Rule becomes effective next offseason after the ARBA 2008 season is complete. Since we are already well into the offseason it would not be fair to implement this rule this offseason. Also, since part of opposition to this rule is that managers have saved up money and wouldn't get a chance to spend it all they would have this offseason to go nuts with their money and spend the heck out of it. This is not the official version yet. I know it is late but I have until noon tomorrow to make subtle changes to the rule. It is not much time, but I will be checking the board more tonight and frequently tomorrow during the morning for comments / suggestions. If you see a part of this propostion that you don't understand or think needs tweaking let me know. I tried to think of all areas of concern that I have seen mentioned in previous posts.
Salary Cap is defined as the total roster amount submitted at the end of the offseason. This total amount must be less than the salary cap for the year.
Salary Cap Amount The amount will be equal to the average league roster salary amount of the previous ARBA year plus 10% rounded to up to the next increment of 100k, not to exceed $9 million dollars. Example: the average roster salary for the 2007 ARBA season was 8.243 million. That would round up to 8.3 million as the salary cap.
Only the money that shows up on the final submitted roster as the salary of the player will count towards the salary cap.
Money involved in trades or money spent to purchase a player that is then traded away does not count against the salary for your team.
Any money used to payoff a long term salary and then cut the player or move to your minor leagues would count. Example: 1. Alex Sanchez is B3 3x3 uncarded. Austin pays his final year and cuts him.Austin is responsible for 240k. 2. Chris Carpenter is A1 2x2 uncarded. Austin pays his final year and then pays him 40k to keep in minor leagues. Austin is responsible for 400k and 40k.
If your roster is over the salary cap prior to the waiver draft you must cut players to get under the cap. You lose the money you paid but it does not count towards you roster salary. You can not cut players on long term contract. All players cut will go to the waiver list.
If you have erred to the point of not being able to field all positions after being forced to cut players to get under the cap, and you can't trade to fill those players and stay under the cap, you will be allowed to fill those positions from the waiver list as long as you do not exceed the salary cap. If at that point you can not field a team without going over the salary cap you will be allowed to take the needed players from the remaining players after the waiver draft is complete. Your penalty is having to wait for the leftovers. You will be charged 40k for each player you had to take to field your team and you will not be allowed to keep such player the next year. If multiple teams need players they will alternate taking the remaining players based on the IOD order.
One minor correction. The initial year salary cap does not include the 10%. It would be the average of the 2008 rosters rounded up to the next 100k. The 10% comes into play each succeeding year after the initial year.
Is the money spent on a c player counted against the cap or the salary they would obtain the next year based on what they went for in the c draft counted against the cap?
For instance I spent 1.4 mil on Rivera last year, would the 1.4 mil go against the cap in that year or 400K for the A1 2x2 contract he would go on next year?
If people are spending less money to pick up c players in order to stay under the cap won't the amount of money teams carry over begin to sky rocket? I think most people really cut into their money when they bid on players like A-Rod and spend 2 mil or more.
The money reported as salary for that player is what counts. It is what is captured in the roster database. In the case of C and Free agent players it is the winning bid amount.
The purpose of counting this money is to prevent teams that already have a significant roster balance from spending huge amounts of money on more players. It prevents the league from having Steinbrenner type teams.
Example: Brooklyn would not have been able to get ARod last year because he already had too much salary tied up in the rest of his team. That would not have prevented ARod from going to a team that had plenty of money available. I contend that ARod would have still received a significant bid, maybe not as high as he got, but still a large bid. He just would have gone to someone with cap room.
To clarify further. Yes the money would build if managers bid less and rebuilding teams continued to build in the same manner as they did before the cap. I will give you that point. My beliefs are that since there would be little incentive to let your balance build to astronomical amounts, managers would spend more of that money to acquire better than unlimited players. That would drive UP the price of average players. They are now more valuable. More teams using less unlimited players coupled the reduced ability for teams to buy a 120+ win team brings the bottom up and the top down. There will never be complete parity. I understand that 28 teams with .500 records is never going to happen. I do believe this will help close the disparity between top and bottom.
Only 2 hours left for any more comments or questions. Please ask or comment and I will try and explain the thought process. If it needs tweaking because I have not thought something out well and you convince me, I will tweak it.
