Ballot discussions

[Da Commish]

Guys, Pat sent me an email with his concerns regarding the two ballot measures. Hopefully my response clarifies some of this:

Pat-

The team cash maximum is the most "cash" any team can have after the season rolls over. It is currently $30 mill. The game's default is $5 mill. Anything over this is distributed like revenue sharing, but I have no control or understanding how the game distributes it. I think $15 million would allow any club to have more than enough cash to operate during a season while somewhat reducing (long term) the ability to go crazy in free agency.

I think you make very valid and reasonable arguments about a salary cap. I think $80 million is a low end number, and maybe we can get there in steps. Here is why I think it is a good idea: (and I will also stipulate that the Red Sox have been over $80 mill every season since 1987)
It will completely shut down the ability of big spenders to sign any free agents except to minor league deals. While this may not be the best solution to the long term issue of how free agency is handled, it certainly would clamp down on some of this.
I'm not so sure that the obnoxious salary requests aren't partially caused by already high salaries, mimicking the real world (i.e. If JD Drew is worth $15 million a year, then -insert name here- is surely worth $18 million). So when Sabino Martin asked for $19 million a year, that was just the first rung on the ladder. This could bring salaries down, and thereby, player's asking prices.
It is the only means I can think of to even the competitive balance quickly.
Having said all that, I would also like to have a minimum salary expenditure, but besides being bulky to manage, I'm afraid teams would simply chunk down one big contract to get to the threshold and inadvertantly make salary requests inflate. I think some of the biggest "offenders" in the salary balance would be the ones most affected...like San Diego, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Chicago, and others. Most of your payroll seems to come from contract extensions rather than free agency, but I'm not sure the game can differentiate.

I think this is a great discussion for the message board. I am going to post my response there. Feel free to keep this going on.

Mark


Guys-please keep this discussion going on. It's the best way to come to a consensus.

[Da Commish]

Oh, one other thing...I don't know how the arbitration numbers are calculated, nor do I have any mechanism to play with them. Wish I did. They are simply a crap-shoot.

[NYYankees]

Well I want to throw my two cents in on the topics here as well.

Item #1: Reduce "Team cash maximum " from $30 million to $15 million. I see the logic here. It would be an even and fair way to help reduce some of the craziness that has developed. While I am on board with the idea in principle, I feel that in fairness the change should not take place until the start of 1997. That is the way we handled the reduction when we went down to $30 million back in the early 80s.

Item #2: Set a salary cap. This is an idea I am out on. I understand the reasoning behind it, parity, quick turnarounds, salary reduction, etc. At the same time though it takes away from the reality of the game. MLB has no cap and never has. Each team's cap in reality is what they can afford. Small market, bad teams have made the turnaround in our league to powerhouses with money to spend. Look no further than the Mariners. They had no revenue, no prospects, no stars, no attendance, and little hope. A new owner came in turned the team around and the revenue with it. In this league any team can turn around their finances when they win and turn the spending goes with that. In real life the Mariners, A's, Padres, White Sox, Twins, and Expos all are no where near the top of the revenue scale. In the IBF however they all had over $85 million in revenue last year. I don't feel a salary cap would cause much of a decrease in salaries overall due to the high demands of free agents and free agents to be. What it would do is probably put more free agents on the market as teams would have to let guys go instead of signing an extension. I think the system overall is a good one and would hate to lose the reality. Ultimately overall payrolls of the high end teams are on par with the real 1996, maybe even low. Salaries will always go up over time and I don't feel a salary cap would fix that. A better way to fix things would to be looking at financial topics like the lower cash carry over. This way we can keep the reality in the game.

Item #3: Reduce the National TV Contract Minimum. I am against this issue as well. I feel that the $25 million is reasonable and all the change would do is hamper spending across the board. I think a better thing to look at would be an increase to give all teams more money to spend.

Another financial issue we ought to look at is Merchandising. In the rules it states all teams are guaranteed $10 million in merchandising revenue, even though several teams come up with less than that. It has been very crippling to the Rockies and Marlins who for one reason or another make next to no merchandising revenue (makes no sense to me, expansion teams sell tons of merchandise in real life). On the otherside of the coin the Dodgers (no offense meant here) make more than twice what the next team on the merchandising list makes. From what I can tell there is no rhyme or reason to it. Some good teams have bad revenue here and bad teams have good. Anyway these are just my thoughts and I am looking forward to hearing everyone elses.

[Da Commish]

Good point on the merchandising revenue. Not quite sure how the game figures that. I had fallen out of the habit of checking it after we went a few seasons where every team reached $10 million. That is one thing I will fix...but here's the rub...Florida, who actually lost money in this area, will get nothing because their cash is at $30 million. Colorado will only get a little over $5 million.

There are many teams at $30 million in the bank, and much of this comes from our little endeavor with expansion and TV contracts.

[gerrygeil]

I hope no one takes offense to this but the IBF isn't even close to real-life, so lets not act like it is. This is specifically why we should consider the salary cap. The league has two other rules that don't fall in the permitting reserved rights and the bonus pick! I stronly dislike the rules because the worst teams of the prior seasons aren't getting shots at the best players.

Also, my personal opinion, is that the mlb is become a very predicatable league. The same teams are always competing for the playoffs, ie Yankees and Red Sox, while others haven't sniffed the play-offs for decades. I would personally like to see who a salary cap would work and vote "yes".

What I do think needs to happen is to take the number back in intervals of $10-15 million until we reach our cap. Then, do incremential increases to permit teams to increase payroll in a controlled environment.

Also, lets not forget during the late 80s and early 90s a lot of mid-market teams were competing, but 10 years later it seems that only the Indians have figured out a way to be competitive in spurts.

[Da Commish]

Okay, so what if we set the cap at :

$95 million for 1996

$87.5 million for 1998

$80 million for 2000

You'd have a 1 year grace period to get down to the cap for teams that are already above it. (Example: Oakland is at $108 million right now. They would have to be at the $95 M cap by, let's say, opening day 1997). These teams would have 3 contract exemptions per season.

[Athletics]

Even $95 million would really put the A's in the cellar quickly, which I don't believe is the intent of a salary cap. Because I've had to pay huge sums of money to keep my longterm stars in the fold, I have not had the means to add depth to my overall roster. It's been a difficult balancing act this trying to keep everyone onboard for the productive years of their careers while ensuring the franchise can remain solvent.

I yearly estimate the amount of total revenue Oakland will generate during the coming year and try to keep salaries inline with that figure so the team can be as competitive as possible while still making a profit. This is how I propose any salary cap be figured. On a team-by-team basis, each franchises salary cap should be equal (up to the next million) to their total revenue from the preceding year. So, if Oakland had $102 million in revenue in '95, their 1996 cap number should be $102 million. If Florida brought in $60 million, their '96 cap number would be $60 million.

This solution would gently keep down the outrageous spending by that handful of teams that cannot truly afford it, while allowing the teams with huge profits to be players in the free agent market. It would also allow a team such as Oakland to continue on the path that has allowed them to be competitive for 15 straight seasons. A compromise like this could probably be implemented immediately.

[Athletics]

admin said:

Okay, so what if we set the cap at :

$95 million for 1996

$87.5 million for 1998

$80 million for 2000

You'd have a 1 year grace period to get down to the cap for teams that are already above it. (Example: Oakland is at $108 million right now. They would have to be at the $95 M cap by, let's say, opening day 1997). These teams would have 3 contract exemptions per season.

That $108 million includes $3.8 million in coaches/scouting director salaries. These should not be included in any salary cap, since they aren't in real life pro sports.

[Da Commish]

I'll try to address this to the best of my ability.

There cannot be a different cap for each team. Not plausible. Not possible. And inherently unfair to the team making less money.

If we did this, the Dodgers would have a salary cap of $132 million for 1996. Detroit, on the other hand would only have a cap of $51 million. Detroit has done an excellent job of controlling salaries, and currently has a payroll of $27.8 million. This suggestion would give them about $23 million to spend in free agency. The Dodgers, on the other hand, have payroll of $106.4 million and would thus have over $25 million to spend in free agency, etc. It's just not equitable.

If, on the other hand, we had an $95 million cap (just an example), the Dodgers would not be able to sign anyone unless they first got under that cap. Would Detroit spend $68 million on free agents? Probably not. But they could. Other teams have tried that type of quick fix and ended up in the red for years with no notable progress in the standings. Still, it would be a management decision. Without a cap, they could do the very same thing.

And on that note, I'll pose this question- does the salary cap give teams a false sense of security? In other words, will they spend money with less regard for their financial well-being because the cap says you can? In my opinion, that is why proposals 1 & 3 are important (and especially #1).

Okay, so Oakland has a concern about continuity. That's a good concern. But...three of their top five paychecks are going to guys who would not be considered traditional "A's." And one of the remaining two (Canseco) was long gone by 1996. Without a doubt, I admire the way Pat has run the A's possibly more than any other individual owner. The last time they finished below 2nd place was '87 and the last time they finished below THAT was '81. So let's not get too wrapped up in "continuity."

Let's also look at the teams that would be affected by a $95 million cap for 1996: (before free agency)

Oakland
Los Angeles
San Diego

If we were to drop the cap number to $87.5 million, you could add:

Boston
New York (A)
Chicago (N)
and possibly Atlanta

Here's my Robin Hood argument...four of the six of these were in the 1995 playoffs. San Diego missed the playoffs, but won their division the 3 previous seasons. The Yankees have been perennial post-season participants. We are talking about the six or seven top producers in terms of post-season appearances.

What is the #1 grumbling I hear?

It goes something like this..."The playoffs look the same every year with the exception of maybe one or two teams that break through." So my question to you is just this:

Do you want parity or the status quo?
Do you want 75% of the playoff teams to be the same every year, or do you want half the teams in the league to be legitimate contenders to get into the playoffs?

We all know getting there is the biggest hurdle. Anything can happen after that.

I am also saying that for the top spenders, this WILL hurt for a few seasons. Then we will all change how we do business and things will balance out.

But I will also tell you that of the 8 teams in the 1995 playoffs, 5 were in the top eight payrolls. Atlanta (13), Montreal (16), and Chicago (A) (18) were the others. No team with a payroll less that $70 million made the post-season. Also, of the six teams in the supplemental draft, they are comprised of the bottom 4 in payroll, San Fran & KC.

Last point...if you want coaches & scouts to not count against the cap, we have to stop using them. We have been back and forth on this, and I can't tell you what the effect is, but this ends up being an all-or-nothing decision.

[Athletics]

I would be forced to fire all of my coaches and my scout as the first order of business to get down to the cap. I really don't know how this would affect my team as a whole, but it would be a better solution than releasing a $3.8 million player. I doubt that anyone else over the cap would need to do such a thing, because they likely have deeper overall rosters than Oakland has assembled. Still, it is an option others would also have to consider.

After that, I'd still have to find a player making over $9 million to release. Would I sacrifice former MVP Canseco, former two time Cy Young Award winner Bystrom, 3 time MVP McGwire or Dwight Gooden? I guess I could simply release my entire bullpen, or the whole outfield other than Canseco so these players could stay.

I had intended to use my bonus points on Bystrom to give him a chance at 300 career victories, but it seems a salary cap would probably force me to release him and force him to either retire or go to a perennially mismanaged team to play out his career in obscurity, because all of the contenders that would previously have been his best choices in free agency won't be allowed to bid on him.

Install your salary cap, it won't matter because the same teams will still be in the playoffs every year. The reason has nothing to do with money.

[philly]

i am opposed to the salary cap, at least at this time. i believe the issue, obviously, is parity and fairness. a controlled and logical step toward this would be revenue sharing. instead of forcing a team to cut payroll and good players to get under a salary cap, which should be no lower than $100 million, a team with a roster payroll over 100 M should be forced to turn over cash to other teams. for example, Oakland is at approximately 108 M in roster payroll. it should be penalized 8 Million dollars. Go in and reduce Oakland's amount of cash for this year from 30 M to 22 M. then distribute the 8 M evenly among all other teams that are below the 100 M mark. do the same to Los Angeles and San Diego. Los Angeles would lose 6 M, San Diego 5 M. As i stated before, the penalty roster salary line should be 100 million. therefore, teams are not losing players, but being taxed money which will go to all other teams and increasing those other teams chances at being able to afford good ball players. Any other revenue sharing ideas would be better than a salary cap.

[NYYankees]

First off on merchandising. I understand what Mark is saying with the cash cap, but in fairness I that teams that are owed merchandising cash be allowed to go over that cap so their revenue is correctly stated. That or we need to fix the revenue system to where it shows the team made that money in the prior year. This is important when planning out spending on free agents and contract extensions and puts these teams at a competitive disadvantage.

Now onto free agency again. I actually really liked Pat's idea. I know it is kind of unfair in a sense, but it rewards owners who run the franchise well and generate the revenue properly. Every team has the opportunity to turn things around the right way (trades and draft picks) and maintain a high payroll once their revenue matches. The system would also keep teams from spending more than they generate, or at least more than the generated the last year. A team that makes more money should be able to spend it.

I also don't understand a decreasing salary cap, don't caps usually go up not down? I don't think that $80 million is a reasonable number in any way shape or form. That goes for now and for 2000. Lets not look at the current payrolls, but instead last years numbers. We have 28 teams, 14 of them were over $80 million. Half the teams would have been over this cap last year. The main reason that spending got out of control last season was the way we did free agency, I think the new system will help spending a lot more than any of these changes will. I know that this league is not "realistic" in some ways, but free agency and no cap is a major part of baseball. Silly contracts are a major part of baseball. The reserved rights are to help teams have the chance to maintain a historic look i they choose. The bonus pick and other rules (which I was against) around them are to help keep the reserved rights system from being abused.

Pat is right though, a salary cap will not make the playoffs any more attainable for teams than it is now. We have had a lot of change over the years in the playoff teams. Usually a team is a contender for a few years and falls off. Some teams have bucked this trend and are in the race consistently. Some bottom dwellers (Seattle) have managed to rise to the top of the league and stay there. In the current system any team can do this. Also the powerful can fall. Look at the Yankees. Our revenues are down as we have not been winning like we were in the past. Unless we turn it around this year the fan base, interest, and most importantly my attendance will continue to erode and my spending will be curtailed.

I also don't think it has been the "winning" teams that go overly nuts in free agency. There have been several times in the past where some big payroll, big revenue teams have signed no one of note. Sometimes it is the Yankees, sometimes the Red Sox, sometime the Dodgers, etc. There are times where these same teams may add two or three guys of note in a free agency period, but the times where it is 1 or 0 out number that.

[NYYankees]

The payroll penalty is a much better idea in my mind than a cap. At the same time though is distribution to all teams under the threshold needed? Without looking up specifics a lot of teams had money to spend last year and simply did not do so. Do we need to give more money for teams to waste? And giving money to the truly poor teams would once again just increase spending. I know there is a disparity here from the bottom to top of the revenue scales, but it ranges from about $50 million to $130 million. In the MLB some teams have revenue of around $20 million or less, while the Yankees and Red Sox, are $200 million plus. That is desparity. In the IBF if you take the Dodgers and their out of whack merchandising revenue out the range would be $50 million to $115 million. My point is any team can become a $100 plus million revenue generater when run properly, so handing out subsidies seems unneeded to me. Like I said though, this is a much preferred plan to a salary cap, but I still think it is an unneeded solution.

[Da Commish]

These are some really good discussions. Darren has a really good idea, and in general, I can do it. I also agree with Jeff who is really questioning where the money should go.

As for the $80 M cap, I just began there as it was in the middle. Also, the idea of scaling the cap down was mostly to give teams time to get there.

It does not have to be $80 M, $90 M, or $100 M...or at all. Essentially, we are voting on whether or not to have a cap at all.

[padresorioles]

I think I'd be okay if the cap was set at $100 million. I think there should also be a minimum of something like $50 million. I know this would probably escalate spending, but I think a team with a $30 million payroll is not helping anyone, and if they can't keep the money they save what good does it do?

I think the way MLB does their salary thing (I can't remember what they call it right now) is that anyone spending over X dollars pays double that as a penalty into the league fund. That might work. So, the Padres would basically have $10 million deducted from our $24 million cash, as opposed to Darren's proposal. Then it would be more of a penalty.