Suggestion: Salary Floor

Have a suggestion for the league? Bring it up for discussion here.
User avatar
aaronweiner
BBA GM
Posts: 12020
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 761 times

Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by aaronweiner » Wed Aug 12, 2015 3:28 pm

Here's my idea for a salary floor.

[hr]



Proposal for a salary floor:

Teams must spend a total equal to their television revenue. This money must be spent on player salaries, miscellaneous player expenses (i. e. dead money), and actual amateur draft expenses (not projected).

Any amount spent under that amount will be penalized at 150%, which is to say that for every two dollars under the cap, teams will pay three. This will be true aside from the following exception:



Proposed exception:

Teams may be exempted from this rule for no longer than one year and will still be required to pay a 50% penalty for every dollar under the cap, meaning for every two dollars under the cap, they will be required to pay one, if both of the following provisions are met:

1) They can show demonstratively that their monetary shortfall is the fault of a prior owner of no more than two years ago, and,
2) Their budget is currently $90 million or less or the damage done by the prior owner was subjectively sufficient to allow the leniency.

[hr]

This year, California would have paid 50% under this rule, while Yellow Springs would pay 110%. No other team would be subject to this provision.

Yellow Springs would pay a penalty of $15,412,500, which would put them, instead of $8 million in the black, about $7 million in the hole - still about $20 million better than where they were. Keep in mind that this penalty is really only about $5 million as 100% of the total would have been about $10 million.

California would have paid a penalty of $11,896,520, which would basically put them at even money instead of $13 million ahead (though it would have been much, much higher if they didn't have the exemption).

I feel the penalty is necessary as it discourages tanking, but shouldn't include the amateur draft, which is always money separate from "normal" budgeting. The more a team spends close to the cap, the less they will actually spend overall. It should prevent teams from gaining a full advantage from "catch-up" years.

Keep in mind that it's not ALL the revenue a team earns in a year (merchandising and gate revenue are not included in this calculation) and therefore they should still be in the black, or close. This is coupled with lowered stadium fees.

Thoughts?



[hr]

agrudez
Ex-GM
Posts: 7681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:30 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by agrudez » Wed Aug 12, 2015 6:04 pm

To keep in the tradition of this topic, I will now launch into a long non-sensical tirade where I attempt to sound like I am speaking on behalf of the league's interest when I am really obviously only acting in my own personal self interests.

....

Anyways... I like the proposal. Simple, but effective. It basically ensures, by tying it to the guaranteed media revenue, that a team can still "get themselves out of the red" by tanking their payroll (even a shit team will still collect 15-20M at the gate, surely - more than enough to offset the draft/personnel and still come out with excess cash). YS is a unique situation because, correct me if I'm wrong, but most of their loss this year is coming from cut salaries (ie. the "misc. player expenses" column in the budget sheet) - so we shouldn't base any decision around them still losing money under the new guidelines.
League Director: Kyle “agrudez” Stever*
*Also serves as chief muckraker
-Ron, 2025 media guide

Image

c-mitch
Ex-GM
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: Kalamazoo, MI

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by c-mitch » Wed Aug 12, 2015 6:06 pm

Not a fan

User avatar
Edward Murphy
Ex-GM
Posts: 2041
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:10 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by Edward Murphy » Wed Aug 12, 2015 6:11 pm

I feel with the post you are looking for feedback. IMO I feel what you are looking at are the outliers. By looking at a few teams situation, and coming up a solution for all the teams, then in a few years from now revisiting a new problem that was created by a salary floor.

The question that needs to be asked is: Why are the teams spending less than they are taking in? Profit

To fund cash balance which is limited to 20 million, or to fund the stadium maintenance limited to 40 million, or to build a new stadium est. upward of 50 million.

If YS needed to spend all his Media Revenue how many years would it take him to fully fund his Cash Balance and Stadium Maintenance fund only using ticket sales funds?

If we are using the Player Expenses line in the team Financial Report for the floor then why don’t we used it for the Salary Cap Limit also instead of from the team salary report?

Why are the media revenue ranges from 73 million to 53 million, 20 million is real money.

If the GB wants to make a major change with a salary floor they should also look at having all teams starting on an equal footing.

If the GB feels the teams GM’s are tanking now, why isn’t the GB enforcing the tanking rule now?

I feel the suggestion on the table now is just a knee jerk reaction and would like to see and hear more conversation and other ideals about a salary floor and analyze how this will effect of all the teams.
Edward Murphy

Image

Playing with a Purpose
awm53222@yahoo.com

avery

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by avery » Wed Aug 12, 2015 6:54 pm

Edward Murphy wrote:I feel with the post you are looking for feedback. IMO I feel what you are looking at are the outliers. By looking at a few teams situation, and coming up a solution for all the teams, then in a few years from now revisiting a new problem that was created by a salary floor.

The question that needs to be asked is: Why are the teams spending less than they are taking in? Profit

To fund cash balance which is limited to 20 million, or to fund the stadium maintenance limited to 40 million, or to build a new stadium est. upward of 50 million.

If YS needed to spend all his Media Revenue how many years would it take him to fully fund his Cash Balance and Stadium Maintenance fund only using ticket sales funds?

If we are using the Player Expenses line in the team Financial Report for the floor then why don’t we used it for the Salary Cap Limit also instead of from the team salary report?
I thought we did use the first report and second aren't both reports the same? They both show the same amount? Are they different sometimes?
Edward Murphy wrote:Why are the media revenue ranges from 73 million to 53 million, 20 million is real money.

If the GB wants to make a major change with a salary floor they should also look at having all teams starting on an equal footing.

If the GB feels the teams GM’s are tanking now, why isn’t the GB enforcing the tanking rule now?

I feel the suggestion on the table now is just a knee jerk reaction and would like to see and hear more conversation and other ideals about a salary floor and analyze how this will effect of all the teams.
I think there is a range in Media Revenue because they are different market sizes in the game. This is part of the game, although it can probably be overridden by the commish. But to me this is not that big a deal. Because I am not a huge fan of making things the same for every team in every league or every league you joined would be vanilla. Plus IIRC we use the options that keep the range as small as possible. If you built it, he will come: if you do a good job your market size (and media revenue) can increase, so it also rewards good GM's.

Regarding a salary floor, I do not see how penalizing YS9 $15,412,500 (which I think is the "reduced penalty") helps solve much. This just makes it even harder for a bad team to get better. You want to put YS9 back into the red the moment they are crawling out? Also, I don't know, but this suggestion of salaary floor probably requires a second DVD introduction to the league, and as Chris said one Video intro is enough. :)

User avatar
aaronweiner
BBA GM
Posts: 12020
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 761 times

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by aaronweiner » Wed Aug 12, 2015 6:55 pm

Edward Murphy wrote:I feel with the post you are looking for feedback. IMO I feel what you are looking at are the outliers. By looking at a few teams situation, and coming up a solution for all the teams, then in a few years from now revisiting a new problem that was created by a salary floor.

The question that needs to be asked is: Why are the teams spending less than they are taking in? Profit

To fund cash balance which is limited to 20 million, or to fund the stadium maintenance limited to 40 million, or to build a new stadium est. upward of 50 million.
I'm reviewing the stadium fee cost and it'll probably be $25-30 million to match the decrease in stadium fees. (Otherwise nobody would ever build one.) So that'll help.

Edward Murphy wrote:If YS needed to spend all his Media Revenue how many years would it take him to fully fund his Cash Balance and Stadium Maintenance fund only using ticket sales funds?

Not that many. I made that point earlier.



Edward Murphy wrote:Why are the media revenue ranges from 73 million to 53 million, 20 million is real money.

If the GB wants to make a major change with a salary floor they should also look at having all teams starting on an equal footing.

If the GB feels the teams GM’s are tanking now, why isn’t the GB enforcing the tanking rule now?

These are both excellent points that I'll consider.

Edward Murphy wrote:I feel the suggestion on the table now is just a knee jerk reaction and would like to see and hear more conversation and other ideals about a salary floor and analyze how this will effect of all the teams.

It mostly won't. Just the most egregious violators of the rule. You know how many teams are in violation this year? The same two I mentioned, and that's it. In any given year it won't be more than a couple.

User avatar
aaronweiner
BBA GM
Posts: 12020
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 761 times

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by aaronweiner » Wed Aug 12, 2015 6:57 pm

avery wrote:
Edward Murphy wrote:Why are the media revenue ranges from 73 million to 53 million, 20 million is real money.

If the GB wants to make a major change with a salary floor they should also look at having all teams starting on an equal footing.

If the GB feels the teams GM’s are tanking now, why isn’t the GB enforcing the tanking rule now?

I feel the suggestion on the table now is just a knee jerk reaction and would like to see and hear more conversation and other ideals about a salary floor and analyze how this will effect of all the teams.
I think there is a range in Media Revenue because they are different market sizes in the game. This is part of the game, although it can probably be overridden by the commish. But to me this is not that big a deal. Because I am not a huge fan of making things the same for every team in every league or every league you joined would be vanilla. Plus IIRC we use the options that keep the range as small as possible. If you built it, he will come: if you do a good job your market size (and media revenue) can increase, so it also rewards good GM's.

Regarding a salary floor, I do not see how penalizing YS9 $15,412,500 (which I think is the "reduced penalty") helps solve much. This just makes it even harder for a bad team to get better. You want to put YS9 back into the red the moment they are crawling out? Also, I don't know, but this suggestion of salaary floor probably requires a second DVD introduction to the league, and as Chris said one Video intro is enough. :)

Nah. "You must spend at least as much as your media revenue or you have to spend it anyway, plus half the difference." One sentence.

avery

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by avery » Wed Aug 12, 2015 7:13 pm

Okay thanks for the Salary Floor for Dummys. But I don't like the suggestion because I am a pretty hands-off my g.d. team and let me run it, okay? Under this suggestion, both CA and YS are penalized. Why? CA is not tanking. YS is. CA should not be forced to spend money just to spend money. And as Edward suggests, if the commish agrees that YS is tanking (which I think he should), then that GM should be penalized. Right now, that option is gone because the GM is gone.

User avatar
recte44
GB: Commissioner
Posts: 43001
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:14 pm
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 1608 times
Contact:

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by recte44 » Wed Aug 12, 2015 8:31 pm

So let's not have a knee jerk reaction here.

agrudez
Ex-GM
Posts: 7681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:30 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by agrudez » Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:22 pm

recte44 wrote:So let's not have a knee jerk reaction here.
Is that how you see it?
League Director: Kyle “agrudez” Stever*
*Also serves as chief muckraker
-Ron, 2025 media guide

Image

avery

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by avery » Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:25 pm

This suggestion is okay, but here's some things. (1) it does not prevent GM's from tanking. This means that the rule only forces teams to spend money. If I have to spend $20 M on players so that I do not get a monetary penalty, I go out and sign four or five passable FA's for a total of $20 M. So I get barely eligible ML players playing or filling up roster spots. Then you get all kinds of questions coming in the window. Why did you sign that CF when you could of signed this other CF? This means that if this suggestion is adopted, and maybe it should maybe it shouldn't but maybe my suggestion should also be adopted as well. Because you can lead a GM to the FA market but you Cannot make him spend wisely. And IIRC FA contracts are always subjective. Also, (2) It forces rebuilding teams to spend momey that maybe they should not be forced to spend. How about this question: why did you sign $20 M in FA's when you are rebuilding and you do not need $20 M of FA's to filed a bonafide ML team? This means only $10 M worth of FA's would do to field a ML team. But you get penalized for not spending your money, when you could be saving it towards a new ballpark or keeping the cash so that you can add to Bonus Funds. In the end, this means I think it is pretty easy to tell when a GM is NOT fielding a bona fide ML team. This means that then and only then should such GM suffer penalties.

crobillard
Ex-GM
Posts: 2936
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:38 am
Has thanked: 297 times
Been thanked: 240 times

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by crobillard » Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:47 pm

This discussion should be tabled and picked back up in the offseason.

Chey
Ex-GM
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 2:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by Chey » Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:13 am

I guess I see problems with both solutions:

The problem with Avery's proposal (which I think is more significant than the problem with Aaron's) is that we're talking about subjectively entering into someone else's decision making process and determining when tanking is occuring deliberately -- which I have to think is a tough call to make and harder to enforce fairly. Where is that line drawn? When is someone "polishing gold" as opposed to tanking?

The problem here is highlighted by Avery in his comment -- spending a certain amount of money isn't always in the best interests of the team. Tim's argument that his financial house simply had to be brought into order has merit, in my opinion. That said, many leagues institute a certain salary floor and I don't think this proposal is unrealistic. I do question why we would need to penalize teams, though; if they're not spending to the floor, why not just charge them the difference?

Ultimately, my thoughts are that I don't personally see a need to create new rules around tanking. I'd never do it, because I could never have the patience, but I think that the line between tanking and rebuilding is a pretty tough one to measure (and I believe Tim when he said that he was doing it for financial reasons, not draft pick related reasons, even if the picks are a nice bonus) and that the scenarios in which they might be necessary are rare enough to not have to worry about.
Adam Dyck
Cairo Chariot Archers Baseball Club, General Manager 2043-Present

Edmonton Jackrabbits, General Manager 2029
Belfast North Stars, General Manager 2028
Havana Sugar Kings, General Manager 2022-2027

User avatar
aaronweiner
BBA GM
Posts: 12020
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 761 times

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by aaronweiner » Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:42 am

avery wrote:This suggestion is okay, but here's some things. (1) it does not prevent GM's from tanking. This means that the rule only forces teams to spend money. If I have to spend $20 M on players so that I do not get a monetary penalty, I go out and sign four or five passable FA's for a total of $20 M. So I get barely eligible ML players playing or filling up roster spots. Then you get all kinds of questions coming in the window. Why did you sign that CF when you could of signed this other CF? This means that if this suggestion is adopted, and maybe it should maybe it shouldn't but maybe my suggestion should also be adopted as well. Because you can lead a GM to the FA market but you Cannot make him spend wisely. And IIRC FA contracts are always subjective. Also, (2) It forces rebuilding teams to spend momey that maybe they should not be forced to spend. How about this question: why did you sign $20 M in FA's when you are rebuilding and you do not need $20 M of FA's to filed a bonafide ML team? This means only $10 M worth of FA's would do to field a ML team. But you get penalized for not spending your money, when you could be saving it towards a new ballpark or keeping the cash so that you can add to Bonus Funds. In the end, this means I think it is pretty easy to tell when a GM is NOT fielding a bona fide ML team. This means that then and only then should such GM suffer penalties.
I think that brings too much subjectivity into the discussion. if a guy is signing a 4/4/4 first baseman to a one year, $20 million deal to avoid penalties then they're spending the money and I don't really care. Yellow Springs' organization would still be awful if they did all ten moves you had suggested, and while they might not lose 130 games they'd damn sure lose 115.

User avatar
aaronweiner
BBA GM
Posts: 12020
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 761 times

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by aaronweiner » Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:44 am

Chey wrote:I guess I see problems with both solutions:

The problem with Avery's proposal (which I think is more significant than the problem with Aaron's) is that we're talking about subjectively entering into someone else's decision making process and determining when tanking is occuring deliberately -- which I have to think is a tough call to make and harder to enforce fairly. Where is that line drawn? When is someone "polishing gold" as opposed to tanking?

The problem here is highlighted by Avery in his comment -- spending a certain amount of money isn't always in the best interests of the team. Tim's argument that his financial house simply had to be brought into order has merit, in my opinion. That said, many leagues institute a certain salary floor and I don't think this proposal is unrealistic. I do question why we would need to penalize teams, though; if they're not spending to the floor, why not just charge them the difference?

Ultimately, my thoughts are that I don't personally see a need to create new rules around tanking. I'd never do it, because I could never have the patience, but I think that the line between tanking and rebuilding is a pretty tough one to measure (and I believe Tim when he said that he was doing it for financial reasons, not draft pick related reasons, even if the picks are a nice bonus) and that the scenarios in which they might be necessary are rare enough to not have to worry about.
Because then teams will earn a significant profit for that behavior, and we want to limit the upside of that decision.

User avatar
cheekimonk
BBA GM
Posts: 5327
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 128 times
Contact:

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by cheekimonk » Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:47 am

avery wrote:This suggestion is okay, but here's some things. (1) it does not prevent GM's from tanking.
The problem is, as I said in the other thread, a rule is a rule, but saying someone is "tanking" is a subjective judgment. By definition, it is affected by the comparison to what the GMs making the judgment think they would do in the given situation...but they're not in the situation.
Ben Teague, GM Boise Spuds
2682-3175, .457 PCT (5,857 games, 36 seasons)
11 Playoff Appearances, 1 Championship

Former BBA GM: Many (Monty Brewster Memorial Series champion: 1997)
Former GBC GM: Jerusalem, Buenos Aires


Boise Home Page (roster, prospects, etc.)

avery

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by avery » Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:57 am

aaronweiner wrote:
Chey wrote:I guess I see problems with both solutions:

The problem with Avery's proposal (which I think is more significant than the problem with Aaron's) is that we're talking about subjectively entering into someone else's decision making process and determining when tanking is occuring deliberately -- which I have to think is a tough call to make and harder to enforce fairly. Where is that line drawn? When is someone "polishing gold" as opposed to tanking?

The problem here is highlighted by Avery in his comment -- spending a certain amount of money isn't always in the best interests of the team. Tim's argument that his financial house simply had to be brought into order has merit, in my opinion. That said, many leagues institute a certain salary floor and I don't think this proposal is unrealistic. I do question why we would need to penalize teams, though; if they're not spending to the floor, why not just charge them the difference?

Ultimately, my thoughts are that I don't personally see a need to create new rules around tanking. I'd never do it, because I could never have the patience, but I think that the line between tanking and rebuilding is a pretty tough one to measure (and I believe Tim when he said that he was doing it for financial reasons, not draft pick related reasons, even if the picks are a nice bonus) and that the scenarios in which they might be necessary are rare enough to not have to worry about.
Because then teams will earn a significant profit for that behavior, and we want to limit the upside of that decision.
Significant profit by what behavior? Trying to save money because a GM refuses to needlessly spend money?

There are teams making significant profits of cash even though they meet the salary floor and this suggestion does nothing to address this.

User avatar
aaronweiner
BBA GM
Posts: 12020
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 761 times

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by aaronweiner » Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:06 am

Avery, make up your mind. Either a GM should spend money and try to improve their team, or they shouldn't. What you're saying is that it's completely okay if a GM doesn't spend money that doesn't want to improve their team and just pockets the cash. I'm saying that's a problem.

agrudez
Ex-GM
Posts: 7681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:30 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by agrudez » Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:20 am

I'd like to reiterate that YS is hemorrhaging money because they cut players and absorbed their salaries. That is not a normal mode of operation even for rebuilding teams, so saying things like "Tim's argument that his financial house simply had to be brought into order has merit, in my opinion" does not, in fact, have merit. If he had just held onto the bad deals and ran a salary floor (as defined by this proposal) payroll until they were off the books he'd easily be turning a 10M+ per season profit after stadium fees, personnel and draft expenses get taken out.
League Director: Kyle “agrudez” Stever*
*Also serves as chief muckraker
-Ron, 2025 media guide

Image

User avatar
recte44
GB: Commissioner
Posts: 43001
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:14 pm
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 1608 times
Contact:

Re: Suggestion: Salary Floor

Post by recte44 » Thu Aug 13, 2015 11:15 am

I'm going to make an executive ruling here. There will be no salary floor at this time.

Locked Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests