Rule idea: Cap Injury Exceptions And Insurance

[aaronweiner]

Injuries to contenders (Bob Ritchie, etc) have made me wonder whether we shouldn't consider injury exceptions to the salary cap like they have in the NBA. (The injury to Paul George also brought this up in my mind.)

The way this would work:

Teams may apply for a salary cap exception based on an injury to a player. The exception will allow the team to exceed the salary cap in the amount of the player's contract minus any available cap space the team may have. The exception MUST be requested by the team rather than freely granted. Only one exception shall be granted per team, per season.

Only new players can be slotted into a salary exception; teams may not choose to exceed the salary cap before the season and must still get under the cap before the season starts. This exception may only be granted during the regular season.

A player for whom an exception is granted must meet the following criteria:

1) The player must be currently listed as injured for the remainder of the season.

2) The player may not return to the team at any time during the season or post-season, effectively ending their season.

3) The player must have been on the roster on Opening Day of that season and must not have been traded after his injury.



[hr]
[hr]
[hr]


Insurance idea: teams may pay $1 million before the season for insurance. This insures that any player with a season-ending injury will be refunded some quantity of the amount owed on his deal at the point of the injury (to bonus cash). The amount can be discussed. Season-enders only, and, again, the player may not return that season if insurance is requested or the insurance amount is cancelled.

[indiansfan]

I like it

[bschr682]

I like the sentiment behind the idea but I dislike the way that's structured. It only benefits teams who's star player gets hurt very early in the season. Lets roll with that Ritchie example. He gets hurt so Cali files for that exception. Cali now has the option of signing a replacement while there still are some decent FA bats. Lets say he gets hurt in August instead. Whats the point of doing this now? So he can go over the cap by 500k to bring up a minor leaguer? There wont be anyone in FA worth having at that point. Seems to benefit only teams who are exactly in Cali's situation. Lots of stuff to keep track of for something that will benefit very few teams. One might even go so far as to say this ends up being unfair to whichever team loses a star late and cant properly use this clause.

Like I said I like the thinking but this seems like a lot of effort for something that only benefits team who are near the cap.

I like the insurance idea more. It will actually inject a little life into some of the Fragile/Wrecked guys. Who wants to throw big money at Steve Hoffman in FA? A few teams but not a lot. Who would want to if this was in place? Damn near everyone would and that's the way it should be. Tipper Kengos? Way more viable with this and back to actually being a star.

Id say that initial price should be higher. The only players who teams would even think about insuring are the high priced star players like the 2 I mentioned. 1 million is too little. The cost almost needs to be a deterrent or its just gonna get abused.

[felipe]

I'm squarely with Brett on this one; (although it would help me immensely this season!)

I don't think the insurance idea is worth the effort; but if it is, the cost should be prohibitive, 50% of each season's salary, insurance declared when contract signed and due January 1st every year of the length of the contract - or denied for that upcoming season at that point in time.

But why put in the extra work?

We all know teh risks when we sign someone

[aaronweiner]

I like the sentiment behind the idea but I dislike the way that's structured. It only benefits teams who's star player gets hurt very early in the season. Lets roll with that Ritchie example. He gets hurt so Cali files for that exception. Cali now has the option of signing a replacement while there still are some decent FA bats. Lets say he gets hurt in August instead. Whats the point of doing this now? So he can go over the cap by 500k to bring up a minor leaguer? There wont be anyone in FA worth having at that point. Seems to benefit only teams who are exactly in Cali's situation. Lots of stuff to keep track of for something that will benefit very few teams. One might even go so far as to say this ends up being unfair to whichever team loses a star late and cant properly use this clause.

But that's not what I meant. The idea was that if you lost a $15 million dollar player in August, you could deal for a $15 million player. That's the purpose of the rule, to exceed the cap by a certain amount. Keeps player movement active, keeps contenders in the game if key players go down, does faster rebuilds, etc. It's not as good in August as in April but that's just because of the fact that you can move more decisively at the beginning of the season to replace a guy and get more out of the replacement.

Like I said I like the thinking but this seems like a lot of effort for something that only benefits team who are near the cap.

That's DEFINITELY true. But it only helps teams that are near the cap that lose players and want another one to replace them. In other words, contenders. And it's very little effort since teams who aren't contenders wouldn't bother and teams that are contenders might still not want to spend the extra dough.

I like the insurance idea more. It will actually inject a little life into some of the Fragile/Wrecked guys. Who wants to throw big money at Steve Hoffman in FA? A few teams but not a lot. Who would want to if this was in place? Damn near everyone would and that's the way it should be. Tipper Kengos? Way more viable with this and back to actually being a star.

Id say that initial price should be higher. The only players who teams would even think about insuring are the high priced star players like the 2 I mentioned. 1 million is too little. The cost almost needs to be a deterrent or its just gonna get abused.

Well, the point is not to refund people 100% of their money for injured players. Just to mitigate the costs, not cancel them out. In some ways, you know, that's basically what you're suggesting. (They're spending the rest of the money on the player.) I'm thinking about refunding 50% of the player's salary myself, but I thought the amount was debatable. That way when you lose a guy on day 1, you're not losing $15 million, you're losing $7.5 million. And can replace them with a $15 million player. Which increases the fun, I think.

[aaronweiner]

I'm squarely with Brett on this one; (although it would help me immensely this season!)

I don't think the insurance idea is worth the effort; but if it is, the cost should be prohibitive, 50% of each season's salary, insurance declared when contract signed and due January 1st every year of the length of the contract - or denied for that upcoming season at that point in time.

But why put in the extra work?

We all know teh risks when we sign someone

I was thinking of refunding half the cost of the seasonal contract. That's basically the same thing, except you pay way less up front and get back less on the back end. It's a partial refund, not a total one.

[bschr682]

I'm not suggesting teams be given 100% of the money back. Just saying the upfront cost should be more or else people will start covering everyone who makes any sort of dent in the cap and that's not (in my opinion) what something like this should do. That would just be cap circumvention at that point wouldn't it?

[aaronweiner]

I'm not suggesting teams be given 100% of the money back. Just saying the upfront cost should be more or else people will start covering everyone who makes any sort of dent in the cap and that's not (in my opinion) what something like this should do. That would just be cap circumvention at that point wouldn't it?

It has to be season-ending injuries. It's against league rules to stash someone on the DL. No way to abuse that one; it happens or it doesn't.

[bschr682]

But that's not what I meant. The idea was that if you lost a $15 million dollar player in August, you could deal for a $15 million player. That's the purpose of the rule, to exceed the cap by a certain amount. Keeps player movement active, keeps contenders in the game if key players go down, does faster rebuilds, etc. It's not as good in August as in April but that's just because of the fact that you can move more decisively at the beginning of the season to replace a guy and get more out of the replacement.

Doesn't that basically just screw the upstart teams? I mean granted there are no sure things when it comes to this baseball sim. But if every year the top teams who get whacked with an injury have this get out of jail free card doesn't that destroy any chances of a fringe contender (say a team like yours or Vegas) from bubbling up and winning it once in awhile? I can see what you mean about the trade aspect of this that I clearly wasn't getting before but with this in place wouldn't it cut down on overall leaguwide moves? If you think you are a fringe contender whats the point in making that lower tier trade to strengthen a little bit in case a contender loses a big piece down the line? See what im getting at?

I think this would be a great idea for the 2 or 3 best teams in each league as well as the bottom teams that are tearing down and a terrible one for all the teams in the middle.

[bschr682]

I'm not suggesting teams be given 100% of the money back. Just saying the upfront cost should be more or else people will start covering everyone who makes any sort of dent in the cap and that's not (in my opinion) what something like this should do. That would just be cap circumvention at that point wouldn't it?

It has to be season-ending injuries. It's against league rules to stash someone on the DL. No way to abuse that one; it happens or it doesn't.

I don't mean it from a GM abuse standpoint. I just mean if its so cheap that everyone can throw a few million and cover all their good players then why not just raise the cap instead of all this riggamarole? Same goal accomplished yes?

[aaronweiner]

Well, the point is that this puts contenders back on equal footing in the trade market. Fringe contenders and teams in the middle almost certainly aren't close enough to the cap for this rule to matter. Remember these deals work both ways. Contenders have to give up prospects which drains their farms faster, building up rebuilding teams faster, and it forces them to spend more money and press their cap situation to huge levels, which leads to problems down the line for them. Contenders probably won't be able to replace their expensive players with players of equal value unless they give up quite a bit in exchange.

If we're looking at the small picture, sure, it's not such a great deal for teams in the middle, but it's still fine for fringe contenders if they want to try to stay in the mix after their own injuries if they're spending close to the cap.

[aaronweiner]

I'm not suggesting teams be given 100% of the money back. Just saying the upfront cost should be more or else people will start covering everyone who makes any sort of dent in the cap and that's not (in my opinion) what something like this should do. That would just be cap circumvention at that point wouldn't it?

It has to be season-ending injuries. It's against league rules to stash someone on the DL. No way to abuse that one; it happens or it doesn't.

I don't mean it from a GM abuse standpoint. I just mean if its so cheap that everyone can throw a few million and cover all their good players then why not just raise the cap instead of all this riggamarole? Same goal accomplished yes?

Much, much less. I was thinking $1 million for ALL of their players. It has to be season-ending injuries, and raising the cap will raise the amount teams can spend rather than the amount they HAVE to spend on players that go down midseason. I'm also suggesting putting it in bonus cash so that it doesn't affect the season in any other way (teams can't get bonus cash during the year). Some teams won't make money on the bargain, but most teams will do it.

[bschr682]

Hmmmm. Interesting. I guess maybe the bigger question now is, do we think anyone would actually use this? I see what you mean about the acceleration now. I wasn't taking into account that after replacing said injured uber player, that team suddenly has 2 guys for the same position the year after. I spose in a way it might juice up the market for the rental veterans too.

[aaronweiner]

Only a few teams would, or would have to take an exception. It just occurs to me that it would make the season more fun (and yes, the rental market would definitely heat up as a result).

It also preserves the team with the injury of having to offload the injured player just because they can't afford the new one, which kind of ruins everyone's fun.

[bschr682]

Much, much less. I was thinking $1 million for ALL of their players. It has to be season-ending injuries, and raising the cap will raise the amount teams can spend rather than the amount they HAVE to spend on players that go down midseason. I'm also suggesting putting it in bonus cash so that it doesn't affect the season in any other way (teams can't get bonus cash during the year). Some teams won't make money on the bargain, but most teams will do it.

ooo ick. I really don't like that idea then. A measly million to cover the whole 27 man roster? What insurance company on what planet would ever do that?! That company would be bankrupt in 1 year. Theyd collect 24 million and have already blown almost all of that after just the season enders suffered in spring training.

[aaronweiner]

Well, that's why the team only gets back half the money. Maybe we make it $2 million, but that's plenty. Besides, I don't care if the insurance company makes money.

[bschr682]

Only a few teams would, or would have to take an exception. It just occurs to me that it would make the season more fun (and yes, the rental market would definitely heat up as a result).

It also preserves the team with the injury of having to offload the injured player just because they can't afford the new one, which kind of ruins everyone's fun.

Well I may actually like this idea more than the other now LOL. I want to hear from Cali now. If this were in place would he make a trade after the Ritchie injury. If a GM in that position doesn't like this then I guess I don't see the point in inventing a new rule.

[aaronweiner]

I would.

[bschr682]

Besides, I don't care if the insurance company makes money.

I want the things we do as a league to be in the realm of possibility. That's all I meant by that.

[aaronweiner]

Besides, I don't care if the insurance company makes money.

I want the things we do as a league to be in the realm of possibility. That's all I meant by that.

Well, maybe they get a side perk like "The Official Insurance Company of the MBWBA. Certified FDIC."