|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs on Jun 5, 2017 20:43:11 GMT -5
Currently the only penalty for over-bidding the salary cap is for the bid to be invalid. I would propose we need a little stiffer penalties to ensure bidding without salary available doesn't become a problem during the offseason FA bidding frenzy. Perhaps the penalty could be forfeiting draft picks or something along those lines.
Over-bidding the salary cap can lead to a domino effect of issues... For example, Team A may bid $10 on a player. Team B bids $11. Team A moves on and bids $10 on a different player. Perhaps as late as a day later, it's realized that Team B didn't have enough salary available for their $11 bid; so the bid was not valid. Does team A's bid of $10 becomes the winning bid? What about Team A's later $10 bid on the next player? Would that become invalid as well? The issues resulting from over-bidding can go on and on... It was a big problem in a similar league that I used to run and we needed to implement penalties as a deterrent to ensure managers paid attention to their salary situation and did not bid on players with salary they didn't have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milwaukee Brewers on Jun 6, 2017 13:23:50 GMT -5
I agree with this in general, but think there should be some sort of grace period because you can't always count on your bids being the winning bid. I mean, to maximize your chances of hitting on prospects you need to fill out your farm system, both in number and in salary. Now, if I'm more or less maxed out, and I still want to bid on someone to upgrade what I already have I can drop players ahead of my bid to have sufficient cap room should the bid be successful. But that won't always be the case. Trying to be proactive you already dropped a guy and turns out you did it unnecessarily because your bid didn't win. That now sets you back a little bit. What if you had some set time period after successful bid win to make sure you're in compliance? I realize most teams probably won't be affected by this, but some will. Of course, the intent wouldn't be for a team to bid on 20 players when they only have room for a couple. That goes against the spirit of the rule. Thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 16:22:18 GMT -5
The penalty has usually been forfeited cap space. I'm not sure why that isn't in the rules. But definitely something else to fix. Generally speaking, the salary cap has been enforced upon Opening Day of the current season, and only the current season is enforced. Meaning you could be over the cap up until Opening Day of any particular season. This obviously doesn't have to be the case here, but we will definitely put something into place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 12:08:36 GMT -5
I agree with this in general, but think there should be some sort of grace period because you can't always count on your bids being the winning bid. I mean, to maximize your chances of hitting on prospects you need to fill out your farm system, both in number and in salary. Now, if I'm more or less maxed out, and I still want to bid on someone to upgrade what I already have I can drop players ahead of my bid to have sufficient cap room should the bid be successful. But that won't always be the case. Trying to be proactive you already dropped a guy and turns out you did it unnecessarily because your bid didn't win. That now sets you back a little bit. What if you had some set time period after successful bid win to make sure you're in compliance? I realize most teams probably won't be affected by this, but some will. Of course, the intent wouldn't be for a team to bid on 20 players when they only have room for a couple. That goes against the spirit of the rule. Thoughts? The issue is more for a player that's a vet, not a rookie |
|
