|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Commish) on Nov 23, 2014 13:24:51 GMT -6
Please vote asap. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by yanks on Nov 27, 2014 14:58:39 GMT -6
i say 50% too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 17:39:27 GMT -6
I don't mind 100%, but I'd like to see a stipulation that if you aren't going to go over the cap threshold with the trade, then no coverage is allowed. Or for example, if a team is acquiring 10M of players with only 4M cap space, then 6M would be the max coverage. Or if they have 12m in cap space, then no coverage would be allowed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 21:29:12 GMT -6
why place a limit on it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 4:11:44 GMT -6
Because it becomes a case of why bother with a salary cap anyway? We already don't have a TC, which means every deal passes. It'd be very easy to rack up a total cap number of 150-170M with enough expiring contracts. Unlimited coverage creates a monster loophole that is easily exploited for the main rule that imposes a limit on our rosters.
Just typing that makes me want to take back my last post. I always think that coverage should just be enough to keep a trade simple rather than forcing teams into monster 15 player deals to get the cap to work on a trade.
Maybe instead of allowing coverage create a trade exception or something so the loophole isn't created?
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Twins (tbraves13) on Dec 1, 2014 7:55:46 GMT -6
Disagree...should be unlimited...especially since we can only trade in current year. If you want to limit coverage...limit the total amount...don't do it on a contract basis. If your team is out of it come deadline, who cares if you have to give coverage to make your team better for next year. You would be just screwing over teams trying to rebuild for the following season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 8:27:29 GMT -6
Sounds like it's settled then, we don't need a salary cap at all.
On a more serious note, this opens a huge issue with following year rosters. What if a team accumulates 150+M of deals that they are committed to in the following year and can't get under cap? Are they forced to release? Now they have sent away their prospects to rebuilders and potentially their MLB roster has to be released or moved for 5 cents on the dollar because everyone knows you're stuck. What if that owner bails then? No future, a skeleton MLB roster......sounds enticing. And before you suggest letting in new owners at a discount, who subsidizes the prize pool to keep payouts at the current $50 buyin for everyone amounts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 10:38:06 GMT -6
^ this is the problem with just one year coverage....
|
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves (whiteyherzog) on Dec 1, 2014 11:34:09 GMT -6
Having no future coverage helps new owners. Nobody comes into the league having a smaller cap for their first year then anybody else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Twins (tbraves13) on Dec 1, 2014 11:43:13 GMT -6
Some teams may be willing to take on cap knowing they will have to dumb if it means they can win a championship in the current year...real life teams do it all the time. However, I do see how a team could do that...say screw the league and bail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Twins (tbraves13) on Dec 1, 2014 11:51:25 GMT -6
ATL...they are worried about a team getting a ton of coverage in current year...taking on huge contracts...and being screwed for the next year. I could trade so that I had 50M salary covered. I would be screwed next year and bail on the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves (whiteyherzog) on Dec 1, 2014 12:00:52 GMT -6
Yea I understand, just making a point why IMO not allowing future coverage is important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 12:20:39 GMT -6
Just to address something I saw brought up in chat...
The problem with the coverage (can only cover 500k pf player x while covering 10M of player Y) is that this is how it needs to be handled. The money has to follow the individual players, in that if player Y is traded again, the money has to follow him. The salary and player can't be seperate entities. So for example, if player Y is traded again to team C, his salary responsibility is 10M for team A, which A will continue to be responsible for paying, and 10M for team B, of which they can move an additional 5M in the trade with team C. Just giving a lump sum allows for a different loophole, in that you can trade for half of a large amount of salary, then trade again but hang onto the cap space, which is a pretty big exploit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 15:24:04 GMT -6
What about this guys...Teams can cover what they want...
If you go over the cap between :
0-10 mil - 1 USD for every mil over
10-20 mil - 2 USD for every mil over
20-30 mil - 4 USD for every mil over
No team can exceed 155 Mil in total salary w/out coverage
NO TEAM can except coverage until the breach the luxury tax threshold of 155 mil and must PAY the tax prior to any further trades being processed
In this case to get to 155 mil the team would need to pay $70 in luxury tax to get to the $155 mil mark.
|
|
