I think the fair and practical thing to do is to keep the team paying 4 mil at 4 mil and the team that traded for the player and only paying $500K at $500K. The team paying $500K would be on the hook for whatever the following year's salary would be, whether it again be 10 mil or whatever else. If that was a common occurrence then it'd make this thing tough to implement but I think it's no different than the grey area in IFA bidding. Just too rare an occurrence to ruin this new rule. How is this not a common occurance? It happens every offseason with players signing FA deals. Right, which is why I just proposed that this new layer only be applicable during the season. Can't trade a player in the off-season and pay for his salary. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 16:10:01 GMT -5
Has anybody other than Brew supported this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 16:13:14 GMT -5
Has anybody other than Brew supported this? I'm not opposed to trading single year cap (as I mentioned in chat), but tying it to a player adds unnecessary complexity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 16:15:47 GMT -5
Trading single year cap seems reasonable to me if Dan has an effective tracking method.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Jan 23, 2018 16:25:56 GMT -5
I don't see how tying it to a player makes it more complex. Besides, limiting it to just during the season fills up a number of potential potholes.
I wouldn't take on this responsibility unless we do it the way that I've proposed. Not looking to take on a project just for the sake of it. I think my idea would add another positive layer to the league and because of that I'd be happy to be solely responsible for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 16:43:34 GMT -5
The penalties section of the existing spreadsheet would handle single year cap trading as currently built. receiving cap would be negative values, sending it away would be positive. The notes section there could say who it was from/to for reference purposes.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Jan 23, 2018 17:10:49 GMT -5
I just think implementing this rule only for in-season application makes this a lot simpler. If anyone still sees loopholes or issues please point them out. I really don't see why some of you think this is a bad idea.
At the very least, I think giving this a test run in 2018 is reasonable, and if somehow it causes too many issues or just isn't worth keeping around, then we'll scrap it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 21:05:00 GMT -5
Owners should have a full offseason to prepare for a rule change. Especially one as large as this. I'd support implementing the 1 year pilot for 2019 assuming it's agree upon prior to the conclusion of the 2018 World Series.
|
|
