|
Post by New York Yankees on May 2, 2023 20:36:43 GMT -6
I feel like we loosely model our awesome dynasty league after the real deal, but our league has a long-running problem that real-life MLB does not: A salary cap. Now don't get me wrong, I think a salary cap is vital to the health of our league, and it certainly introduces a fun level of strategy when assembling a roster to compete. The problem lies in the absolute devaluation of veteran ball players on lucrative contracts in their 30s. They are worth diddly-squat in our league, and we all take turns bidding on them in FAB at the onset of the season for much less than their real-life pay before subsequently dropping them at conclusion of the campaign. One cannot typically justify absorbing the massive contract of a guy in his 30s in a Dynasty setting. Not the least that it is wrecking trade values for such guys; a 24-year-old middling outfield at league minimum salary is worth far more than a 33 year old stud making 25 million. It shouldn't be like that.
To solve this, I am proposing implementing a 25% Veteran Discount. Under my proposal, all players over the age of 30 at the start of the season have their salary that season reduced by 25%. For example, instead of their Spotrac salary being 2023 $20M, 2024 $22M, it would be 2023 $15M, 2024 $16.5M. This would also add value to the FA draft, which is currently worthless for some teams.
To avoid the headache for league management and trying to stay on top of players birthdays, I propose that we add a forum thread for each team where they post their eligible vets prior to the onset of the season. There would be no discounts mid-season if a player turns 30 in June; that discount would be applied prior to the next season.
Thoughts are welcome! I think we really need to implement this or something similar for the health of the league. Our teams are just a bunch of arbitration guys and rookie contracts lol.
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds on May 2, 2023 20:45:38 GMT -6
I like the idea, I’m wondering if 25% might be a bit too much of a discount. I’d be more in the 15%-20% range.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees on May 2, 2023 21:00:51 GMT -6
I like the idea, I’m wondering if 25% might be a bit too much of a discount. I’d be more in the 15%-20% range. 25% would put a stud vet like Scherzer at $32.5M. Hefty, but not insane. I could definitely see merit to a bit less if need be.
|
|
|
Post by Kansas City Royals on May 3, 2023 8:02:55 GMT -6
I really thought you meant my cap space would be reduced by 25% because I’m 33 haha was about to veto this real quick haha
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees on May 3, 2023 8:17:36 GMT -6
I really thought you meant my cap space would be reduced by 25% because I’m 33 haha was about to veto this real quick haha lmao I think most of us are in our 30s and up XD
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Twins on May 3, 2023 8:46:02 GMT -6
I really thought you meant my cap space would be reduced by 25% because I’m 33 haha was about to veto this real quick haha HAHAHAHA
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Twins on May 3, 2023 8:46:41 GMT -6
Would like to hear more league opinions on this. Obviously nothing will happen til the offseason but im definitely interested in league opinion as this would be a pretty big rule change.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs on May 3, 2023 20:44:05 GMT -6
My initial thought is that it wouldn’t change that much. Guys worth rostering at their massive contract would be rostered anyways like verlander or scherzer. Guys not currently worth rostering wouldn’t be rostered even with a 25% discount. I’d think this would only impact a very small percentage of players and it’d be a lot of work for slade and Taylor.
Just my opinion and I haven’t really looked deeply into it, so I can be swayed if y’all have some specific examples. I do think Slade is 100% right though that older players are devalued because of this issue though
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2023 9:02:39 GMT -6
I really thought you meant my cap space would be reduced by 25% because I’m 33 haha was about to veto this real quick haha lmao I think most of us are in our 30s and up XD 30s? We didn't even have video when I was in my 30s. I like the idea a lot. Vets aren't making league minimum (maybe Jackie Bradley Jr. is), so not concerned with 25%. If there is concern across the league, create a scale based on the salary -- $15M-plus gets 25%; $10M-$14.9M gets %20; $5M-$9.9M gets 10%; under $5M gets nothing (or something like that). I do think the age should go up. I've got Joey Meneses in his first first full season at 31. I get he's an exception, but a fair number of players are still in arbitration years at 30. Jack Suwinski hits free agency in MLB at 31. TJ Friedl at 33. I'd say go 32 or 33 years old for the veteran discount to kick in. Yes, no matter what is chosen there will be players falling through the cracks. At least 32 puts a little more space for most arbitration years. This would cover the cheaper guys a little longer at full price and would have you pay full price for Manny Machado until 2025 or 2026 instead of getting a discount this season at age 30.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees on May 7, 2023 10:28:31 GMT -6
Neat ideas! I'd just say keep it age 30 and arbitration players need not apply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2023 11:34:37 GMT -6
Would we freeze the cap increase for the first season? Like if this is for 2024, keep the cap at $210M? Then 2025 is $220M instead of $230M. I'm sure we have teams that could be getting $40M in cap relief for vets, maybe more. And saving on very productive guys like Machado, Bryce Harper, Aaron Judge, Trea Turner, Xander Bogaerts, Kodai Senga, Mike Trout, Mookie Betts and others who are 30 right now. A quick look at my team if I kept it for next year, I'd save $20M if we gave a 25% discount to guys 30-plus and I don't have any of those big names. Freezing the cap while making the change makes vets more tradeable. Everyone gets cap relief but it's tempered. I guess if the age was higher, maybe don't freeze the cap? I was about to post what I wrote and just thought of that. A higher age generally means a less productive player. Age 30 is prime for stars. I come from a hockey background, where 35 is the magic number. That's too old to me in this instance. There are a lot of variables that would have me tilt to agreeing or disagreeing with the idea. Also if we do this, can we name the rule after Rich Hill (even though the AARP member goes out and earns every penny of his salary)?
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees on May 7, 2023 11:47:47 GMT -6
We can name it after Rich Hill, but only if we refer to it as the Dick Mountain discount.
|
|