|
|
Post by metsgl on Jun 7, 2011 15:39:49 GMT -5
The way to make it fair is changing the amount of tags, not the cap. The cap should be voted on to. Here is my idea:
• Tier 1 – Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies, Mets, Tigers, White Sox, Angels
• 2012 Salary Cap Amount for Tier 1 - $160 million
• 1 Franchise Tags
• Tier 2 – Mariners, Giants, Twins, Dodgers, Cardinals, Astros, Braves, Rockies, Orioles, Brewers
• 2011 Salary Cap Amount for Tier 2 - $130 million
• 2 Franchise Tags
• Tier 3 – Reds, Royals, Rays, Jays, Nationals, Indians, Diamondbacks, Marlins, Rangers, Athletics, Padres, Pirates
• 2011 Salary Cap Amount for Tier 3 - $110 million
• 4 Franchise Tags
FRANCHISE TAGS WOULD NOT COUNT AGAINST SALARY CAP UNLESS TRADED
This way teams without a lot of cap space, get to retain their players for their REAL MLB Value. The teams with a lot of cap space will have to pay MORE than REAL MLB Value in free agency. We saw how much more players got in our league last year. This will keep it fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jun 7, 2011 16:25:42 GMT -5
Sorry Logan you're not going to win this one
For your tier to get $50M (upwards of 50%) more than my tier is not fair
And not just because I'm in the lowest one, but because that's just the truth
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jun 7, 2011 16:35:41 GMT -5
Even if we gave the lower teams say, 2 additional franchise tags... that would equate to maybe $20M on avg
still doesn't make up the difference IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by metsgl on Jun 7, 2011 17:57:35 GMT -5
How about tags don't count against cap. It would make sense because you don't choose how much to pay them. Then lower tiers get more free players. We could start this this offseason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Jun 7, 2011 18:34:42 GMT -5
Tags not counting toward their cap wouldnt work either. You know how hard that would be to keep track of. I thought I had presented a good was of distributing the tags already. Tier 1 gets 1 RFA tag, tier 2 gets 1 fran and 1 RFA tag, and tier 3 gets 2 franchise and 1 RFA tag. I think 4 franchise tags is crazy. I already think tier 3 gets a little more than usual cap wise I just think the tag distribution needs to be fixed. Also some of the caps could be lowered. I think a cap of 150M, 125M, and 110M would be more fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Jun 7, 2011 18:39:01 GMT -5
The one thing I dont want to see is one flat cap. One of the things that interest me the most is the varying real life cap for different teams and the use of tags. It will ruin the feel of the league if a flat cap number is set.
|
|
|
|
Post by metsgl on Jun 7, 2011 19:06:36 GMT -5
Tags not counting toward their cap wouldnt work either. You know how hard that would be to keep track of. I thought I had presented a good was of distributing the tags already. Tier 1 gets 1 RFA tag, tier 2 gets 1 fran and 1 RFA tag, and tier 3 gets 2 franchise and 1 RFA tag. I think 4 franchise tags is crazy. I already think tier 3 gets a little more than usual cap wise I just think the tag distribution needs to be fixed. Also some of the caps could be lowered. I think a cap of 150M, 125M, and 110M would be more fit. We don't have restricted free agents. Also how would it be hard to keep track of tags not counting against cap. That would be easier. |
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Jun 7, 2011 19:50:30 GMT -5
We need to add rfa tags is what im saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by metsgl on Jun 7, 2011 19:57:21 GMT -5
We need to add rfa tags is what im saying. It will just complicate things. What kind of rules for it are you thinking? |
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jun 14, 2011 21:36:58 GMT -5
I'm willing to be more flexible about the cap than I was before - still think we should adjust it for years forward, but for now, I don't think we can change it for next season.
I do propose though that the teams who win divisions and stuff should get an added bonus to their cap - so if a small market team gets consistently good, they should get to spend more and more. What do you guys think
|
|
|
|
Post by metsgl on Jun 14, 2011 22:23:31 GMT -5
I'm willing to be more flexible about the cap than I was before - still think we should adjust it for years forward, but for now, I don't think we can change it for next season. I do propose though that the teams who win divisions and stuff should get an added bonus to their cap - so if a small market team gets consistently good, they should get to spend more and more. What do you guys think Possibly but I think we should focus on tag distribution. We should try not to change the rules and the rules say that if the caps change, an equal amount of cap would be added to each tier. It makes no mention of tags. Just something to think about. |
|
