|
Post by Seminoles GM on Jan 18, 2011 8:30:01 GMT -5
Guys, just trying to get a handle on the new Bible salaries. Please give input when you can. If you think the CAP needs to be raised please explain why/how much.
|
|
|
Post by homesteadgrays on Jan 18, 2011 9:27:49 GMT -5
This has been a building thing with Sporting News in my opinion. They are less likely to drop or leave salaries the same even after a year of poor production or injury. They are also more willing to give a hefty salary to largely unproven talent. I think the real solution is moving the salary cap back to the original $400 or at least $390 and leave it there. Doing this in tandem with a free player drop is even worth consideration.
|
|
|
Post by usfantasygm on Jan 18, 2011 11:21:57 GMT -5
As a new guy, you can take my comments with a grain of salt if you wish.
I voted for 2 free drops, but partly because I don't like any of the options and I know 2 free drops won't "win" the poll...so it's sorta a N/A vote.
My first choice (not listed) is that I would like to see a cap raise now and some inflationary increase annually. Why? Because real life salaries continue to increase and, if the legaue wants teams to have some continuity (which it must by allowing 10 RFAs annually), cap has to move some to allow for that.
My second choice is for a cap increase now and "freeze" it...however, unless some real life handle is gotten on player salaries, we'll have this same conversation again in a few years...IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by usfantasygm on Jan 18, 2011 11:23:05 GMT -5
This has been a building thing with Sporting News in my opinion. They are less likely to drop or leave salaries the same even after a year of poor production or injury. They are also more willing to give a hefty salary to largely unproven talent. I think the real solution is moving the salary cap back to the original $400 or at least $390 and leave it there. Doing this in tandem with a free player drop is even worth consideration. Good point...i.e. Tyler Colvin is already at $11!
|
|
|
Post by homesteadgrays on Jan 18, 2011 13:01:15 GMT -5
Annual increases are not really an option IMO. The magazine is produced with a specific salary budget in effect so to continually increase ours would eventually render our own salary cap useless.
|
|
|
Post by Seminoles GM on Jan 18, 2011 16:17:12 GMT -5
The CAP is raised to $400 effective immediately.
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM on Jan 18, 2011 20:46:47 GMT -5
I agree with moving to $400 and then in a couple years we can always revisit.
I agree that they keep the big guys with high salaries and the unproven guys they bump way up like Daniel Hudson was slotted at $20 even though he only pitched 95 innings. Kinda crazy and I know it happened to many more than him.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Troy) on Jan 19, 2011 4:40:45 GMT -5
I'm not going to cause a fuss over the raises, but consider this... If we kept it at 380, it would simply cause US to do a better job tightening our budgets. We'd resign 10 RFA's, and if we were wise, calculate how much money that left us and how many players we still required to fill our rosters, which in turn would give you an average salary you could spend on a guy. This is something I do every year. I purchase some guys in FA below what my average allowance is, so I can spend more in FA on the guys I really want. So say you let a solid guy with a $30 salary go to FA, and you keep a cheap guy instead. You know you can potentially still win him in a bid for around the $30 you were most likely ready to spend to retain him anyways...maybe even get him for a few bucks less if you add a few years. If someone overspends to steal him from you, fine, let them handcuff their budget and spend your money more wisely. This strategy is even more valid now that sniping has been eliminated with the 24 hour bid rule. There is no worry, there is no rush! So in conclusion, I actually think a tighter budget would at the end of the day, be MORE interesting. Just my opinion. SF GIANTS - 2010 WORLD SERIES CHAMPS!!!
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Troy) on Jan 19, 2011 4:43:52 GMT -5
Furthermore, don't forget, bidding on a $20 guy starts at $10...those salaries in the bible don't look so bad now do they??? O.O
Unless your married to your team and wanna sign a bajillion RFA's at full market price. Last I checked however, only one team won it all, soooooo, the rest of us (myself included) could all do better.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Troy) on Jan 19, 2011 4:47:04 GMT -5
So yeah...I believe the increase is a pure mistake. Regardless, this next season is going to be a blast.
I'm curious if any of these thoughts would cause some of you to change your votes. I know it's after the fact as voting has closed, but am I lost in left field, or am I onto something?
|
|
|
Post by Seminoles GM on Jan 19, 2011 7:23:22 GMT -5
The reason we just jumped it up and left it Troy is we have to assume that the bible will be continuing to do this each year. The $400 wasn't so much for this year as it was for future years. It'll give most of you (I didn't have ANY problems with CAP this year) a year or so to get all the little duckies in a row, especially with the new GM's. I can assure you that it will NOT be raised again and all should be very careful what you bid and who you trade for......Rafael Soriano for Mark Prior ring a bell anyone? Got stuck with THAT contract for 4 years. Anyway, this was done more the future Troy instead of this year alone.
|
|
|
Post by loons on Jan 19, 2011 11:10:22 GMT -5
My two cents....Hold cap at $380 and drop the cap on years. Teams could have one player at 5yrs and a set amount at 4-3-2 with rest at one. Teams could invest or lock in younger cheaper players for longer term.
Just my opinion on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Seminoles GM on Jan 19, 2011 11:26:33 GMT -5
Getting too complicated Chris. Simply want to account for the inflated prices of the bible this year, but also give everyone a heads up that no more CAP relief will be coming.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Troy) on Jan 19, 2011 11:38:07 GMT -5
I suppose it does give the newer guys time to figure it all out, but thats about it. I don't see the inflation as that big of a problem, thats all.
|
|
|
Post by homesteadgrays on Jan 19, 2011 11:47:27 GMT -5
I suppose it does give the newer guys time to figure it all out, but thats about it. I don't see the inflation as that big of a problem, thats all. There are dozens of instances over the past few years and in this year alone of players coming off less than stellar years and have their salaries remain the same or increase. Add in the unproven players getting incredible salaries and this is an issue that has been building over time. when this league was formed, players coming off injury years would have a dramatically reduced salary. This is no longer happening so finding our yearly cap relief is becoming more and more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Seminoles GM on Jan 19, 2011 11:48:40 GMT -5
And for me it wasn't either, but I took a look at about 3 or 4 teams that the book was going to kill, and while I do know that is part of the game I also want to try and keep it fun AND competitive for us. Like I said, the $400 is set and will not be moved again under ANY circumstances so bid/trade wisely and I feel like it'll be us 14 for a long time so the "new" guys can get accustomed and settled. Not trying to meake it easier, just fair. I hope everyone is good with it. I has started out wanting to get everyone's opinion and a majority, but sometimes you have to make quick decisions so I consulted with Eric/Dan and that is what we came up with.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Troy) on Jan 19, 2011 13:01:33 GMT -5
Sure, but we can still start the bidding at 50% value and then all of a sudden they can be a bargain. What happens in bidding after that will take it's course. Regardless, we all have the same budget, so even if some FA decisions in prior years don't look that smart in retrospect, it's even.
I can see the other point of view, I just think it's not as bad as first imagined. It seems like slight panic struck.
|
|
|
Post by steelwing19 on Jan 19, 2011 13:20:48 GMT -5
So $400 this year and foreseeable future, that is official then so we can plan accordingly now? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by homesteadgrays on Jan 19, 2011 13:36:41 GMT -5
Sure, but we can still start the bidding at 50% value and then all of a sudden they can be a bargain. What happens in bidding after that will take it's course. Regardless, we all have the same budget, so even if some FA decisions in prior years don't look that smart in retrospect, it's even. I can see the other point of view, I just think it's not as bad as first imagined. It seems like slight panic struck. Part of the league is continuity and if most teams can't even pick 10 RFAs to protect because of the increasing bible prices.... I don't think it is a panic decision at all. It is a math decision
|
|
|
Post by Seminoles GM on Jan 19, 2011 13:49:49 GMT -5
Troy this was done more to allow the teams to keep their full 10 RFA's rather then bidding on new FA. That should go as smooth as it did last year. Yes, the CAP is at $400 and again will not be changed until the Giants (Real ones) win the WS again.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Troy) on Jan 19, 2011 15:27:10 GMT -5
Haha...nice Jon. I still disagree and feel there was a one-sided train of thought. It's not the end of the world if 10 RFA's can't be signed. It just makes the FA pool bigger. In fact, we've always had the option to not sign ANY RFA's.
I'll look into this further as my curiosities have been raised. I'm not fighting the decision, understand that. I'm just saying I think there is more to it.
|
|
|
Post by Seminoles GM on Jan 19, 2011 15:31:36 GMT -5
You are giving me far too much credit Troy, it was more a spontanious (I'll admit) decision than anything. I did not look over every teams finances, but about half of them and then spoke with Eric/Dan about it and that's when we came up with raising it back to $400 and keeping it there. Really it wasn't anything more than just trying to give everyone a fair shake and give the new guys some flexibility to get accustomed to the league. Sorry to disappoint you, but you know me better than to think that I would think about things, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Seminoles GM on Jan 19, 2011 15:33:32 GMT -5
Plus, it looks like 7 had already voted for a permanent raise, just not how much. I'm open to discussing it. I have one goal and one goal only....to make this the most fun/competitive league that I can. Nothing more, it's my favorite league and always has been so I just want to keep it entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by usfantasygm on Jan 19, 2011 15:39:16 GMT -5
I think the guys in the black helicopters and behind the Whitewater cover-up are to blame.
|
|
|
Post by Barons GM (Brian) on Jan 19, 2011 15:41:33 GMT -5
As a new guy, it is good to have a firm cap to build a team around. Still, I would have been fine to keep the cap the same and force owners make tougher decisions (it pains me to agree with a Giants fan, I'm a Rangers fan ). Also makes drafting that much more important. Still, very excited about this league and look forward to year round fantasy baseball
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Troy) on Jan 19, 2011 15:58:54 GMT -5
Another point that just occurred to me. Every team in baseball, perhaps besides the biggest budget Yankees have self imposed budgets. It's why teams in real life can't afford to resign every great player they have even if a player was willing to stay with the team for the right price. To me, that is a FUN and STRATEGIC point I think is being lost somewhat with this decision. Even if there is no salary cap in the MLB, I don't think that makes the Tampa Bay Rays feel any better about this current offseason.
I too voted for a $400 cap, in part because keeping it at $380 wasn't an option. The other reason is because so many without considering the other side had already voted. I'm OK with the new cap, I just don't believe it was our best option.
Things would have been MIGHTY interesting come FA time if more teams had to make tough decisions based on their management history. The rules/setup were not at fault for their financial hardships. Besides, some RFA's that would have become FA's, would have become cheaper to the owners to obtain, and the talent would have simply been recirculated throughout the league. So what if some other owner paid for talent you had and could not. They too have a budget they cannot exceed. They would have had to shed salary to attain your player as well.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Troy) on Jan 19, 2011 15:59:48 GMT -5
BTW, Ranger fan, much respect for admitting as much. If it was another NL team in the Series besides the Giants, I would have been pulling for the Rangers and Bengie Molina to win it.
|
|
|
Post by Seminoles GM on Jan 19, 2011 16:01:31 GMT -5
Things would have been MIGHTY interesting come FA time if more teams had to make tough decisions based on their management history. The rules/setup were not at fault for their financial hardships. Besides, some RFA's that would have become FA's, would have become cheaper to the owners to obtain, and the talent would have simply been recirculated throughout the league. So what if some other owner paid for talent you had and could not. They too have a budget they cannot exceed. They would have had to shed salary to attain your player as well.
Good point and I did not think of that. I'll talk to Eric/Dan, but would like to get it settled and done with. Which I thought it was until you showed up. Again, you keep acting like the Giants won the WS or something. Do we have to put up with this all year? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Troy) on Jan 19, 2011 16:02:54 GMT -5
I've built my rotation basically through the MiLB draft...Lincecum, Price, Bumgarner, and youngsters at the time I locked them up, Cain and Greinke. It can be done! Look at my pitching contracts. Then look at what the bible says they are worth!!! I did it like a GM without a Yankees budget would attempt for. I too will have VERY TOUGH decisions when I have to start paying those guys 20-30+ dollars a season!
But I'm excited about that at the same time. That's when my job will become interesting again. That's when I get to roll up my sleeves and get dirty.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Troy) on Jan 19, 2011 16:06:50 GMT -5
Hell, that's why I traded C.C. last offseason. I turned his 30+ contract into two quality bats to fill more spots on my roster for the same cost. Believe me, I would love to STILL have C.C., but that's the fun of all this.
|
|