I was thinking that there should be a cap of how much salary you should be allowed to trade in a single deal. I am guilty of it too, but at the end of the day you can just sell players with no return contracts. I would say no more than $5 a year just as a possibility.
Post by Joe (Tigers) on Aug 30, 2015 20:00:36 GMT -5
Bring this up again in November. If changes get enough support, we'll have a league vote. I'm already anticipating having a few votes, such as removing the performance bonuses and adding a round or 2 to the rookie draft.
Alright cool. I just thought it was something to think about especially when there's been times when $10 changes hands and that severely affects balance.
One thing to remember is that cash sent is a negotiated upon thing, so by limiting that, you are limiting a team's ability to conduct business.
I know it can look bad when big money is flying around, but a) it has and will always happen in real life, and b) there's an exchange being made for that $$$.
If I have $20 worth of contracts I want to sell, but want a great return from a team with little to no room, it stands to reason that sending a good chunk will increase my return.
Also, keep in mind that some teams send the dough in year 1, but then get entirely off the hook in year 2. And if the receiving team has people coming off the books n can replace that $$$ with other players, it isn't bad for them, either.
All in all, every deal should be judged on its own merits, and there are many diff reasons why cash is being moved. And that should be judged accordingly.
NOW, one thing we can also look at/discuss is how much cap a team can end up having. Maybe we can have it where it is $200 max, meaning when receiving $$$ and such, the highest we can go up to is 200. While the Dodgers and Yanks have each surpassed that- with the Dodgers nearing 300 this year- 200 is still well beyond any other real life team, and can be a justifiable high side total cap when all is said and done.
So, in that scenario, even if I send or receive 30mil in a deal with players, as long as I am still under the total of 200 it is fine. But then of course, if I am at like 185, I cannot receive more than 15mil of contracts without shedding any.
I just think that type of scenario works best, as it's a limit, albeit a high one, but where people still maintain a great amount of freedom to conduct business as they see fit.
I agree and have even done it myself in multiple deals, but when the big teams get contracts completely covered it just makes it so you can essentially buy players for better prospects. I like your idea though where there is a cap and there should be a floor as well.
I actually think the floor should be like 75 though. Reason being that if a low cap team is stocked with cheap players, then they still have a good chunk of their money to send with deals.
Plus, we have seen real life teams operate and succeed with less than that.
Post by TB Rays (RSP) on Aug 31, 2015 7:12:03 GMT -5
Well 1 thing we need to consider is the wide span of our starting salaries in here. I think we need to make it a + - number, not a set value. IE you can only gain $30 over your starting value or trade away $30 etc. Because we all start with different amounts to begin with its tough to do flat limits. I think there is what, like a $30 span between first and last place in starting salary. If your starting salary is $160, you can't have more than $190 (numbers for example only).
Other wise we could have a team with $138 starting, somehow find a way to gain $50 in salary over the span of the year.
Post by Phillies (Jason) on Aug 31, 2015 12:25:31 GMT -5
Frankly I don't think we should have either. To me the goal of these large leagues is making it so that everyone in the league is competitive. Overtime there will clearly be teams that thrive while other teams decline. For the most part these things kind of manage themselves, there doesn't really need to be any other regulation.
To me the value of money in a league like this is very fluid. In March or April the cost of a dollar is very very high. However it a point like this especially for teams in the bottom 10 there is very little use for any extra money. So for me it's an opportunity for those teams that are rebuilding to make their team better. Very often rules like this seems to be against the teams that are at the bottom and trying to get better.
I know that it may seem like it helps the teams at the top because they end up with some extra money or cap, But every team has the ability to do the same thing. There just may only be some teams that use it.
Post by Blue Jays (Brandy) on Sept 4, 2015 10:18:17 GMT -5
I agree, keeping rules/restrictions simple is the way to go and the simplest way is to not have anything at all. The league is setup very well in that yes you can try and "buy" a win for today but you greatly restrict yourself for tomorrow in terms of depth/salary/prospects. Keep the $$ stuff simple, as for expanding the rookie draft I am all for that...
Post by Joe (Tigers) on Sept 4, 2015 11:42:44 GMT -5
I agree, I hate restricting teams' ability to build their team the way they want. And salary isn't the end-all-be-all for success. I'm in 3rd place with an $80 salary. That's just how I chose to build my team and I expect it to pay off big next season.
In terms of the draft, I think we could definitely go up to 3 rounds after a vote. I dropped it mainly because of how hard it was to keep track of the traded picks in a league this big/active. I ended up giving out like 10 comp picks because the previous roster keeper and I couldn't figure it all out. And also because we had already snapped up all the top talent, and late draft picks' value were becoming a bit inflated and worthless. I think 3 round may be a good number to stick with going forward.
How much a team can send in a trade is already restricted. It's called a salary cap.
Personally I don't like using cap as a huge part of my trades, but that has more to do with my personal style. If someone wants to trade a bunch of cap that is their choice. Even if it is done in a way that looks like tanking, well tanking doesn't really help in this league as your cap goes done.
I can theoretically deal $100 worth of contracts AND the $100 that pays those players, meaning the acquiring team could then have like $260 worth of players on his roster, with all $260 accounted for.
This is not for separate $$$ that is unaccounted for; any sort of change to the overall cap number would mean when you take into account adding players + their contract paid by another team.
I love freedom, but I also see where the potential for it to get out of hand could be, which is why I think having a Max of like $200 could work out.
Markets do correct themselves, but we should not wait until it spirals out of control that one year before we even have discussions.
If a team goes "MLB Dodgers" on us and finds a way to acquire a near $300 payroll, would that be fine with everyone??
Again, I love the freedom of potentially figuring out something crazy, but I also see the need for safeguards. A high limit with a potential low/medium floor could alleviate any concerns before they attempt to arise.
Post by Pirates (Gregg) on Sept 5, 2015 10:26:24 GMT -5
One area raised concern in general discussion was trading future dollars and owners exceeding limits of their salary cap. I think trading future draft picks and dollars could be an issue needing addressed in the concept with previous comment. If one owner sells out everything just to win one season and dropping out of league the next year would severally impact that team. Some safeguards should be placed to prevent abuse.
IF a team were to be able to go "all MLB Dodgers" on us it will last 1 year at most. It is highly unlikely to happen as basically each team in the league would have to average trading said team $10+ in cap.
If someone is savy enough to acquire superstar players with extra cap for 1 year I applaud them. Based on the mostly balanced trades that happen in this league no one is going to pull off what you are claiming is theoretical. This very discussion is insulting to the talented managers in this league.
The moment rules are put in place to regulate the extreme edge of the rules is the moment this league will not be as fun.
Ryan (Cubs): Today is the last day to re-sign your restricted free agents! All players that are left unsigned will be dropped tomorrow and eligible for free agency
Feb 23, 2024 10:02:14 GMT -5
Padres (Rodger): Luis Matos is showing up twice on my roster sheet, as a OF and a SP, can you remove the SP line please.
Feb 24, 2024 6:56:36 GMT -5
Pirates (Gregg): Everyone update your Yahoo Roster!
Feb 25, 2024 12:41:26 GMT -5
Red Sox (Kris): We still have a MAX 20 prospects, correct?
Feb 26, 2024 9:15:10 GMT -5
Ryan (Cubs): Yes. 20 prospects is the MiLB max, you either need to drop a prospect or call someone up if you are over that limit.
Feb 26, 2024 11:56:08 GMT -5
Red Sox (Kris): I don’t, but I know that some do. So, to be clear, we can draft over the 20 limit as long as we cut down before the season starts?
Feb 29, 2024 23:45:26 GMT -5
Ryan (Cubs): Technically you should be dropping a player anytime a draft pick or trade takes you over the limit of 20. I must've missed it but Yankees needs to release one of his MiLB players, they are the only team over the limit right now
Mar 1, 2024 7:43:12 GMT -5
Red Sox (Kris): Thanks for clarifying
Mar 1, 2024 8:48:23 GMT -5
Blue Jays (Brandy): Still willing to talk SP......
Mar 3, 2024 1:12:18 GMT -5
Rockies (Jose): Is Yuki Matsui rostered?
Mar 12, 2024 16:15:04 GMT -5
Ryan (Cubs): Technically you can't bid on Yuki in free agency until he pitches an inning in the MLB. You could have drafted him in the MiLB draft, but players that haven't made their debut can't be nominated in Free Agency.
Mar 13, 2024 13:37:27 GMT -5
Blue Jays (Brandy): Shopping Gallen if anyone needing an ace level sp
Mar 29, 2024 11:53:28 GMT -5
Blue Jays (Brandy): Shopping Vaughn if anyone needs a 1b?
Apr 2, 2024 19:06:22 GMT -5
Mariners (Rook): I do believe Ronel Blanco free agent final bid of $3/3 by LAD is invalid and the player should be returned to free agency. That was LAD last transaction and it put his cap -0.25. We can’t go negative cap. What say you?
Apr 5, 2024 21:29:05 GMT -5
*
Ryan (Cubs): @mariners, correct. LAD's bid on Blanco put him $.25 over the cap so the bid is invalidated. I've messaged LAD and dropped Blanco from his roster
Apr 8, 2024 7:28:32 GMT -5
*
Pirates (Gregg): @mariners Tyler Holton RP DET
Apr 8, 2024 19:39:18 GMT -5
*
Ryan (Cubs): NEW FORUM UPDATE: I created a new space to list your Prospect Promotions. A lot of the promotions get lost in the Roster Moves tab. Please post all of your prospect call-ups in the new section and I'll be able to update the page faster!
Apr 16, 2024 7:42:44 GMT -5
Ryan (Cubs): Of course D’Arnaud hits 3 HR today…after I put him on waivers
Apr 19, 2024 20:46:13 GMT -5