Mike Napoli

[VolsRaysBucs]

$14M

[Dan Wood]

Contract?

[VolsRaysBucs]

2010= 3.5M
2011= 3.5M
2012= 3.5M
2013= 3.5M

Total contract 4 yr/ 14M

[Dan Wood]

Contract has to be within these boundaries...

<= $1m, 2 years
$1.5m - $5m, 3 years
$5.5m - $10m, 4 years
> $10m, 5 years (the overall limit)

you cannot do 3.5 mil over 4 years

[VolsRaysBucs]

I was under the impression that we could do it for any number of years below the maximum allowed for that total amount.  To be clear, I would not be allowed to do 14M over 1 yr?  It MUST be 14M over 5 yrs?

[Dan Wood]

You are misunderstanding, the salary guideline is as so

<= $1m, 2 years
$1.5m - $5m, 3 years
$5.5m - $10m, 4 years
> $10m, 5 years (the overall limit)

meaning any contract at an annual salary of 1 mil or less can only be at 2 years or less. Any contract with an annual salary of 1.5mil - 5 mil can only be for 3 years or less. 5.5 mil - 10 mil, 4 years or less, and so on. In this instance, since the winning bid was 14 mil, your choices would be...3 years at 5 mil(you can tack on 1 mil to the winning bid to make this threshold), 2 years at 7 mil, 1 year at 14 mil.

[VolsRaysBucs]

I understand now, thanks for the clarification.  I will do 5M for 3 yrs.

Having said that, I would like to bring something forth for discussion amongst the rules comittee.  With the salary structure rules the way they are (must be 500K increments), it SEVERELY further hinders the efforts of small market clubs like the Rays and others.  In the example of Napoli, I go from a winning bid of 14M that could be potentially spread out to lessen the yearly salary to having to at best pay him 5M per year, in which case my "winning bid" of 14M is now un-necessarily a 15M bid.  When you are the Rays and dealing with a 70M payroll, every penny counts.  I'd like to suggest we be allowed to better divide the the total dollars owed.  Otherwise the gap between teams like the Yankees and Rays will only grow further apart.  If we are to adhere to a hard cap that varies by team, those handcuffed teams should have a bit of flexibility to at least have a puncher's chance of building a winner inside of 5 years.  Just my two cents.

[Dan Wood]

We are currently working on a budget structure that rewards success, that will expand the budgets of lower market teams if they are successful. Most of us are at a disadvantage when it comes to competing with the higher echelon clubs that are able to spend twice of most teams, and have to be a little wiser with the money that we spend, and the contracts we hand out. If you have any thoughts on restructuring the contracts, bring it up with the rules committee.