Tiers Remodeled

[Colby]

Oh, so they're really getting TWO years to do this?

Hence the grandpapa'in...

[Canada8999]

If we went with a system where:
Cap[nextYear] = Cap[thisYear] + change
change = performanceFactor * totalLeaguePayout * inflation

... without enforcing X # of teams per tier, then we wouldn't need to worry about teams being grandfathered in.  Once the new cap numbers are calculated, we let the teams fall into whichever tier they qualify for. 

We can apply restrictions to how much a team's cap can change in one season (avoid drastic cap implications) and set limits to max/min cap room that can be reached (avoid rich getting too rich, or teams imploding). 

We may also want to say that the calculated cap number is for not the next season, but the season after that - then teams will always know what their cap will be for the current season and one after that, offering them time to plan accordingly and adjust to the changes.

[Colby]

I like the max change instead of grandfathering.  It is simple for all parties involved and is intuitive for any team.

[lp815]

Agreed, I'd support the min/max change per year also.  What kind of figures did you have in mind, Ben?

[Colby]

By looking at past total salaries, the largest fluctuations appear to be the following.

Angels
    * 2004: $100,534,667
    * 2003: $ 79,031,667
    * 2002: $ 61,721,667
    * 2001: $ 47,735,167

They had increase of about 25-30% each year in that span.

Athletics
    * 2009: $ 62,310,000
    * 2008: $ 47,967,126
    * 2007: $ 79,366,940
    * 2006: $ 62,242,079

They had about a 30% increase, followed by a 40% decrease and then another 30% increase.

Blue Jays
    * 2006: $ 71,915,000
    * 2005: $ 45,719,500

That is about a 60% increase from 2005 to 2006.

Brewers
    * 2006: $ 57,568,333
    * 2005: $ 39,934,833
    * 2004: $ 27,528,500

50% increases

Indians
    * 2003: $ 48,584,834
    * 2002: $ 78,909,499
    * 2001: $ 93,360,000

20-35% drops

Marlins
    * 2007: $ 30,507,000
    * 2006: $ 14,998,500
    * 2005: $ 60,408,834

Ridiculous 75% drop follow by a 100% increase.

I just skimmed through half the teams and outside the Marlins, a common figure appears to be 30%.  I would say set the bounds of a drop or increase to 30%.

[Canada8999]

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).

[Colby]

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).

The max and min should be the max and min of the inflated three year averages of MLB total payrolls.  This would keep things realistic.  BTW, the 20% extra is thrown in there as a buffer in case teams would like to spend more.  Remember, there is a benefit for a team to spend less as it grants more RFA privileges and revenue sharing.

[Colby]

Time to vote fellas  8-)

[Green]

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!!

[Colby]

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!!

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.