Post by: Colby on October 21, 2009, 04:26:34 PM
1) simplicity
2) similarity to MLB
3) fairness (all the while considering point #2)
Post by: lp815 on October 21, 2009, 05:21:29 PM
In regards to simplicity, I feel comfortable with the current settings. However, if anyone wished to show a simpler way of setting guidelines, I'm open to listening.
In regards to similarity, I think what we have is a good balance between guidelines that are clear and easy to the league and how the MLB regulates RS.
So really, no worries from me. :koolaid:
Post by: Canada8999 on October 21, 2009, 07:43:22 PM
Post by: Colby on October 21, 2009, 09:56:06 PM
With the rule that no bids will go final until after Nov 1st, I've focused my attention elsewhere and have not yet engaged in RS. If there is a lack of participation, other owners may be taking the same approach.
The A's and Rangers are vacant spots right now. I have recruited several GMs in the past couple weeks, but no one seems to want the A's or Rangers (no surprise with barren Texas).
Post by: Colby on December 30, 2009, 01:04:33 PM
Post by: Colby on March 21, 2010, 12:23:16 PM
Post by: Colby on March 21, 2010, 12:34:53 PM
I would say we look at the same three year averages as we do for the caps... so 2007-2009 would affect 2011 cash distributions. The average 2007-2009 standing in fantasy DIVIDED by the real life team's 2007-2009 average standing would be the adjustment factor to the revenue. We could reduce the power of this to reduce the effect of a last place team in real life compared to a top team in fantasy by adding another 30 to each part of the fraction...
The smallest possible adjustment would be
Post by: Canada8999 on March 21, 2010, 12:56:28 PM
Post by: Colby on March 21, 2010, 01:05:04 PM
I don't think we want to include Real numbers, as in a year or two we could have a completely different landscape from MLB. For instance, would you put the Brewers #3 in Real MLB power rankings?
Naturally, the winning is different, but that is why we have the adjustment. The natural market of the franchise is taken into account by real life revenue numbers.
Post by: bridgestone on March 22, 2010, 12:00:58 PM
Post by: Bronx Bombers on March 26, 2010, 06:33:42 PM
Post by: Colby on March 30, 2010, 02:39:56 PM
Quote
Through the end of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (2011 season), all 30 teams pay 31 percent of their local revenues into a pot each season. This pot is then evenly distributed among the 30 teams. A team in New York or Chicago will pay more into this pot than a team in Tampa Bay or Kansas City. MLB distributes a portion of their Central Fund, which is comprised from sources like the television contract with the various networks, among the 30 teams with the teams that have the lowest revenues getting the most money. There is also a 'luxary tax' where a team must pay into a pot a percentage on the portion of their payroll that exceeds a pre-set limit. The Yankees usually have to put money into this pot due to exceeding the pre-set limit on payrolls ... in the 2008 season, the Yankees contributed $21.6 million into this pot. This money is distributed to teams with lower payrolls.
But what we can do is create the 31%+ pot (where + is an arbitrary number added in from "MLB"), distribute, apply luxury tax, and distribute the tax to the lower market teams. I applied this formula to our salary caps (which are now influenced by winning, and already have the market factored in based on past numbers)...
The 31% pot causes some big changes in cap numbers. Once again, it's probably not appropriate to correlate revenue 100% with payroll. Well, this article (http://blogs.chron.com/unofficialscorer/2009/01/another_way_to_look_at_mlb_pay_1.html) does some handy work on that and comes out with an average of 45% of payroll to revenue. This causes some swings on top of the caps...
Yankees -$43.8m
D'Backs $8.9m
Blue Jays: $2.7m
Mets: -$28.3m
Padres: $15.1m
A's: $12m
I'm not pleased... there could be some heavy damages on the big market franchises... This leads me to rethink the idea of having revenue sharing at all. Why should we have it if we don't even have revenue allocated for in this league? Our new cap system bases all numbers off of real MLB payrolls (inflated by $20m). Don't the real MLB payrolls already take into account what franchises are doing with their revenue and the amounts shared with the league?
The answer is of course YES... we probably don't even need revenue sharing. Sure, the caps are disproportionate, but that is the nature of MLB. The small market teams are collecting the money for the most part and not putting it into payroll. Once this changes, the numbers being fed to this league will change... either that or things change after the CBA expires after 2011.
Post by: bridgestone on March 31, 2010, 03:09:23 PM
Post by: Colby on April 05, 2010, 11:19:35 AM
thoughts from the RC?
Post by: Canada8999 on April 05, 2010, 07:17:37 PM
Post by: Colby on April 09, 2010, 09:12:30 AM
I just wanted to throw that last thought out there before we conclude this discussion.
Post by: lp815 on April 10, 2010, 06:03:30 PM
I saw no issue with how RS was performed this last season, the only caveat being there simply weren't a lot of active small market teams at the time. This will obviously change next season, now that Franchis is firmly established with many active members.
Post by: Colby on April 11, 2010, 11:07:45 AM
Post by: lp815 on April 11, 2010, 12:58:40 PM
The thing about RS is that there is no way to really do it appropriately so that it matches MLB. As I just mentioned, perhaps we could allocate additional money to be used on funding prospects' contracts and the draft.
So we are wanting to change RS for the sole reason being that it doesn't match the MLB structure?
Post by: Colby on April 11, 2010, 02:14:03 PM
So we are wanting to change RS for the sole reason being that it doesn't match the MLB structure?
and that it was a bit confusing and messed with the player structure. Most of the revenue sharing money goes into the farm anyways. I think an extra allocation solely for prospects and the draft would work well... especially since many small market teams don't finish well and have high draft picks.
Post by: Bronx Bombers on April 12, 2010, 11:56:45 AM
Post by: Canada8999 on April 12, 2010, 06:34:46 PM
Post by: Colby on April 13, 2010, 08:23:26 AM
So give small market teams RS$ towards Entry Draft signing bonuses? Worth discussing, as it definitely makes the top picks a lot more valuable if you don't have to shell out the big bucks - then again, do we want to get rid of that?
Do we want to get rid of what? I guess there is enough support to still have revenue sharing effects in this league. The supplemental draft picks are not RS and are in MLB. Last off-season, $15m went to the Marlins, $10m to the Pirates, $10m to the Padres, $5m to three teams, and $2.5m to four teams. The Yankees, Cubs, Mets, Red Sox, Angels, and Phillies all gave money.
I don't think taking money away from the big clubs is necessarily the right thing to do. After all, their payrolls are already capped and modeled after real payrolls which are affected by RS. The key is to find out how much to appropriately give to small market clubs and in what form.
Possible budget allocations
- Entry draft
- Non-draft prospect signings
- Post-June cap expansion (think Rockies, Brewers, or Marlins expanding payroll for push to the playoffs)
Post by: lp815 on April 13, 2010, 08:36:03 AM
Do we want to get rid of what? I guess there is enough support to still have revenue sharing effects in this league. The supplemental draft picks are not RS and are in MLB. Last off-season, $15m went to the Marlins, $10m to the Pirates, $10m to the Padres, $5m to three teams, and $2.5m to four teams. The Yankees, Cubs, Mets, Red Sox, Angels, and Phillies all gave money.
I don't think taking money away from the big clubs is necessarily the right thing to do. After all, their payrolls are already capped and modeled after real payrolls which are affected by RS. The key is to find out how much to appropriately give to small market clubs and in what form.
Possible budget allocations
- Entry draft
- Non-draft prospect signings
- Post-June cap expansion (think Rockies, Brewers, or Marlins expanding payroll for push to the playoffs)
Can you define post June expansion? I'm unfamiliar with it. :-\
Post by: Colby on April 13, 2010, 08:55:09 AM
Can you define post June expansion? I'm unfamiliar with it. :-\
That would be revenue sharing money attributable to boosting the cap after June 1st (when FAs can be traded) giving teams two months until the trade deadline to ponder if they can make a run or not as they have extra cash available to them.
The interesting thing about this method is that money left un-used could be put toward the farm and/or the draft enabling all three of my ideas.
I first want to figure out how the money should be allocated best, and then figure out how much should ultimately be given (static amounts, % of cap).
Post by: lp815 on April 13, 2010, 10:28:22 AM
That would be revenue sharing money attributable to boosting the cap after June 1st (when FAs can be traded) giving teams two months until the trade deadline to ponder if they can make a run or not as they have extra cash available to them.
The interesting thing about this method is that money left un-used could be put toward the farm and/or the draft enabling all three of my ideas.
I first want to figure out how the money should be allocated best, and then figure out how much should ultimately be given (static amounts, % of cap).
I like that idea. I know a couple of you guys (Ben, you, Mike) are the number crunchers here (math isn't my forte), so if you guys throw out some ideas for figures, I'd be happy to weigh in on it. :-)
Post by: Colby on April 13, 2010, 11:52:11 AM
I like that idea. I know a couple of you guys (Ben, you, Mike) are the number crunchers here (math isn't my forte), so if you guys throw out some ideas for figures, I'd be happy to weigh in on it. :-)
WARNING: Long rant ahead... feel free to skip to the bottom to see my conclusion.
Okay, perhaps the revenue sharing money that would be attributable for 2010 wouldn't kick in until mid-2011 (opposed to after the 2010 season like we did last year). Say the Marlins received $15m, then on June 1st, their RS budget would go from $0m to $15m. This would be extra cash and would be considered to be used on players if the team's total payroll exceeded their cap amount - $15m.
Let's say the Marlins have a cap of $50m and with the RS cash, they are at $30m on September 15th (start of draft). Since they have $20m to spare, it means they didn't need to use that RS money to stay under the cap in the first place, so that $15m is now attributable to the draft.
..... this is a lot simpler than I am explaining. All the RS money becomes is additional cash flow after June 1st for a franchise for that season. The Marlins could use that $15m however they wanted, just as they could in the majors.
What we are interested in is not actually matching RS contributions and receipts, but the amount of money that is used by such teams to put in MLB payroll and the farm. I'd venture to say it is a bit less than what they receive.
How has the draft been affected? Well, in the first round alone, the 2009 draft had over $12m more in bonuses than the 2007 draft. The small market teams' are certainly building up their pockets to spend on the farm. That's not even the best statistic... the top 15 draft picks in each of the past three years has had total bonuses of $39.7m, $47.3m, and $53.3m. It shot up by $14m in that half alone over the past two years citing much more weight given to small market spending. Of course, some small market teams do better than expected such as the A's, Marlins, and Twins and they are at the bottom of the draft, but that statistic is very telling. The big market teams are spending less, or the same, while the small market teams are spending more.
With inflation and Scott Boras both being factors, the biggest one has to be revenue sharing. This still doesn't help us with how much should be allocated. After all, we are talking a measly $8-9m/year increase for the 1st round for all teams. One could guess that you could multiply that number by a factor of 2 or 3 to represent the entire draft. That still comes out to at most $30m for all teams. If $30m is going to the draft, from RS, then where is the rest of the money going?
Well, payrolls aren't going down. The Marlins handed out big contracts to Hanley and JJ this off-season. The Twins gave a fat one to Mauer, and the A's have been signing players (and then trading them) to deals that aren't that cheap ($10m/year for Sheets). If payrolls are going up for these teams in hard economical times, then that it is definitely due to RS. I'd say a total of $50m for the small market clubs.
Non-draft prospect signings... this is where our league is more active because of simplified, smaller rosters, and a smaller draft, but teams like my Pirates are dumping a lot of money into foreign scouting. This is the money that fans aren't seeing in the books and are assuming it goes to the owners' pockets. How much do you think it takes to fly dozens of scouts around the world (South America, Caribbean, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, South Africa, Australia) all year long? All those flights, plus base salary, plus scouting incentives, plus contracts for the players, plus supporting staff (clerks, beancounters, statisticians) certainly comes to a pretty penny. I'd venture to say that a fully loaded international scouting team needs a budget of $8-10m or so per team.
So far... by very rough estimation, we have $80m in total + $9m/club. For 10 clubs, that would be a total of $170m. Revenue sharing is less than that, but that is where the central fund comes in. It's about $30m/team (after each team "contributes" $10m/year for pensions and the MLB operations fund.)... which would keep us looking for $130m + RS money. A lot of new stadiums have been built and baseball operations have been going up... Forbes has valued these baseball clubs rocketing in value over the years. MLB as a whole, and its central fund, keeps these franchises valuable for its own good. It's safe to assume that most of the central fund money, as it is intended, does not go to player development or payroll at all.
From ESPN
Quote
Revenue sharing: Only income-challenged teams get a revenue-sharing check. But you should never forget that those checks are a lot larger than your average rebate check from Target. This sport shared $400 million in revenue this year -- more than the gross national product of Western Samoa. Now every club's payout is different. But the five neediest teams -- which we believe to be the Marlins, Pirates, Rays, Blue Jays and Royals -- averaged somewhere in the vicinity of $35 million in revenue-sharing handouts per team. And that still left over $200 million -- more than $20 million a club -- for the rest of the "payees" to divvy up.
We can safely arrive (with high confidence) at the conclusion that the revenue sharing money (not central fund) is used on payroll, the farm, and player development ($2-$5m/club?). However, $400m for just over half the clubs (17 or so) comes out to a lot of extra money.
The problem with revenue sharing is that there is a lot of gray area. We know some information from 2002, 2003, and 2005: http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3760&Itemid=178 (http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3760&Itemid=178)... but that's about it. The conservative estimate is to go lower than what is given since we are only concerned with payroll. This is why I "like" my $170m figure. In fact, I will go lower than that.
We still have a tier system in place for RFA tags even with the new salary cap, so let's apply RS to the tier system like we did before... but how the money is used is entirely different...
TIER 10: 1 team x $20m = $20m
TIER 9: 2 teams x $15m = $30m
TIER 8: 3 teams x $10m = $30m
TIER 7: 4 teams x $5m = $20m
TIER 8: 5 teams x $3m = $15m
=======================
Total revenue sharing = $115m
The consequences of this are that small market teams still will be unable to sign players to long-term deals. We don't have a MLB bonus system in place. They will still have to find a way to get under the cap when the RS money is dried up and the new season starts.
This may not be perfect, but it is a start, and the figures are similar to what we had for revenue sharing after the 2009 season.
Post by: Colby on April 23, 2010, 02:10:44 PM
Post by: bridgestone on April 26, 2010, 03:48:21 PM
Post by: clidwin on April 27, 2010, 10:07:54 AM
Post by: Colby on April 27, 2010, 10:17:27 AM
Revenue sharing money for 2011 will be dolled out on June 1st, 2011 based on what tiers franchises fall into for 2011. This money is considered a cash receipt from the luxury tax system and MLB central fund.
TIER 10: 1 team x $20m = $20m
TIER 9: 2 teams x $15m = $30m
TIER 8: 3 teams x $10m = $30m
TIER 7: 4 teams x $5m = $20m
TIER 6: 5 teams x $3m = $15m
=======================
Total revenue sharing = $115m
Post by: rcankosy on April 28, 2010, 02:28:28 PM
I have three questions.
1. Why don't Tier 10 teams receive a higher amount ($20m) than Tier 8 and 9 teams ($30m)?
2. Should Tier 8 and 9 teams receive different amounts?
3. Shouldn't there be Tier 6 teams? You have Tier 8 listed twice.
Roy
Post by: Colby on April 28, 2010, 03:27:49 PM
Colby,
I have three questions.
1. Why don't Tier 10 teams receive a higher amount ($20m) than Tier 8 and 9 teams ($30m)?
2. Should Tier 8 and 9 teams receive different amounts?
3. Shouldn't there be Tier 6 teams? You have Tier 8 listed twice.
Roy
1) You are looking at the total amount for all teams in the tier. Each tier has a different amount of teams.
2) Of course
3) Fixed that typo
Post by: Canada8999 on April 28, 2010, 08:54:01 PM
Post by: Colby on April 29, 2010, 08:41:20 AM
Now that we're allowing salary caps to vary over time, where the performance of a team will ultimately control their budget then what is the purpose of revenue sharing? Any motivation for including would seem to have been due to an oversight in the salary cap calculation... am I missing something?
The motivation is that it persists as a key financial element for small market clubs in MLB. Our salary cap system is ultimately based off of the payroll for the 40-man roster. This excludes portions of money that are dumped into the draft by small market clubs. The question is: do we call it a day and keep it even, or do we add some extra per RS?
Post by: Colby on May 03, 2010, 02:22:56 PM
Post by: Canada8999 on May 03, 2010, 10:48:09 PM
Response from Ben... others?
I'd be interested in hearing some more arguments too - I'm not sold myself on what to do with RS
Post by: rcankosy on May 04, 2010, 09:13:21 PM
I'm fine with the numbers on the chart that Colby posted.
Roy
Post by: lp815 on May 09, 2010, 06:57:24 PM
Post by: Colby on May 11, 2010, 10:26:40 AM
Post by: clidwin on May 11, 2010, 10:43:38 AM
Post by: Canada8999 on May 11, 2010, 11:05:37 PM
Post by: Colby on May 12, 2010, 08:27:08 AM
Post by: Canada8999 on May 12, 2010, 09:45:56 PM
Our salary caps come from three-year averages of performance-sorted MLB total payrolls. Aren't these payrolls strictly based on the 40-man roster? Therefore, much of the remaining farm payroll is missing from these numbers. This was my goal in analyzing revenue sharing - to determine how to make up for that missing gap.
- Our payrolls should evolve to fit within whatever budgets we set by a natural supply and demand forces
- If that doesn't happen (or not fast enough) wouldn't revenue sharing only help low budget teams (where as this is a league wide issue)?
Post by: Colby on May 14, 2010, 10:23:17 AM
- Our payrolls should evolve to fit within whatever budgets we set by a natural supply and demand forces
- If that doesn't happen (or not fast enough) wouldn't revenue sharing only help low budget teams (where as this is a league wide issue)?
There is actually good reason to think that our caps will eventually become closer to each other over time. This diminishes the effect and need for revenue sharing. The Yankees have to finish in 1st place to maintain the highest cap. The Padres have to finish in 30th place to maintain the lowest cap. This is not going to happen every year. Eventually, the Yankees cap will fall and the Padres/Marlins/Pirates will increase. Of course, our three-year averaging of these results, maximum cap changes each season, and weight on the previous year's cap keeps these numbers within real-life market results.
Perhaps a better way to simulate the effect of MLB revenue sharing on the farm systems of small market teams is give them additional money to be used in the entry draft OR a bigger EDR... just some more thoughts on this issue.
Post by: lp815 on May 14, 2010, 10:40:11 AM
There is actually good reason to think that our caps will eventually become closer to each other over time. This diminishes the effect and need for revenue sharing. The Yankees have to finish in 1st place to maintain the highest cap. The Padres have to finish in 30th place to maintain the lowest cap. This is not going to happen every year. Eventually, the Yankees cap will fall and the Padres/Marlins/Pirates will increase. Of course, our three-year averaging of these results, maximum cap changes each season, and weight on the previous year's cap keeps these numbers within real-life market results.
Perhaps a better way to simulate the effect of MLB revenue sharing on the farm systems of small market teams is give them additional money to be used in the entry draft OR a bigger EDR... just some more thoughts on this issue.
Say the additional money for small market teams for the ED would be implemented...do we have figures as to what kind of monies that might be, and who would receive them?
Post by: Colby on May 20, 2010, 10:13:30 AM
Say the additional money for small market teams for the ED would be implemented...do we have figures as to what kind of monies that might be, and who would receive them?
This was the total RS amount figured by research on the current MLB RS system. I think we could take a fraction of it to apply to ED bonuses.
TIER 10: 1 team x $20m = $20m
TIER 9: 2 teams x $15m = $30m
TIER 8: 3 teams x $10m = $30m
TIER 7: 4 teams x $5m = $20m
TIER 6: 5 teams x $3m = $15m
=======================
Total revenue sharing = $115m
Post by: Dan Wood on June 02, 2010, 02:19:29 AM
I know this was rejected, but I am also still in favor of doing away with ED signing bonuses. I still argue that the money for those bonuses comes from a different fund than active player salaries.
This little anecdote about a past Red Sox draft came from Fangraphs...The last sentence is the one that supports what I am talking about...
Best positional player: Mark Teixeira (1998: Round 9, Pick 265) this was, of course, before Teixeira went to Georgia Tech and eventually became the best college hitter in the 2001 draft. The two sides weren’t far apart in talks, yet at the end of the day Boston let him walk, only to try and woo him in free agency during the winter of 2008. (History sort of repeated itself when the Red Sox failed to sign Pedro Alvarez years later. Bryan Smith even notes that the international scouting director attempted to give the amateur department his money to sign Alvarez, but ownership disallowed the move.)
Post by: Colby on June 02, 2010, 09:11:47 AM
Quote
MLB's current collective bargaining agreement sets a 'payroll threshold' each season that is somewhat similar to a salary cap. For the 2007 season, this threshold has been set at $148 million ($155 million in 2008). Should the average annual value of a team's total salary contracts surpass this threshold in any year, they pay a 'tax' on the amount over the threshold. The tax is graduated such that a team pays a progressively higher percentage every year it exceeds the threshold, to a maximum of 40%. As an example, when Roger Clemens signed with the Yankees this season, his salary was reported at $18.5 million. But since the Yankees have already exceeded the payroll threshold several times, they were forced to pay the maximum luxury tax on his salary of 40%. Applied to Clemens' salary, the tax comes to $7.4 million. So in actuality, Clemens is costing the Yankees $25.9 million this season.
The Luxury Tax is also called the 'Competitive Balance Tax'. Ironically, the money from the tax isn't distributed to smaller market teams to promote competitive balance. Instead, it goes into an 'Industry Growth Fund' that MLB uses for player benefits and to promote the growth of baseball around the world. Money is distributed to smaller revenue teams, but that money comes from MLB's revenue sharing program, which is entirely separate and independent of the luxury tax.
With your thinking on the big-cap teams (Cubs, Mets, Red Sox, Tigers, Yankees, Angels), a simplified version of that luxury tax could be put in place that taxes payroll greater than $170m at some rate like 20%. All this does is promote the big market teams to skew to the limit, but of course, just as in real life, they will surely spend.
Post by: Dan Wood on June 02, 2010, 10:09:43 AM
Post by: Colby on June 11, 2010, 05:10:58 PM
I think the revenue sharing issue may be close to dead. It may be best to keep it simple and let our salary cap system "realize" the real life revenue sharing that exists.
Post by: rcankosy on June 11, 2010, 10:37:00 PM
Why is RS dead? I saw 2 approvals and only one dissenting vote.
Roy
Post by: Colby on June 14, 2010, 10:41:32 AM
Colby,
Why is RS dead? I saw 2 approvals and only one dissenting vote.
Roy
It is not entirely dead - still an active topic, but this thread has been here for quite some time without much agreement. I need to here from the rest of the RC on this matter.
Post by: Colby on June 29, 2010, 11:39:38 AM
2010
Range: $200.0m, Average: $108.7m, Standard Deviation: $45.7m
2011
Range: $171.5m, Average: $105.8m, Standard Deviation: $38.7m
2012
Range: $158.5m, Average: $104.2m, Standard Deviation: $35.0m
Caps will regress slightly, the margin between the rich and poor will drop by just over 20% and the standard deviation of cap space will drop by over $10m (about 23%). This trend will surely continue into the middle of the decade.
Unless someone else has a good argument and a simple idea, then I think keeping things simple and taking revenue sharing out of the equation may be the way to go.
Post by: Colby on July 16, 2010, 02:59:51 PM
Post by: rcankosy on July 17, 2010, 12:09:34 AM
I see that the disparity in payrolls are getting smaller, but I don't think that eliminates the need for some kind of revenue sharing for the small market teams. The expected 2012 salary cap for the Yankees is $2175m, while the Pirates cap is $60m. I believe that example alone creates serious consideration for revenue sharing.
Post by: Canada8999 on July 17, 2010, 01:26:52 AM
Colby,
I see that the disparity in payrolls are getting smaller, but I don't think that eliminates the need for some kind of revenue sharing for the small market teams. The expected 2012 salary cap for the Yankees is $2175m, while the Pirates cap is $60m. I believe that example alone creates serious consideration for revenue sharing.
Again, the question is if our salary cap calculations are built to adjust our caps year in and year out based on performance, what does revenue sharing offer?
What is your proposal for revenue sharing? Should we just do away with any variance in salary caps all together?
Post by: lp815 on July 17, 2010, 08:24:29 AM
Again, the question is if our salary cap calculations are built to adjust our caps year in and year out based on performance, what does revenue sharing offer?
What is your proposal for revenue sharing? Should we just do away with any variance in salary caps all together?
In my opinion, I would be worried about the small market teams simply never winning. If they can't win games, they can't increase their caps. Case in point, I'm a relatively small market team, and I'm projected to have a decrease in cap space of over $10m. Obviously my team is in no position to win in it's current state, so how am I to get better when my cap room goes down over 15%? I'd have to check other smaller market teams like this to see if there are others in the same position.
Post by: rcankosy on July 17, 2010, 09:17:13 AM
I had that same concern, and I shared it with the RC when the proposal of tying a portion of the salary cap to team performance first came up.
Post by: Colby on July 19, 2010, 11:11:42 AM
Jake,
I had that same concern, and I shared it with the RC when the proposal of tying a portion of the salary cap to team performance first came up.
Per my previous post, a small market team finishing dead last may just keep their cap static whereas the Yankees not finishing first will decrease their cap (this is actually true in real life). The salary cap system made some progress in realizing some of the revenue sharing. The question is do we want to add more as did last year?
Post by: lp815 on July 19, 2010, 11:26:25 AM
Per my previous post, a small market team finishing dead last may just keep their cap static whereas the Yankees not finishing first will decrease their cap (this is actually true in real life). The salary cap system made some progress in realizing some of the revenue sharing. The question is do we want to add more as did last year?
Gotcha...well, I guess then the question is 'was the system broken, or ineffective last year?'. Correct?
Post by: Colby on July 19, 2010, 11:33:19 AM
Gotcha...well, I guess then the question is 'was the system broken, or ineffective last year?'. Correct?
The revenue sharing system had a lot of flaws in my opinion. I could handle a luxury tax that is incurred over a certain threshold with funds from that going to small market squads. Anything more than that will be too complicated and not worth it.
Post by: lp815 on July 19, 2010, 12:15:48 PM
Per my previous post, a small market team finishing dead last may just keep their cap static whereas the Yankees not finishing first will decrease their cap (this is actually true in real life). The salary cap system made some progress in realizing some of the revenue sharing. The question is do we want to add more as did last year?
I'm going to nit pick here. You say that a small market team finishing last MAY keep their cap static. How do we know if it may or may not? What if it doesn't?
Post by: Colby on July 19, 2010, 12:46:26 PM
I'm going to nit pick here. You say that a small market team finishing last MAY keep their cap static. How do we know if it may or may not? What if it doesn't?
It depends on where their cap has been for a few years and where they have finished. Generally, the new salary cap system has a way of regressing all salary caps to an average number. There will be a general pull to the middle of the caps by all teams unless they are a small market squad that is very bad or a large market squad that is very good over MANY years.
Post by: Colby on August 03, 2010, 08:28:09 AM