This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - rcankosy
1621
« on: February 22, 2010, 11:14:25 PM »
The Texas Rangers are NOT matching the offer.
1622
« on: February 22, 2010, 07:14:10 PM »
I would agree that retirement might be beyond our control, but I think that an injured player's contract should stay on the books. That is the risk that a real team or we run every time we hand out a long-term contract to a player. If the Yanks ever lost A-Rod, CC, or Tex to injury, their salaries would still count against the cap. When you roll the dice folks, sometimes it comes up CRAPS!
1623
« on: February 22, 2010, 07:06:20 PM »
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.
1624
« on: February 22, 2010, 06:44:22 PM »
I applaud the idea to remodel the tiers, but here's my concern. Let's take last year's real life Mets as the example. They had an unheard of amount of injuries and finished in last place. Given this model, their cap would drop 30%. If this happened to one of our teams, they would have to shed large contracts to get under their new cap. That would make bouncing back the following year even harder. It becomes like quicksand.
I support the suggested new salary tiers. However, I would prefer to eliminate the proposal to tie 25% of the team salary caps to team performance. I have seen too many good teams fall flat on their faces, and this type of system could make it very difficult to overcome a bad year.
1625
« on: February 22, 2010, 03:29:20 PM »
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.
1626
« on: February 21, 2010, 11:13:17 PM »
Prospect contract
1627
« on: February 21, 2010, 09:31:39 PM »
Prospect contract
1628
« on: February 21, 2010, 09:30:52 PM »
Prospect contract
1629
« on: February 21, 2010, 09:25:07 PM »
Prospect contract
1630
« on: February 20, 2010, 10:55:41 PM »
The amount of cash received in a trade cannot exceed the net increase in salary received, where the next increase in salary is determined as:
[Total salary received + Total slot bonus for picks received] - [Total salary sent + Total slot bonus for picks sent]« Last Edit: February 15, 2010, 05:27:15 PM by Brewers GM »
By your reply, I take it you are not using the above rule that was suggested by the Brewers.
|
Chat Room
|
Show Posts
