|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Apr 16, 2016 12:19:00 GMT -5
Hi all,
An eagle-eyed owner has pointed out that one of the teams has snuck over the salary cap for 2017. As it happens, it's the one belonging to our Commish, who needless to say has an absolutely impeccable record in bookeeping, but in managing the 2016 cap, simply didn't notice. This kind of thing happens of course, particularly as Fantrax only flags payrolls for this year, but thanks to Brent's Master Spreadsheet they are easier to spot.
As it happens the constitution doesn't clarify exactly what to do about future years, though one's default assumption could be that a cap is a cap. However, it's not unreasonable to think that there could be some leeway, as the owner could have a plan to make a trade, or cut someone in advance of a future year. And in the real world, you wouldn't be paying that person until next year, so the cap wouldn't apply until the crunch point.
Problem with leeway is how much, and we really don't want people to be able to backweight a shedload of salary and change the competitive balance of the league in doing so. As it happens there is a contingency in the rules that after free agency but before the season teams can be up to 10M over, though I guess this isn't a direct comp as you have to sort it out before the season and can't actually play any games exceeding a cap.
So what I would suggest is that we do a poll of the league to decide if teams should be given leeway with regards to a future year salary cap, and if so how much leeway.
Hope everyone is enjoying the season so far!
H
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Apr 16, 2016 12:27:05 GMT -5
If you voted yes in this poll, I have created another thread (I think you can only do one poll per thread) where you can vote on the amount of leeway allowed for future years
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 16:11:14 GMT -5
I think there should be no leeway as per the rules it will go up 5M every year as said below from the rules. The salary cap for each team shall be $170 million for the 2016 Inaugural season, and will increase to $175 million for 2017 and each season thereafter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 19:52:09 GMT -5
I don't think that the cap should be in affect for future years...I don't think any sports have future caps. It's the team owners responsibility to be under the cap in the year, for the year. There are many examples both in the NHL and other leagues where the team has gone "all out" in 1 year, knowing that they are going to have dismantle do to cap issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 20:12:13 GMT -5
There are things in place in pro sports to keep teams under the cap for future years. Like back loading contracts to the extent that's possible in this league doesn't happen. It needs to be done to prevent teams from dramatically back loading and dropping out when they don't do well. Teams will be harder to replace when people drop out if their cap is out of control
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Apr 17, 2016 9:05:46 GMT -5
FYI guys. The cap does increase to $175M in 2017 but stays at $175M for future years after that, as per the line in the rules. It does not increase $5M every season.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Apr 17, 2016 12:45:29 GMT -5
Just saying guys, this poll is kind of unfair. The results should not be visible until AFTER someone votes. Same with the poll on the other thread about $0, $5M or $10M.
Also, I understand right now I'm tentatively over cap for 2017 and would like to get that rectified and will do so as soon as we decide what's going to be. But there is nothing in the rules against it or for it, so technically I'm not in the wrong. I'm in compliance for current season 2016.
I do believe it's only fair that this poll be reposted with the results to only be shown following an owner submitting a vote. That's how all other polls on this board have previously been setup by me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 13:16:31 GMT -5
You could easily rectify the situation by awarding me Maeda since that's what put you over the cap
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Apr 17, 2016 13:25:35 GMT -5
Yes this was my bad- I'd never done a poll before and did it on my phone, not a computer so I didn't realise it wasn't hiding the results until voting as default.
I'm not sure if there is any point redoing it now (I don't think I can change the setting now live), but I'm sorry I messed up on this one.
It's still close, let's see what happens with the remaining 6 votes first. As it happens my personal preference was for 5M of leeway. But in the event that doesnt happen, given Scott is right that this isn't made explicit in the rules, I think it's a bit harsh to force him into a firesale or forced cut. I'd propose allowing him to stay 4m over for the time being, but would not be allowed to make any pickups (aside from minors claims perhaps) or trades without resolving the issue?
Anyhow let's cross that bridge if it comes to it, but to Scott's point I would encourage those voting to try not to be influenced by the votes so far, and again I apologise for not getting the format right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 13:29:19 GMT -5
I thought there was a repeated emphasis on the initial free agent frenzy for people to make sure the bids would not put them over the cap in future years. Maybe I am getting this confused with another league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 13:45:07 GMT -5
I have the same opinion as J. It was repeated over and over again during off-season free agency to "watch your cap not only for this year but the following years". If that were the case, why are we all the sudden now able to go over?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Apr 17, 2016 15:56:58 GMT -5
What if we allow people to go over but only if they pre-pay for that year?
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Apr 17, 2016 21:14:07 GMT -5
Pre-pay league fee? Interesting concept. I don't know that Fantrax can accomodate that but I think they could. If you were to deposit say $45 in your Fantrax league account, the Fantrax Treasurer would likely keep that as a balance for your team.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Apr 18, 2016 1:38:53 GMT -5
J/Tripp- rings a vague bell for me but I can't find a reference from the time. Any chance you could post (a) link(s)?
If these statements were made and were clear, I'm afraid to say that the offending transaction (Maeda signing) might have to be undone as it would represent an illegal bid, and then he would be awarded to the second highest bidder. The question then arises as to what to do with Maeda's stats this last week.
As it's the day lineups are set, if it's possible to find and link to the cited reference(s) today that would be great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 9:36:38 GMT -5
I do not save all of the emails but I know being mindful of the cap current/future was discussed. Backloading contracts is not allowed for the best interest of long term healthy league so I feel one would conservatively surmise that signing a backloaded contract that put you above the cap in future years would not be acceptable.
I feel rule adjustments/creations that support wide scale change are best left for the off-season especially when it benefits one team.
Scott was correct in saying he did not violate a rule but he was sliding through a loophole. I have no ax to grind here because I did not nor could not bid on the Dodger pitcher so my only real point is that I am not for in-season rule changes.
As much heartburn as it may cause, I would suggest putting Meada back up for bid to be awarded to the winner of the week 5 period fa bidding.
It is up to the admin of the league and I will not complain either way but I figured I would throw in my 2 cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 10:22:13 GMT -5
I don't think there should be a re-bid. As the offseason FA rules state, the next highest bidder wins the player. In this case, it's me, so maybe I'm bias. But to keep things consistent, I think it's the best option.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Apr 18, 2016 13:59:47 GMT -5
I want to get this situation rectified. Without causing all the upheaval it would to remove him from last week's (and this week's lineup - which was 11am deadline), how about if I get a quick trade of Maeda worked out?
Who wants him? If we can get a deal turned around before midnight EST tonight I'll throw in a 2015 Bowman Walker Buehler autograph card too!
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Apr 18, 2016 14:03:09 GMT -5
I'm a biased party here by the way. If the league is going to award Maeda to the next highest bidder, how do you correct my roster for last week and this week?
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Apr 18, 2016 14:28:23 GMT -5
How about a compromise to resolve this quickly? Tripp, maybe you could sling Scott a middling prospect whilst taking Maeda on the contract you bid? [as an aside- nice and cheaply by the way- compared to me and Park - d'oh! ] On the stats, by my count Maeda was only active this last week. But he had two starts- why don't we just compromise there too and just count one of the starts? They were similarly valuable so it doesn't matter which one...
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Apr 18, 2016 14:44:53 GMT -5
Henry, thanks. Not a bad compromise but there's no way to count only one start since we are a weekly lineup league. Daily lineup it would be a different story.
Tripp and I have been in discussions on a trade already and we're trying to get a deal worked out. Nothing concrete yet.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Apr 18, 2016 15:06:03 GMT -5
Hendricks put up a not dissimilar line in his one start last week. 6IP, QS, 5Ks, albeit 2ER. But it's close. He's the guy you'd probably have started anyhow, maybe just swap Maeda and him retrospectively?
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Apr 18, 2016 15:20:11 GMT -5
Not to be a jerk guys, but find a rule about future years salary cap before any decision is made here. I understand I'm $4M over for 2017, but where am I in the wrong here? In preseason FA offers we all had to be compliant for 2016, same as we do now in season.
Next offseason there's an allowed $10M over cap until Opening Day. That's in the rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 15:43:08 GMT -5
Scott, you are right you aren't in the wrong as for I was the one to bring this up to Henry, I was just mentioning it to him so it wasn't the case in the future. But I do think we need to resolve this one way or the other for future years. Sorry for causing an upheaval
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 16:00:26 GMT -5
1st off, I don't know anything about what happened before I came along, so if there is some details and/or rulings made, that didn't some how make the bylaws then please forgive me and let me know what they are.
2nd, I've read through the stinking bylaws, if feels like a dozen times, cause every time I want to do something, I'm in violation. That being said, I've never come across a future cap limit...I furthermore, don't think there should be. We can go down a long list of teams, that have "sold out" for that season, knowing full well that they have major cap issues coming up (Chicago Blackhawks come to mind)...if you want to go so far as saying the Florida Marlins were over their internal cap and had to sell off pieces. If he is over the cap in the off-season, then he has work to do, or risk cutting players and not getting anything in return.
3rd, if we are seriously in risk of losing an owner cause they are going to go all in (mind you, staying under the current cap) to win this season and then leave the group cause they don't want to deal with cap issues?? Then we need to seriously question the people that were picked for this league.
In my opinion, I think that Scott should be able to keep the player without any ramifications.
That being said, what if there is a fine for being over the cap...something like $250,000 a week you are over the cap.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Apr 18, 2016 16:28:00 GMT -5
I agree Jeremy. Thank you Ryan. I agree with you too. I hope nobody's seriously questioning the guys I brought into this league. We have a QUALITY group!! I seriously vetted everyone and all have solid backgrounds and a keen interest in making this league successful. I don't see much turnover (hopefully!!) for many years to come.
That said, can the co-commishes and rest of the league please decide on the fate of Maeda and Chicago Cub Sox? If I'm allowed to keep him great. Penalize me for next year. Let's decide on a cushion or something? Or whatever. If I'm not allowed to keep him, Tripp and I do have a gentleman's agreement in place for a deal that includes Maeda but do we need to go there? I want to get this situation resolved ASAP. And yes as Jeremy said, let's clear this up so it doesn't happen again this year or in future years.
Thank you all.
|
|