Reducing Existing Contracts to Account For Reduction In Cap
Mar 20, 2019 21:23:46 GMT -5
Oakland Athletics likes this
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 21:23:46 GMT -5
All -
With this past off-season's vote to reduce the Salary Cap from 165 in 2019, 155 in 2020, 145 in 2021, and 135 in 2022, I propose that all existing contracts be reduced in proportion to the percent of each year's cap reduction.
By way of example, if Mike Trout was given a contract extension prior to 2019 at $30m for 4 years with a $45 TO; his salary, based on 2019 cap of $165 would be:
2019 - $30
2020 - $30
2021 - $30
2022 - $30
2023 - $45
Since the cap is being reduced $10/year for 3 years, the % reduction in cap each year from $165 to $135 is:
2020 ($10/$165) = 6%
2021 ($20/$165) = 12%
2022 ($30/$165) = 18%
To account for the reduction in salary cap, Mike Trout's salary should look as follows:
2019 - $30
2020 - $28.2 (94% of 2019 salary)
2021 - $26.4 (88% of 2019 salary)
2022 - $24.6 (82% of 2019 salary)
2023 - $36.9 (1.5x 2022 salary)
I think this adjustment across the board is the fairest way to account for the reduction in cap to account for existing salaries. But I also imagine it would be a GIANT pain in the ass administratively.
In addition, the reduction in salary cap is also going to affect the extensions on ARB contracts because the % increase in ARB years is also not being adjusted.
I think the vote to reduce cap space, while well intentioned, is going to have unintended and devastating consequences that people likely did not anticipate when voting for the reduction in cap space.
I wonder if this issue had been addressed or contemplated by the owners that a vote to reduce the cap space would have come out differently.
I'll check the process to put this to a vote, but again, the administrative nightmare that adjusting salaries to be consistent with the reduction in salary cap is probably not worth it.
In that instance, I would propose that the reduction in cap space be put to a vote again.
With this past off-season's vote to reduce the Salary Cap from 165 in 2019, 155 in 2020, 145 in 2021, and 135 in 2022, I propose that all existing contracts be reduced in proportion to the percent of each year's cap reduction.
By way of example, if Mike Trout was given a contract extension prior to 2019 at $30m for 4 years with a $45 TO; his salary, based on 2019 cap of $165 would be:
2019 - $30
2020 - $30
2021 - $30
2022 - $30
2023 - $45
Since the cap is being reduced $10/year for 3 years, the % reduction in cap each year from $165 to $135 is:
2020 ($10/$165) = 6%
2021 ($20/$165) = 12%
2022 ($30/$165) = 18%
To account for the reduction in salary cap, Mike Trout's salary should look as follows:
2019 - $30
2020 - $28.2 (94% of 2019 salary)
2021 - $26.4 (88% of 2019 salary)
2022 - $24.6 (82% of 2019 salary)
2023 - $36.9 (1.5x 2022 salary)
I think this adjustment across the board is the fairest way to account for the reduction in cap to account for existing salaries. But I also imagine it would be a GIANT pain in the ass administratively.
In addition, the reduction in salary cap is also going to affect the extensions on ARB contracts because the % increase in ARB years is also not being adjusted.
I think the vote to reduce cap space, while well intentioned, is going to have unintended and devastating consequences that people likely did not anticipate when voting for the reduction in cap space.
I wonder if this issue had been addressed or contemplated by the owners that a vote to reduce the cap space would have come out differently.
I'll check the process to put this to a vote, but again, the administrative nightmare that adjusting salaries to be consistent with the reduction in salary cap is probably not worth it.
In that instance, I would propose that the reduction in cap space be put to a vote again.