Tiers Remodeled

[Green]

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.

It is absolutely something to set off an alarm about! Have you seen my lineup yet? I am at $161M right now (or somewhere close) with cap space of $39M. I don't have a set lineup yet. I need an OF, CI, C, and 2 SP. I don't have a single prospect. I need to keep some money available because I am drafting 1st in the Entry level draft with the 1st slot a $7M signing post (if I go for the best player) another first rounder, and 10 more picks. I don't see a way that I am not last right now...Alarms definitely...and this is definitely a lot of whining I know but the team is atleast two years from where I want it....it is just one vote but my vote is no for self-preservation sake.

[Colby]

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.

 

[rcankosy]

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.

[Colby]

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.

Many teams have increased their payroll due to success.  Anaheim Angels, Tampa Bay Rays, Milwaukee Brewers, and Arizona Diamondbacks anyone? Our model is actually designed to give the Yankees the highest payroll because that is how it is in baseball.  They have a huge market, spend way too much, and win quite a bit.

Currently, the movement between tiers is based on spending alone.  If you don't spend up to your cap, you may stay at the same cap or fall back.  You may increase your cap if others don't spend as much.  It is a very flawed system.

If a team starts to lose more and more then they will not invest as much (usually).  There are of course exceptions such as the Mariners just like there are exceptions in the flip side with the Marlins.

An automatic cap changing system will never be perfect, but I think we can get more realistic than what we currently have.

[Green]

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.

 

  ......(crickets)..... 

[Colby]

More examples of current proposal...

Yankees w/2010 cap of $250m

• Finish 1st place, respected cap would be $250m, this is weighed 25%, their 2010 cap is weighed 75%, and they end up with the same cap in 2011 at $250m
• Finish in last, respected cap would be $50m weighted 25% ($12.5m).  This, plus 75% of the current cap (=$188.5m) equals $200m.
• The extreme cases for the Yankees is $200m - $250m.  They could fall less than $200m if they gutted payroll in the current tier setup.  Also, the second tier is $200m.
  

Rangers w/2010 cap of $70m

• Finish 1st place, respected cap would be $250m, this is weighed 25%, their 2010 cap is weighed 75%, so they have 0.75*70+0.25*250 = 52.5 + 62.5 = $115m, 30% max gain cuts it down to $91m
• Finish in last, respected cap would be $50m weighted 25% ($12.5m).  This, plus 75% of the current cap (=$52.5m) equals $65m.
• The extreme cases for the Rangers is $65m - $91m. 

White Sox w/2010 cap of $125m

• Finish 1st place, respected cap would be $250m, this is weighed 25%, their 2010 cap is weighed 75%, so they have 0.75*125+0.25*250 = 93.75 + 62.5 = $156.25m
• Finish in last, respected cap would be $50m weighted 25% ($12.5m).  This, plus 75% of the current cap (=$93.75m) equals $106.25m.
• The extreme cases for the White Sox is $106.25m - $156.25m.  Currently, if they spend a bit more they may raise their cap up to $150m for next year.  If Rick spends like the Padres do then his cap could end up like theirs. 

As you can see, this system puts in place a rule that gives more consistency to caps.  A team couldn't bomb their payroll to rock bottom and become small market within one year like the current system allows.  This system also allows franchises to spend more if they started to outperform what is expected out of their market.

[rcankosy]

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.   

 

[Colby]

Roy, how much do you think should be tied into winning?  We could always restrict how much the cap drops by a lower amount. ..

There have been drops in payrolls of great amounts in the past 10 years, but this was due to a completely new direction of the franchise.  As GMs, we are free to make such decisions and rebuild with cheap youth if we wanted to, but I agree that losing the available funds for a team that had a bunch of injuries may be a problem.

With that said, the drop in cap could be limited to 20%.  This would be a maximum of a $10m drop for the Mets or Phillies (because it is really 25% of 20% of $200m).

[rcankosy]

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. 

[Colby]

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.

The high and low caps would prevent teams from tanking.  Also, the current system favors big market teams even more.  As long as they spend then they will continue to have the high caps.  In the current system, the Yankees do not need to win in order to have the most money available.  This is backwards compared to real life in which they eventually need to cash in a World Series or they will be in severe debt.