Cap Increase After July 1st

[kq76]

I realize some might have a negative opinion of this idea after only reading the thread title, but hear me out for a couple minutes. I myself may not be big into trading, but I, without a doubt, see the benefits of it to a league and after past discussions on the topic I'm certain many, maybe even most, agree as to the value of trading to online leagues. So awhile back it was suggested that increasing the cap might help as it should give teams more room to acquire players. I didn't believe that would hold to be true as I was sure the would-be acquiring teams would likely just spend more well before the deadline, probably even be up against the cap by the end of FA, and while it's only been a season so far, it looks like I was right.

But I was thinking, if the main obstacle to trading is teams don't have enough cap room to acquire expensive players at the deadline, why don't we just make it where they have to have room by the deadline. The trade deadline is July 31st and "players signed to a contract during the previous off-season may not be traded until July 1st of the current year". Since we already have July 1st as an important date (if the schedule was adjusted so the regular season actually ended in September like I think would be nice to see, then July 1st would also be the midpoint of the season), why don't we just also up the cap after July 1st. It could be upped from whatever to whatever else, we can argue over the exact #s later, but I think, of anything, this would help trading the most.

What do you think of the idea sans exact numbers? What cap difference do you think would actually make a difference? I doubt only a 5M difference would make enough difference, if any, but I think 10M could and I'm sure 15M would. We could, for instance, make the pre-July 1st cap 75M and make it 90M afterwards, or 80 and 90, whatever.

I thought to myself, "well, depending on the exact #s, a con to this would be it'd create a larger gap between the teams who can spend up to the cap and those who can only spend up to their budget", but then I realized it's not as bad as having a high (e.g. 85M) cap for the entire season. Start it lower and the gap is less for half the season and the half that it's not, some of those only cap-limited teams might already be looking to next year.

All in all, I realize it may sound a tad strange, but I think it's a great idea!

[nanaimo]

I don't mind modest increases in cap room, but I think they need to be tempered with modest increases in cash allowed room. For teams trading away those great players with high salaries they need to have the incentive of being able to keep the cash savings for a big spend in a future year. Otherwise, as a lower market team, I'd rather keep the player I would have otherwise shed some salary with if I can't keep the savings in the first place.

[kq76]

It sounds like you're arguing for a higher cash max. We are going from 10 to 20M this coming year. Are you looking for more? I don't think I ever considered that when I was trading away a player, but I guess maybe some do.

I haven't closely looked at the financial formulas in awhile so I should probably brush up on them, but as long as we have a cap I'm not sure a limit on cash is really even needed so I could maybe see upping it more or even doing away with it entirely. I could be mistaken, but I believe the point of a cash max was more to limit the AI in a non-cap environment so maybe we don't even need a cash max.

I'd say what might be more important would be to allow for unlimited negative cash as, unless I'm mistaken, there's still a lower limit when there probably shouldn't be. Make teams go further into the red with bad contract releases and you'd hopefully see people be more responsible with their contract offers. Then again, those that aren't may just quit and we probably don't want to make it too difficult on the new GM that takes over.

I really should look at those formulas again. I realize there's no strict formula for budgets, but cash may come into play with the budgets and so the more budget room, the less gap there should be between budget-limited teams and cap-limited teams and I'd certainly be in favour of that.

[BruceM]

I realize some might have a negative opinion of this idea after only reading the thread title, but hear me out for a couple minutes. I myself may not be big into trading, but I, without a doubt, see the benefits of it to a league and after past discussions on the topic I'm certain many, maybe even most, agree as to the value of trading to online leagues. So awhile back it was suggested that increasing the cap might help as it should give teams more room to acquire players. I didn't believe that would hold to be true as I was sure the would-be acquiring teams would likely just spend more well before the deadline, probably even be up against the cap by the end of FA, and while it's only been a season so far, it looks like I was right.

But I was thinking, if the main obstacle to trading is teams don't have enough cap room to acquire expensive players at the deadline, why don't we just make it where they have to have room by the deadline. The trade deadline is July 31st and "players signed to a contract during the previous off-season may not be traded until July 1st of the current year". Since we already have July 1st as an important date (if the schedule was adjusted so the regular season actually ended in September like I think would be nice to see, then July 1st would also be the midpoint of the season), why don't we just also up the cap after July 1st. It could be upped from whatever to whatever else, we can argue over the exact #s later, but I think, of anything, this would help trading the most.

What do you think of the idea sans exact numbers? What cap difference do you think would actually make a difference? I doubt only a 5M difference would make enough difference, if any, but I think 10M could and I'm sure 15M would. We could, for instance, make the pre-July 1st cap 75M and make it 90M afterwards, or 80 and 90, whatever.

I thought to myself, "well, depending on the exact #s, a con to this would be it'd create a larger gap between the teams who can spend up to the cap and those who can only spend up to their budget", but then I realized it's not as bad as having a high (e.g. 85M) cap for the entire season. Start it lower and the gap is less for half the season and the half that it's not, some of those only cap-limited teams might already be looking to next year.

All in all, I realize it may sound a tad strange, but I think it's a great idea!

I'd like to see more indepth study done on that.

1. More often than not, what keeps me from making a deal at the deadline is the asking price in return by the other owner, not the salary. I can always find a way to make a salary fit if I want a player enough or feel strongly enough that he'll put me over the top. Sending money back, cutting someone, etc etc.

2. Whether I spend the money in off season FA, or at the deadline, it's up to me as a GM to manage my money properly. The fact I sign an FA for big $$$ and then he flops and I may not necessarily have cap room for a trade, well again, I'll find a way to make it work if I need to.

3. What do you do for new owners? Take me for example: I took over Halifax last off season and was strapped with two HUGE contracts that the last owner signed. Those two contracts made-up almost half my payroll. Had I not cut one of them at the beginning of the season, I would have been up against the cap at the deadline. Even if there was a player I wanted/needed, there's no way I'd add another big salary to that pay roll just because the cap went up a bit.

[BruceM]

I realize some might have a negative opinion of this idea after only reading the thread title, but hear me out for a couple minutes. I myself may not be big into trading, but I, without a doubt, see the benefits of it to a league and after past discussions on the topic I'm certain many, maybe even most, agree as to the value of trading to online leagues. So awhile back it was suggested that increasing the cap might help as it should give teams more room to acquire players. I didn't believe that would hold to be true as I was sure the would-be acquiring teams would likely just spend more well before the deadline, probably even be up against the cap by the end of FA, and while it's only been a season so far, it looks like I was right.

But I was thinking, if the main obstacle to trading is teams don't have enough cap room to acquire expensive players at the deadline, why don't we just make it where they have to have room by the deadline. The trade deadline is July 31st and "players signed to a contract during the previous off-season may not be traded until July 1st of the current year". Since we already have July 1st as an important date (if the schedule was adjusted so the regular season actually ended in September like I think would be nice to see, then July 1st would also be the midpoint of the season), why don't we just also up the cap after July 1st. It could be upped from whatever to whatever else, we can argue over the exact #s later, but I think, of anything, this would help trading the most.

What do you think of the idea sans exact numbers? What cap difference do you think would actually make a difference? I doubt only a 5M difference would make enough difference, if any, but I think 10M could and I'm sure 15M would. We could, for instance, make the pre-July 1st cap 75M and make it 90M afterwards, or 80 and 90, whatever.

I thought to myself, "well, depending on the exact #s, a con to this would be it'd create a larger gap between the teams who can spend up to the cap and those who can only spend up to their budget", but then I realized it's not as bad as having a high (e.g. 85M) cap for the entire season. Start it lower and the gap is less for half the season and the half that it's not, some of those only cap-limited teams might already be looking to next year.

All in all, I realize it may sound a tad strange, but I think it's a great idea!

Also, are you proposing the cap goes up on July 1st, and then back to normal once the season is over?

[llmolsonll]

Also, are you proposing the cap goes up on July 1st, and then back to normal once the season is over?

thats what i understand.

i would be in favor of keeping the cap as it is throughout the season. I also think each manager need to think about the contracts they sign during the offseason and how its going to affect their team during the season.

There already is a rule about going above the maximum payroll, so the possibility to add a highly paid player is there, though with a penalty. Perhaps that rule could be reviewed to favor trading.

[JAttractive]

I don't think anyone expected bumping up the cap by 5 million would lead to dramatic increases in trading. All this really did was make up for the 4 or so million more we were spending a year after switching to OOTP v.9 . Even with next years increase giving us a bit more room I don't think you will see all kinds of crazy trades. Like Bruce said the biggest obstacle is other GM's and their asking prices. It was nice this season to finally have a bit of wiggle room to make a trade again though. I was finally in a position where I didn't HAVE to demand that any trade to my team required equal or more salary going back. For season after season I have always had that as a requirement and it blocked more than one potential trade when we couldn't work around it.

So maybe we will see one or two more trades a year on a good year but every bit helps. This year was just a bad year for trading I think. My team didn't really have any major holes for instance so I wasn't pushing too hard. I know other teams were in similar situations.

I do think your idea would increase the potential for trades as well but can we automate that process in-game? If not I wouldn't want to cause anymore book keeping for Chris.

[creed]

For myself the cap rising will have absolutely no effect on my ability to trade. Outside of one example, I pretty much ahve to give away players in order to move them, regardless of cap.

[kq76]

I'd like to see more indepth study done on that.

1. More often than not, what keeps me from making a deal at the deadline is the asking price in return by the other owner, not the salary. I can always find a way to make a salary fit if I want a player enough or feel strongly enough that he'll put me over the top. Sending money back, cutting someone, etc etc.

2. Whether I spend the money in off season FA, or at the deadline, it's up to me as a GM to manage my money properly. The fact I sign an FA for big $$$ and then he flops and I may not necessarily have cap room for a trade, well again, I'll find a way to make it work if I need to.

3. What do you do for new owners? Take me for example: I took over Halifax last off season and was strapped with two HUGE contracts that the last owner signed. Those two contracts made-up almost half my payroll. Had I not cut one of them at the beginning of the season, I would have been up against the cap at the deadline. Even if there was a player I wanted/needed, there's no way I'd add another big salary to that pay roll just because the cap went up a bit.

0) It is just my theory from past discussions on the topic. I don't feel like doing an in-depth study on it at this time, sorry.

1) It's certainly not the only obstacle. It's just what I sense is the main one for most people.

2) True, and for those who don't maybe we should just say tough. But if we feel that making it easier is worth it then this is an idea.

3) I don't see your question. Are you suggesting there should be special rules for new GMs with regard to this?

Also, are you proposing the cap goes up on July 1st, and then back to normal once the season is over?

Yes. To be exact, I was thinking one's payroll during the off-season, and maybe the pre-season, doesn't matter. You just have to be under the lower cap by the start of the regular season.

It might sound like it might be overly burdensome to get back to a lower #, but I don't think it would be. Lots of things often happen during the off-season/pre-season like players becoming free agents freeing up cap space and there's plenty of time to trade or release players to get back down. Besides, I'd say a good % of players who are traded before the deadline only have 1 year left on their contract so you wouldn't have to worry about their salaries.

i would be in favor of keeping the cap as it is throughout the season. I also think each manager need to think about the contracts they sign during the offseason and how its going to affect their team during the season.

There already is a rule about going above the maximum payroll, so the possibility to add a highly paid player is there, though with a penalty. Perhaps that rule could be reviewed to favor trading.

I agree and I've been preaching about that for what might seem like forever, but I also realize that if one's really trying to do everything they can to win, it's awfully difficult to say no to that extra player or extra few million in FA. I know I fell into that trap this year. I was worried about my bullpen and spent more in FA (and shortly afterwards) than I told myself I should. And I'm the type that is usually pretty good about not spending more than I plan to.

I think you may misunderstand the intent of those penalties. IMO at least, they're not there as a sort of luxury tax. They're there as a, "well, so and so just won't get under the cap, so what are we going to do about it?" AFAIK we didn't have it happen with anyone this year, but a previous Halifax GM was quite bad about it and I tell you, it wasn't easy for me to bite my tongue about it. If I had my way, people would be kicked out after the third violation, at least if they were within a couple seasons of each other. Chris is a nice guy so I'm sure he doesn't want to do that, but as I understand it the fines are there to hopefully drive the point home. If people do start looking at it as just a luxury tax, I'll be surprised if I'm not the only bothered by that. I suppose we could somehow just tweak it to allow for trading, but I think I'd rather it be clear that going over the cap is quite alright at a certain time of year (or whatever) than have it where you can, but there's a fine so it's kind of unclear whether you're breaking the rules (and thereby in a way cheating) or not.

I do think your idea would increase the potential for trades as well but can we automate that process in-game? If not I wouldn't want to cause anymore book keeping for Chris.

Good question. I'd assume you could just change the salary cap during the middle of the season, but maybe you can't. If you can't, then we could just set it to the higher # and just quickly check the fin'l report at set points in the year. I agree it should depend on whether Chris is interested in it or not though. The $ for FA formulas might be put off too (IIRC, the cap is figured in somehow), but that'd probably be a good thing (I hate that your offers are limited; sure, your signings should be capped, but not simply your offers).

For myself the cap rising will have absolutely no effect on my ability to trade. Outside of one example, I pretty much ahve to give away players in order to move them, regardless of cap.

On PEI's end of the spectrum, sure, but on my end, I probably would have at least enquired about your price for Bustamante if I didn't have to think too hard about what players I'd have to get rid of to stay under the cap.

[llmolsonll]

i would be in favor of keeping the cap as it is throughout the season. I also think each manager need to think about the contracts they sign during the offseason and how its going to affect their team during the season.

There already is a rule about going above the maximum payroll, so the possibility to add a highly paid player is there, though with a penalty. Perhaps that rule could be reviewed to favor trading.

I think you may misunderstand the intent of those penalties.

Actually, i was thinking that going over the cap and losing a pick or two to acquire a big name at the deadline seemed appropriate. It gives an opportunity to get your team better for the final stretch, but at a cost. Type A free agents do cost a first or second round pick, so it would somehow be the same as signing one. So you obviously would blow the cap for the reminader of the season, but depending on your payroll, perhpas the penalty could vary. Example, 0-5M$ over costs a 2nd round and third, beyond that its a first round pick or more.

For the small markets out there such as PEI, free agent compensation would be great. Was this league allowing it at some point or perhaps it could be a possibility?

[creed]

I'd welcome free agent compensation myself, it'd save me worrying about trading the bums off.

[anton29]

If you increase the cap at some point during the season, and then bring it back down at the end of the season, I don't think it would increase the amount of trading that occurs for high priced players. But it may increase the trading of players that have expiring contracts.

High priced players that have multiple years left on their contracts may need to be released at the end of the season for the team to get back under the cap, and then that will affect the teams cash balance, and their ability to sign free agents the next season.

I think if there is a cap increase, it should be a permanent increase, and not something that fluctuates during the season. Maybe we can have a cap that increases yearly, or every few years by a certain amount? So we can have the cap increase to $85 million for next season, and then in a year or two years, increase it to $87 or $90 million?

[nanaimo]

I forgot about this thread. Glad we increased the cash max. Yeah, my point was if I had a high salary player that someone wanted to trade me for (assuming he was a good player) and I was already looking at my books and seeing I was going to have anywhere near the cash max, I wouldn't trade the guy as there would be no financial reward for doing so. There were times in this league historically when I would award big contracts to players on extensions just to use up cash rather than lose it. I think the hesitation of letting people accumulate cash was that they would not spend on free agents to improve their team. But for me, especially during a rebuilding time, I'd rather save the cash to add high ticket free agents when I had a hope of competing. Anyway, 20 million is double and a big improvement over the limits of 10. I believe it helped me this year already.