|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Apr 18, 2016 17:33:24 GMT -5
OK guys, so like Ryan I went through the rules, and searched the forum and emails and couldn't find comments by Scott on future years.
However, we found a way to get the shoutbox archive back to the 10th of Jan (within the admin tab) and there was one reference there which was:
"Chicago Cub Sox (Scott): Hey all, great job so far. Please keep an eye not only on 2016 cap but also 2017. You won't be allowed to be more than $10M over the $175M cap next offseason. I will add all players sold overnight and this morning to Fantrax later tonight.Ban Edit Jan 13, 2016 at 11:06am"
We cant see posts before the 10th but given this is the only quote we can find on the matter, and scott mentions leeway I think this supports Scott's point. So I think it's OK for him to keep Maeda. Other views welcome, feel free to discuss.
This would mean he doesn't have to rush to do a trade if he doesn't want to. But I would suggest that when he does make a trade with Tripp, he throws in an extra prospect.
On this vote- the rules were unclear, so the vote is not a rule change, it's a rule clarification. As a result a simple majority (not a 2 to 1 majority) is needed. If it is ruled there is to be no leeway, Scott are you OK to ensure that before your next FA signing or trade you sort out the future cap?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Apr 18, 2016 18:21:35 GMT -5
I voted against allowing future cap overages but I don't think there should be any punishments. He should just get himself in line, however he sees fit that's all.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Apr 18, 2016 18:57:17 GMT -5
Gentlemen, check this out...
I have the following players signed this year on Projected Arbitration salaries that we took before the season began from the MLBTradeRumors.com page and used to determine our inaugural season salaries. They are also listed for 2017 (and years beyond in some cases) with $1M increases to the 2016 salary. If I elect not to keep any of them next offseason, because they are arb players from our original keepers, I'm not on the hook for any salary or percent of salary in 2017 or future seasons. Jake Arrieta CHC 16:$10.6M, 17:$11.6M Avisail Garcia CWS 16:$2.3M, 17:$3.3M, 18:$4.3M, 19:$5.3M Hector Rondon CHC 16:$3.6M, 17:$4.6M, 18:$5.6M Pedro Strop CHC 16:$4.7M, 17:$5.7M Justin Grimm CHC 16:$1M, 17:$2M, 18:$3M, 19:$4M Nate Jones CWS 16:$0.9M, 17:$1.9M
By not keeping just ONE of these guys would have me in compliance for next season. Because of the way we list our salaries on ProBoards and on Brent's master spreadsheet, all of the 2017 salaries are being counted against the cap right now. This is one reason it shows me as over the $175M 2017 cap. But any of us can non-tender these Arb (and by the way, Pre-Arb also) players in the offseason at NO penalty. Should we even be counting these future years against the cap right now? Obviously if I non-tender Pedro Strop in the offseason then I'm totally in compliance and under the cap for next year. But I can't say that or do that now because he's part of my 2016 team.
Thought I'd throw this out there for more discussion points. Food for thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 19:07:17 GMT -5
I had no idea we weren't tied to future Arb salaries. That's the only reason I dealt Erlin and Rea cause I didn't want to pay $3M down the line. When and where was that ever mentioned?
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Apr 18, 2016 19:51:46 GMT -5
You can look back at several emails I've sent. I know I've mentioned several times that we're always allowed in an offseason to non-tender any original Pre-Arb or original roster Arb players at no future penalty (as long as it's done by deadline before each offseason's Free Agency). This has to be in the rules as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 20:03:41 GMT -5
I don't see it in the rules and don't ever remember seeing an email referencing this...not saying it didn't happen, but just don't remember it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 20:06:11 GMT -5
Found it....just missed it....shoot never would have dealt those guys....oh well...
This is only as we go into our first season so we can set Contracts for initial keepers that are players with no set salary yet but are under control of your parent franchise.
"For example, I have Hector Rondon on the Cubs. The Cot's Baseball Contract payroll obligations shows me he's Arb1 in 2016, Arb2 in 2017, Arb3 in 2018, then a free agent in 2019. (This by the way is the ONLY reason we use the Payroll Obligations 2016-21 spreadsheet on each team's Cot's page) So if I want to keep him as one of my initial 15 Cubs major leaguers then I use the mlbtraderumors projection of $3.6M for 2016 and add $1M for the other two years. We don't have to worry about what he might get in real life arbitration over the next two years and his DD3 contract is set.
15:$3.6M, 16:$4.6M, 17:$5.6M
If for some reason I don't want to keep him for 2017 or 2018, I can non-tender him with no cap hit or penalty (if it's done in the offseason before the deadline) since these were initial season Diamond Duos arbitration salaries."
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Apr 22, 2016 16:03:26 GMT -5
Bump this poll for the 5 players who haven't voted. Will close either way in 24h or so.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Apr 24, 2016 15:43:09 GMT -5
IMO there should be no leeway for future salary cap projection whatsoever. Part of this unique format is keeping within the cap. Rules shouldn't be changing during the season.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Apr 24, 2016 21:30:13 GMT -5
The point here is that there was not actually a rule. No rules are changing during the season. We're trying to best decide what should be in the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Apr 25, 2016 23:17:34 GMT -5
I was under the understanding that we can't be over the cap in any future year. I do remember something about having some time to make adjustments if we are, but am not certain.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Apr 26, 2016 1:30:04 GMT -5
So, whilst a few people were under a similar impression, I still haven't seen anything to convince me that this was clarified. In fact the only message we have found makes an incinuation that there is some leeway allowed for future years.
The conclusion was that it wasn't clear, though, so we had this vote. Even though we haven't hit 8 to make a simple majority, people have had plenty of time, so I think it is fair to say that the league prefers there to be no leeway on future years.
Before the rules can be modifoed, the last question now becomes, do projected arb salaries (a non-binding commitment for the owner) count towards a future year's cap? It would make it easier to administor if it was because then we could just glance at the totals on the master spreadsheet to see whether a roster is legal. I see the argument against this (that future years are non-binding) but I like rules that make everyone's life easier.
Do we need to hold another poll?
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Apr 26, 2016 20:37:17 GMT -5
Too many polls about this. Let's just say no over cap in future years. You do have 72 hours to fix if you do go over cap.
I could argue future Arb or Pre-Arb salaries shouldn't count towards a cap because they're non-binding, but let's discuss this when the 2016 season ends.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Apr 27, 2016 1:36:40 GMT -5
OK, good, no more polls! I think for now (and because not everyone has marked arb years clearly and they're not marked on the spreadsheet) we just go by the future year's total, and then we clarify in the offseason.
As discussed there is no onus on you to make a move, but you can't pick anyone up or do a trade without resolving the cap space...
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Schneider on Oct 9, 2020 13:08:27 GMT -5
A quick solution to back-loading contracts would be to reduce the percentage from 40% from the AAS to 20%.
|
|