CSBC Financials

[PitchingWinsGames]

This thread will be so everyone can keep track of salary cap allowances*:

Anchorage Stone Crabs 75M
Arlington Crypt Keepers 75M
Atlanta Sharpshooters 75M
Boston Micks 80M (+5 from Colorado)
Chicago Slaughter 75M
Cleveland Barons 75M
Colorado Coal Miners 70M (-5 to Boston)
Edmonton Ice Bats 75M
Honolulu Hula Hoops 75M
Kansas City Monarchs 80M (+5 from Seattle)
Milwaukee Barrel Men 75M
Miami Spider Monkeys 75M
New York Nationals 75M
Philadelphia Freedom 75M
Pittsburgh Poconos 56M (-19, cut MR Scott Linebrink)
Portland Ducks 75M
San Antonio Sidewinders 75M
San Diego Whitecaps 75M
San Francisco Black Knights 75M
Seattle Selftitled 70M (-5 to Kansas City)
Sin City Scorpions 75M
Vancouver Cannons 75M

*Teams can get no more than +5m or -5M

[PitchingWinsGames]

updated to formally reflect KC/SEA trade

[THE_REAL_MIBS]

I'm a little confused by this. Are you going to update this with everyone's payrolls once our rosters are set?

Is this how much money we have right now?

[PitchingWinsGames]

I'm a little confused by this. Are you going to update this with everyone's payrolls once our rosters are set?

Is this how much money we have right now?

This is what your "cap" will be.

So, for instance, instead of the 75m cap... Bobbob traded for a 5M allowance from Nny. This gives Bobbob, for this season, an 80m salary cap.

Conversely, Nny now only has a 70m cap. If he were to go out and trade for a ton of high priced guys, he would be "over his cap" at 70m, as opposed to the 75m everyone else has.

The cap allowances are my way of allowing lower teams to have a trade-able asset to help rebuild, since bad teams often-times will not have a lot of good players to trade. Although, a team (at least for the first couple seasons while we see how well it works) won't be able to trade more than 5M or receive more than 5M total, for a season.

[THE_REAL_MIBS]

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having a cap though? It doesn't really seem fair that some teams are allowed to spend $80 million while almost everyone else can only spend $75 million. I thought that the only thing we could do if we came in over cap was to trade away higher priced players to get under the cap. Trading one guy for $5 million dollars to avoid trading away a high priced player seems to undermine the spirit of the cap.

[Bobbob1313]

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having a cap though? It doesn't really seem fair that some teams are allowed to spend $80 million while almost everyone else can only spend $75 million.

It's like the midlevel exceptions in the NBA. If you need the extra $5 mil, like I did, it's not free. I made a trade for it.

[THE_REAL_MIBS]

I get that but I'm not good with salary caps. I thought salary caps were a way to even out the teams and prevent the Yankees and Marlins kind of teams. If some people are allowed to be over cap, it doesn't seem right, even if you did have to give away something. For this year, one team is allowed to spend more than everybody else?

[MiamiHomer]

He made a trade with another team to be able to so I don't see the problem. You're capable of making the same move if you find another owner and have assets they want.

[THE_REAL_MIBS]

It's not a matter of me needing a higher cap. My team came in under cap. I just thought we all had the same cap to make all the teams even and that it couldn't be changed.

[Bobbob1313]

It's not a matter of me needing a higher cap. My team came in under cap. I just thought we all had the same cap to make all the teams even and that it couldn't be changed.

From what I understand, this has been the rule from day one. This shouldn't come as a surprise. Nny feels he doesn't need the extra cap room, and I do, so I gave him a player he wanted and he traded me cash.

Personally, I've thought the cap is too low from the beginning, but that's a different discussion.

[CrimsonCane]

The whole point of parity is that everyone plays by the same rules. The $5 million stipulation was a rule from Day 1, therefore there is no advantage above other teams if you exploit this original rule. If you would've preferred to build an $80 million team this year, there was nothing to stop you from doing so. Different teams have different timelines for when they expect success (Win Now, Rebuild, etc.), you ought to be able to run your team accordingly.

[PitchingWinsGames]

The issue, I think, at hand, is that the salary cap allowance is only a one year thing... so I mean, bobbob potentially traded 6 years of a (potentially) good OFer for one year of being able to keep his entire team intact. Additionally, it's not an unlimited thing... by the rule's design... there's a "soft cap" at 75m... it can be inflated to 80m via cash trade and can't be lower than 70m, for one year at a time.

Consider the dynamic... you can trade a player with a good salary to get under the cap and lose a player... or you can trade a prospect for the money to stay under the cap... it's pretty much the same thing in the long run, you lose a player to get under the cap.

It creates an interesting dynamic, to say the least.

Also, in terms of bobbob saying the cap is too low... I think a team like San Francisco, based on their current contracts, shows just how good the 75m threshold is. He's right there, and a good portion of his players are being paid.

[THE_REAL_MIBS]

I was just unaware of this rule where you can trade a player and carry an $80 million cap, that's why I was confused. And I'm still not sure I like it unless there is a stipulation that, if you choose to do it, you can't do it again for another 2-5 years. Otherwise, you could have a team do this year after year after year to get the better paid, generally more talented players and basically allowing himself to continue to field a better team than everyone else because of the higher salary cap he would have every year. I'm not saying Bobbob would do this but this rule could be abused. It also could be a little bit of collusion if this happened with two buddy owners agreeing to do it every year.

[Bobbob1313]

I was just unaware of this rule where you can trade a player and carry an $80 million cap, that's why I was confused. And I'm still not sure I like it unless there is a stipulation that, if you choose to do it, you can't do it again for another 2-5 years. Otherwise, you could have a team do this year after year after year to get the better paid, generally more talented players and basically allowing himself to continue to field a better team than everyone else because of the higher salary cap he would have every year. I'm not saying Bobbob would do this but this rule could be abused. It also could be a little bit of collusion if this happened with two buddy owners agreeing to do it every year.

Everyone has the opportunity to do it. That's why it's not an issue.

[THE_REAL_MIBS]

Fine. I'm not talking about that. That's fine if everyone can do it this year. But what about next year. It's not fair if an owner can continue to do this every year and run with an $80 million payroll while trading away just one player every year. That's what I don't think is fair.