|
|
Post by Kevlar on May 30, 2005 12:20:20 GMT -5
I find this whole money thing to be pretty unfair, I mean Tampa Bay, who had a good season, only has 3.5 million for extensions and 19 million for FA's at a 23 million payroll, while the yankees who had a considerably worse season have 91 million for extensions and 50 million for FAs with a 117 million payroll. I know that New York is obviously much larger than Tampa Bay but that still seems pretty unfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 30, 2005 12:53:12 GMT -5
it seems to make perfect sense though. add up the money for extensions, FA's, and current payroll. Tampa Bay probably couldn't support a payroll over 46 million, which is just a little more than what the 3 add up to. The Yankees on the other hand probably couldn't support a 250 million payroll in the game, but realistically, they probably could with no problem. Thats just the way things are with the markets. Over time, performance will affect it, because tv deals will change, but you can't expect it to change that much in one season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevlar on May 30, 2005 13:29:37 GMT -5
Yeah, but this league isn't supposed to be held to the same standards as the real MLB; one team shouldn't have that big of an advantage for no reason. I mean, we do have a salary cap in place so its not like we're playing by the rules at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on May 30, 2005 13:39:12 GMT -5
well if that's the case, then why bother with contracts? Let's just randomly assign Free Agents to teams.
And actually, what's with player differentials, let's just make them all 60s across the board, to make it fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevlar on May 30, 2005 13:45:46 GMT -5
that isn't what I'm saying at all. I don't mean we should just treat everybody equal but it seems like a crock of shit to me that random teams in the league get such a huge advantage simply because they're in highly populated areas. We are obviously trying to make the league more fair than it is in reality because, as I said before, we do have a salary cap even though not everyone's below it.
My biggest problem is that there are no disadvantages if your team is in a large city and no advantages if you are in a small one. This league shouldn't give some owners that big of a leg up if we want the league to be fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on May 30, 2005 13:57:41 GMT -5
that isn't what I'm saying at all. I don't mean we should just treat everybody equal but it seems like a crock of shit to me that random teams in the league get such a huge advantage simply because they're in highly populated areas. We are obviously trying to make the league more fair than it is in reality because, as I said before, we do have a salary cap even though not everyone's below it. My biggest problem is that there are no disadvantages if your team is in a large city and no advantages if you are in a small one. This league shouldn't give some owners that big of a leg up if we want the league to be fair. I have taken three parts of your argument, and will now pwn them. 1: Uh, that's the same as in real life, bud 2: Luxury Tax and Salary Cap:1. The salary cap will be set at $95 million. 2. The luxury tax will be set at $80 million. For every dollar a team spends over the tax cap a dollar will be taken from thier cash. This cash will then be distributed amongst the smaller market teams that are in need of extra financial support. Luxury tax will be determined by each teams salary on May 1st and the cash will be subtracted from those teams and added to the ones that need it at the end of the season.(not sure if i will do this due to some possible difficulties) 3. There will be a grace period on salary cap and luxury tax. Teams will have until the end of the year to get under the $95 million cap. I will be aiding in the process by adjusting existing contracts and restoring them to human levels. Owners will have until May of 2007 to get under the luxury tax level, at that point it will be $.50 per dollar over the tax cap. It will be changed to dollar for dollar over the tax level in May 2008. 3. These will be no max to the amount of cash a team can hold. 3: Just like in life, fan interest in larger markets is more succeptable to change. If you do well, you will have a better FI, but if ou suck, it PLUMMETS. Smaller markets don't get hurt as badly this way, from my experience. |
|
|
|
Post by Dankbud on May 30, 2005 14:22:09 GMT -5
I find this whole money thing to be pretty unfair, I mean Tampa Bay, who had a good season, only has 3.5 million for extensions and 19 million for FA's at a 23 million payroll, while the yankees who had a considerably worse season have 91 million for extensions and 50 million for FAs with a 117 million payroll. I know that New York is obviously much larger than Tampa Bay but that still seems pretty unfair. i actually have more than that for extensions, it is just that i already signed like 7 players to extensions and that money was already subtracted from the total amount. i actually started with around 20 mill for extensions. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevlar on May 30, 2005 14:22:22 GMT -5
I have taken three parts of your argument, and will now pwn them. 1: Uh, that's the same as in real life, bud 2: Luxury Tax and Salary Cap:1. The salary cap will be set at $95 million. 2. The luxury tax will be set at $80 million. For every dollar a team spends over the tax cap a dollar will be taken from thier cash. This cash will then be distributed amongst the smaller market teams that are in need of extra financial support. Luxury tax will be determined by each teams salary on May 1st and the cash will be subtracted from those teams and added to the ones that need it at the end of the season.(not sure if i will do this due to some possible difficulties) 3. There will be a grace period on salary cap and luxury tax. Teams will have until the end of the year to get under the $95 million cap. I will be aiding in the process by adjusting existing contracts and restoring them to human levels. Owners will have until May of 2007 to get under the luxury tax level, at that point it will be $.50 per dollar over the tax cap. It will be changed to dollar for dollar over the tax level in May 2008. 3. These will be no max to the amount of cash a team can hold. 3: Just like in life, fan interest in larger markets is more succeptable to change. If you do well, you will have a better FI, but if ou suck, it PLUMMETS. Smaller markets don't get hurt as badly this way, from my experience. hmm, well for the first thing you said, that's kinda what I've been trying to get at this whole time, which is that this league isn't following the MLB to a point, and its trying to improve on it in some ways, thus the cap. For your second point, I'm not really sure what you're getting at, I already mentioned the fact we have a cap several times, and I know how it works. There is a luxury tax in the real MLB, but no actual cap, which there is in this league. Third, the only team with a payroll over 70 million that had a losing season was the New York Mets, with a payroll of 82 million and a record of 78-84. But they still managed to make 12 million this year and have 28 mil for extensions and 22 mil for FAs. And their fan interest was better than Toronto's who have a $45 million cheaper team and had a season as bad as theirs. |
|
|
|
Post by Dankbud on May 30, 2005 14:40:22 GMT -5
i really wouldn't worry too much about anything yet. wait until the season flips to see the cash situations for each team.
if things get too out of hand then i will make changes but i am pretty sure the way it is set up, if you don't do well with a large payroll you can end up with negative cash which disallows tou to sign FAs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on May 30, 2005 15:16:56 GMT -5
as I bolded, kevlar, you said that teams were over the cap and were complaining about it. I pointed out to you that it was still OK to be over for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevlar on May 30, 2005 15:24:16 GMT -5
well, I might have said that not everyone was under it but I was really trying to say that it's good we have a cap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 30, 2005 19:07:43 GMT -5
the problem is that you are looking for radical change after one season. that doesn't happen. look at TSG's league. teams in smaller markets that have done well are now able to support payrolls in the higher end of the league (Oakland, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Toronto). The reason is because national and local tv deals expire after a few seasons, and teams are given new ones. these are determined by the game based on how the team has performed. it all balances out after a while. just not immediately. its a slow progression, which is realistic.
|
|
