In 2010, the league will feature variable salary caps for all teams based on the three-year average (2007-2009) payroll + $20m. The starting caps are:
New York Yankees: $220m
Boston Red Sox: $155m
New York Mets: $150m
Chicago Cubs: $138m
Detroit Tigers: $136m
Los Angeles Angels: $134m
Los Angeles Dodgers: $129m
Chicago White Sox: $129m
Seattle Mariners: $128m
Philadelphia Phillies: $120m
Atlanta Braves: $115m
Houston Astros: $113m
St. Louis Cardinals: $113m
Toronto Blue Jays: $107m
San Francisco Giants: $103m
Milwaukee Brewers: $97m
Baltimore Orioles: $96m
Cleveland Indians: $94m
Cincinnati Reds: $91m
Texas Rangers: $88m
Colorado Rockies: $86m
Minnesota Twins: $86m
Kansas City Royals: $85m
Arizona Diamondbacks: $84m
Oakland Athletics: $83m
San Diego Padres: $78m
Washington Nationals: $71m
Pittsburgh Pirates: $66m
Tampa Bay Rays: $64m
Florida Marlins: $50m
This is from New Era...
Use those cap numbers, with a 1-year grandfathering clause for the teams of the top three tiers. Movement between cap values would be based on the following formula.
Cap ranking (CAPR) - 1st for highest cap, 30th for lowest from above list
Standings (STAND) - 1st for WS champ, 9th for best team out of playoffs, 30th for worst team in MLB
CAPR(2010) = 3*CAPR(2009) + STAND(2009)
The new cap ranking is then hooked up with the new 3-year average + $20m.
This gives the weighting 25% to performance and 75% to current market status.
Expecting the Mets to cut $50 million and the Phillies to cut $80 million in one year isn't a good idea, in my opinion.
Guess I'm still lost, Colb...do you have layman's terms for me?
Oh, so they're really getting TWO years to do this?
Looks pretty good Colby. I'd say we want to enforce MAX/MIN cap rooms as well, with something similar to what our current high and low's are (250/50, although maybe we could reduce the spread a little bit).
All I am saying is that the top three tiers (6 teams) would follow the old rules for one more year (2011) whereas the rest of the league would use the new cap formula. This gives a couple big market teams such as the Phillies and Mets time to shed some contracts or not resign certain players.
For example, say the Mets (currently in tier #2) spend enough money in 2010 that would put them in to tier #4 for 2011. Since they are one of the top three tiers in 2010, they will then have a cap of $125m. The new rule would not apply to them no matter what.
You guys are killing me......the only way to get in some way competitive is to buy my way out of this payroll morass that I inherited and now you are going to lower my payroll and still make my pay for retired guys.....I wish the guy was really lazy then I wouldn't have so much work to do!! :o
Payrolls are not being lowered, and you inherited a fiscally bad team. Dye hasn't retired yet as the White Sox are considering bringing him back. You would only save $1m if you cut him.
Now, the Mets cap is currently at $200m. A 30% max min range would put you anywhere between $140m and $260m for 2011. However, these cap formulas would guarantee you 75% of your 2010 cap though which is $150m. You'll then get an additional 25% based on record. If your Mets were the worst team again then they would like get about $25m on top of that putting you at $175m. If they were the best then you would get about $62.5m on top of that giving you a total of $212.5m. Therefore, your true range is about $175m to $212.5m, hardly anything to set off an alarm about.
I must respectfully state that I am dead set against this plan. I admire the attempt to be more realistic, but I don't like the means. Tying in even a portion of the salary cap to team results is akin to giving the Yankees the first pick in the MLB draft. The reward to good results should be pride alone. Giving incentives such as salary dollars seems to me to exacerbate the problem of uneven cap dollars, not make it better. I am building for the long-term and my team would almost certainly take a hit to its already stretched thin salary cap. Don't this the way way guys, but there are a lot easier ways to make this realistic. For example, the first thing I noticed when I looked at team payrolls is that just about every team other than the Yankees has too high a cap compared to real life . I would suggest that we fix the caps by tying them into the Cot's baseball site. I would also give teams at least two years to get under the cap if they are adversely affected by the change.
All I am saying is that your caps will be reasonable without extreme deviation. Often enough in baseball teams have projected payrolls (based on current staff only) that drop off significantly after the first year.
The Mets have the following contracts expiring in 2010
OF Dye, Jermaine, $11m (2010)
P Green, Sean, $0.5m (P-2010)
P Misch, Pat, $0.5m (P-2010)
X Redding, Tim, Released Under Contract, $2m in 2010
X Wood, Kerry, Cash from CLE for 2010, $-5.5m in 2010
P Wood, Kerry, $10.5m (2010)
Dye, Redding, and Wood will all certainly be gone which is $18m in total. One of your best trade pieces is the most expensive in Santana, so I am sure you will be able to package him off with other expensive players and truly rebuild the Mets.
:toast:
Colby,
That's the problem. I think that the salary tiers themselves are more than sufficient in terms of replicating reality. Fundamentally, I don't believe that ANY reward or penalty for team performance is necessary or wise. In a non-salary keeper league, it would be like giving additional picks to the winning teams. Also, whether or not a team spends more or less based on their performance on the field is debatable. Nonetheless, realistic or not, I believe that type of adjustment to the cap would not be appropriate for this league. I would be fearful that GMs of bad teams would walk away from the league.
That said, I would fully endorse your proposal to re-model the salary tiers and smooth them out in 2011. The cap numbers you sited from the New Era League (using 3 year averages) appeared quite reasonable.
Would it be possible to include the suggestion that when we calculate a new cap number at season's end (say end of 2010), we apply it not to the immediately following season (2011) but rather the one after (2012). If we're going to have caps tied to performance, teams should have an idea of where their budget is heading.
Otherwise, I'm on board.
We could chose to retro-actively calculate what they would be in 2011 had we had these rules in place in 2009, although I'm not sure that's the right approach. If the idea is more of a problem then help, then we can skip it.
Colby,
I think you meant the 3 year average of real life payroll for 2008 through 2010 + 20 million. If you used Franchise GM payroll for 2008 and 2009 plus 20 million, the 3 year averages would actually increase the caps for 2011 because we just tacked on 20 million on top of the payrolls for 2 of the 3 years.
In 2011, the league will feature variable salary caps for all teams based on the three-year average (2008-2010) payroll (as of beginning of playing season) + $20m. The 2009 and 2010 seasons will be numbers from Franchise GM that we have whereas 2008 will be the actual payroll number for the 2008 teams.
Use those cap numbers, movement between cap values would be based on the following formula.
Cap ranking (CAPR) - 1st for highest cap, 30th for lowest from above list
Standings (STAND) - 1st for WS champ, 9th for best team out of playoffs, 30th for worst team in MLB
CAPR(2010) = Max(0.8CAPR(2009),Min(1.2CAPR(2009),3*CAPR(2009) + STAND(2009))
* see there are 20% bound restrictions.
The new cap ranking is then hooked up with the new 3-year average + $20m. This gives the weighting 25% to performance and 75% to current market status.
Instead calculating the salary cap one year further in advance:
CAP[n] = AVERAGE(CAP[n-4],CAP[n-3],CAP[n-2])**
** for seasons where an FGM cap cannot be calculated using the quoted CAPR formula, actual MLB salary is used.
That way we'll always know our cap situation for the current and following seasons.
At the end of each season, we combine how the team did (STAND) with their existing cap ranking (CAPR) to determine the value that season will have on their future cap numbers (did they gain or lose cap?). Lets call that RETURN.
RETURN[2009] = Max(0.8CAPR(2009),Min(1.2CAPR(2009),3*CAPR(2009) + STAND(2009))
To calculate a team's salary cap in any season, we take the simple average of their past three seasons return, skipping the most recent (so we can always forecast one extra into the future):
CAP[2011] = RETURN[2007] + RETURN[2008] + RETURN[2009]
For the 2007 and 2008 seasons, where we do not have FGM standings, we can either use the actual MLB standings, or just a straight payroll number.
Colby,
Have we given up the idea of adopting the cap values you quoted from the New Era League as the "new" starting points prior to implementing this change?
FYI, I believe Ben meant that the Cap was the average of the Returns. I'll make something up in Excel today and post it.
I dunno...I'm still seeing some pretty big drops from 2010 to 2011, $50 mil drop for the Yankees, $40 mil for the Mets and Phillies..am I reading that correctly?
In 2011, the league will feature variable salary caps for all teams based on the three-year average (2008-2010) payroll (as of beginning of playing season) + $20m. The 2009 and 2010 seasons will be numbers from Franchise GM that we have whereas 2008 will be the actual payroll number for the 2008 teams.
Use those cap numbers, movement between cap values would be based on the following formula.
Cap ranking (CAPR) - 1st for highest cap, 30th for lowest from above list
Standings (STAND) - 1st for WS champ, 9th for best team out of playoffs, 30th for worst team in MLB
The new cap ranking is then hooked up with the new 3-year average + $20m. This gives the weighting 25% to performance and 75% to current market status.
At the end of each season, we will combine how the team did (STAND) with their existing cap ranking (CAPR) to determine the value that season will have on their future cap numbers (did they gain or lose cap?). Lets call that RETURN.
RETURN[YEAR] = Max(0.8CAPR(YEAR),Min(1.2CAPR(YEAR),3*CAPR(YEAR) + STAND(YEAR))
The CAPR and STAND values are both payroll numbers using the CAPR and STAND rankings on the actual MLB payroll averages (+$20m).
To calculate a team's salary cap in any season, we take the simple average of their past three seasons return, skipping the most recent (so we can always forecast one extra into the future):
CAP[2011] = AVERAGE(RETURN[2007] + RETURN[2008] + RETURN[2009])
In the absence of Franchise GM for the 2007 and 2008 seasons, the actual payroll and standings rankings are used.
<div id=example>Example
New York Mets Franchise GM Standing 2007-2009: 10th, 10th, 30th
finish example...
</div>
Sounds like a decent idea short term, but would probably cause problems over time. As we diverge from MLB, in a few years our Yankees might be a middle of the road payroll team...
I need to be paying more attention to this than I have been...I will get caught up on the thread shortly but I will say that for the NY Mets franchise and the anvil that is going to get dropped on us....The revenue sharing that I have been paying should be severely reduced (to the point of being removed). If the NY Yanks are the top tier at $220M and we are reduced to $160M but they are tier 1 and we are still tier 2 then that is not right. The revenue sharing would have to be recalculated to what the median salary is and the Yanks are paying to a % if that makes sense. and the Mets would pay a %. I am not entirely certain, I will have to go back and look but I don't think that is how it is set up right now.
Ok, I'm on board, permitted we reform revenue sharing immediately after.
Team pages for the RC, Phillies, Mets, Yankees, Mariners, Reds, and A's have been updated to reflect the new salary cap ruling.I'll make a move just to have my roster updated also =P hahaha