Buffer Funding for Playoff Runs

[Colby]

Dan brought this up a while back, and I was one of them who turned his idea down.  I thought about it again and it deserves some credence, and would another exciting element to our game.

Here is my proposal for 2011...

Buffer Funding for Playoff Runs
As of July 1st, if a team is within the top 50% of teams (tiebreakers included) in the standings then they are awarded a buffer fund.  The buffer fund is equal to 20% of their salary cap, but no more than $20m. 

Teams may use this money only for FA and traded players that will help them win that year.  To enforce this notion, such teams will not be allowed to trade away, nor release, any player that would be a Type A or Type B free agent if they were in FA the following winter.  These are players in the top 40% current production at their position during the year.

Teams that do not wish to use such funding, and are considering themselves to be sellers, must forfeit the right to use such monies as of July 1st.

[Canada8999]

Dan brought this up a while back, and I was one of them who turned his idea down.  I thought about it again and it deserves some credence, and would another exciting element to our game.

Here is my proposal for 2011...

Buffer Funding for Playoff Runs
As of July 1st, if a team is within the top 50% of teams (tiebreakers included) in the standings then they are awarded a buffer fund.  The buffer fund is equal to 20% of their salary cap, but no more than $20m. 

Teams may use this money only for FA and traded players that will help them win that year.  To enforce this notion, such teams will not be allowed to trade away, nor release, any player that would be a Type A or Type B free agent if they were in FA the following winter.  These are players in the top 40% current production at their position during the year.

Teams that do not wish to use such funding, and are considering themselves to be sellers, must forfeit the right to use such monies as of July 1st.

What's the motivation?

[Colby]

What do you mean, motivation?  In real life, teams in the hunt add players (which expand payroll temporarily) who are usually at the end of their contracts to aid their playoff chase.  I guess our salary caps already include such payrolls because our numbers are based on the end of the year.  Oh well... :rool:

[Dan Wood]

Yeah but last year is different than this year. If the real life Reds were competing, don't you think they would add payroll to go up against the Cardinals (I use them because they are the favorites in real life MLB). If the Reds could add a pitcher, and have to pay him say 2 mil for the remainder of the season, I think they would do that to enhance their playoff chances. It is a time honered tradition, also known as getting Boston's and Atlanta's prospects.

[Canada8999]

I think it's a valid suggestion, but I'm worried about the repercussions... the singly most common problem leagues will have is with heavily lopsided long-term vs short-term dump trades - we already see that, but it's at a healthy level so far.  I anticipate we'll see it ratchet up a notch as teams gear up for the playoffs, and this kind of rule would probably magnify that... do we want to?

[Colby]

I think it's a valid suggestion, but I'm worried about the repercussions... the singly most common problem leagues will have is with heavily lopsided long-term vs short-term dump trades - we already see that, but it's at a healthy level so far.  I anticipate we'll see it ratchet up a notch as teams gear up for the playoffs, and this kind of rule would probably magnify that... do we want to?

The thing is, I can support your case Ben because we will find with 30 active GMs (we have a damn good league here), there will always be a market for a cash dump.  Baltimore, Atlanta, Kansas City, San Diego, Washington, and Florida are all teams that appear to be headed into the losing direction with over $10m in cap space.  I am sure every one of them will take advantage of such a situation by acquiring top prospects and temporarily taking on bad contracts.

I guess if we made a rule that gave the teams in the hunt more money then it takes away a trading advantage for the teams that are out of it.  All they have to offer are some veterans.  Currently, their advantage is not just the players but the cap room.  It may sound odd that these are the teams with the cap room, but it's neat how it worked out this way.  Just as in real life, this teams are building for next year and beyond and NOT this year.  Therefore, they aren't jacking up the payroll for a run at the playoffs.  The big market teams and small market ones that feel they are in the hunt like my Pirates have jacked up their payroll before the trade frenzy of the summer hit.

Like I said, and you said Ben, maybe our system is very good, and it opens up unique trading opportunities for teams that badly need such opportunities.

[VolsRaysBucs]

Just to chime in...

I can see good points from both perspectives, but to me the troubling number is 20% of cap, as it just amplifies the already built in advantage of having a big market team.  In this scenario, a team like my Rays would at most be able to add 14M while the Yankees and other larger teams would gain an additional 6M to work with (capped at 20M).  Not trying to sound like a whiner, but in real life small market teams must lobby with officials to try and tilt the landscape towards their favor. 

To speak generally, a team with a 70M-80M cap ENTERS the season at a disadvantage, to me, this rule idea only amplifies the gap.  Just my two cents, I'll go along with whatever (considering I'm probably not in the playoff hunt anyways lol).

[Colby]

Michael pointed out another good reason as to why this rule would already spread the gap.  Ben, you re-convinced me, and I then put out a supporting argument for your side.  I think the case is rested, but I will keep this thread active just to see if others want to chime in.

[lp815]

A very valid point by Michael.  I would have to disagree with this proposal as it is.

[rcankosy]

I am also not fond of this proposal for the reasons already given.  Overall, I think the downside of it outweighs the benefits.