- Posts: 439
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:35 am
Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:30 pm
Unread postSat Aug 22, 2020 10:04 am
oldmansmith2 wrote:
We still need to vote on the following proposed rule addition:
ARTICLE IX
Section 14: Salary Cap Violation Rule: If a team exceeds the salary cap as the result of an unfavorable arbitration decision, the player whose arbitration decision caused the team to go over the cap is considered to be banned for the season for violations of league substance abuse policies. If more than one player is involved in the arbitration process that resulted in the salary cap violation, the team must get under the salary cap by identifying as few arbitration players as possible to get back into compliance. Each of those "Balco" players will be considered banned for the season. Banned players will remain on the team roster, but the team will not be permitted to participate in free agent signing periods or the prospect draft until they get back under the salary cap.
For example, Team A has spent $130 million in salary cap space before arbitration with three players up for arbitration this year. In a stroke of bad luck these three players are awarded $10 mil, $6 mil, and $4 mil. The team would be required to suspend the $10 mil player for the season as this would involve the suspension of the fewest number of players required to bring the team back into compliance with the salary cap.
sociophil: YES (Proposer)
oldmansmith2 -- yes
Paul_Long71 -- no (I think the team should have the option of banning the 2 lesser salaried players or the higher, not automatically the higher)
dharmabums -- yes
paul j kiggins --yes
srh1200 -- no (I agree with Paul Long, I have a great deal of experience in salary cap leagues and this provision is far too restrictive and penalizing. It is good for the game to always have our best players in it whenever possible...IOW,maximum competition. Frankly, I would rather pay a fine if we must be penalized as the arbitration process is out of our control...penalties work best on honor and integrity issues and since we are not likely to have many issues of honor and integrity, penalties should be a rare occurrence...I'm not saying this is a dealbreaker for me, but you will each be pretty PO'd if your prize bull prospect gets banned because someone decided to pay him more than you expected, mostly because it's not realistic)
madal --yes. It was a close one for me, because I get Paul Long's point, but first I want to see if it ever becomes an issue, and then if this is unworkable, I'd be all in with Paul L.
teamnasty -- yes
chilliards --
baseball cfo -- yes
mykbr1 -- no - I agree with Paul Long and srh1200. I think you should be able to choose. also, not a dealbreaker.
hveed --
oldmansmith2 wrote:
We still need to vote on the following proposed rule addition:
ARTICLE IX
Section 14: Salary Cap Violation Rule: If a team exceeds the salary cap as the result of an unfavorable arbitration decision, the player whose arbitration decision caused the team to go over the cap is considered to be banned for the season for violations of league substance abuse policies. If more than one player is involved in the arbitration process that resulted in the salary cap violation, the team must get under the salary cap by identifying as few arbitration players as possible to get back into compliance. Each of those "Balco" players will be considered banned for the season. Banned players will remain on the team roster, but the team will not be permitted to participate in free agent signing periods or the prospect draft until they get back under the salary cap.
For example, Team A has spent $130 million in salary cap space before arbitration with three players up for arbitration this year. In a stroke of bad luck these three players are awarded $10 mil, $6 mil, and $4 mil. The team would be required to suspend the $10 mil player for the season as this would involve the suspension of the fewest number of players required to bring the team back into compliance with the salary cap.
sociophil: YES (Proposer)
oldmansmith2 -- yes
Paul_Long71 -- no (I think the team should have the option of banning the 2 lesser salaried players or the higher, not automatically the higher)
dharmabums -- yes
paul j kiggins --yes
srh1200 -- no (I agree with Paul Long, I have a great deal of experience in salary cap leagues and this provision is far too restrictive and penalizing. It is good for the game to always have our best players in it whenever possible...IOW,maximum competition. Frankly, I would rather pay a fine if we must be penalized as the arbitration process is out of our control...penalties work best on honor and integrity issues and since we are not likely to have many issues of honor and integrity, penalties should be a rare occurrence...I'm not saying this is a dealbreaker for me, but you will each be pretty PO'd if your prize bull prospect gets banned because someone decided to pay him more than you expected, mostly because it's not realistic)
madal --yes. It was a close one for me, because I get Paul Long's point, but first I want to see if it ever becomes an issue, and then if this is unworkable, I'd be all in with Paul L.
teamnasty -- yes
chilliards --
baseball cfo -- yes
mykbr1 -- no - I agree with Paul Long and srh1200. I think you should be able to choose. also, not a dealbreaker.
hveed --