In some leagues, it's to the point where many teams have no real cash worries. (Some of my teams included).
This can make moving a player to IR instead of cutting and getting a salary rebate a no-brainer.
This can mean the team has no real cash concerns when choosing 28 keepers.
This can mean the high-priced players never reach the open market.
There are some different moves going on to try to change this, including some adjustments/corrections in the salary and salary cap formulas. One possibility is making the cost of a multiyear contract more expensive.
I think perhaps the basic formula is OK - with a 33% increase in successive seasons (used to be 25%).
But maybe where we can tinker here a bit is with the minimum cost to extend:
| Contract Length | Current Minimum | New Minimum (a suggestion) |
|---|---|---|
| 1st year | 250 | 500 |
| 2nd year | 1250 | 1750 |
| 3rd year | 2500 | 3500 |
| 4th year | 4000 | 5000 |
| 5th year | 6000 | 700 |
We could also set a maximum if we're fooling around with this since the current maximums for high-priced players out even a year or two are a bit ridiculous - like tie any season maximum to be the maximum salary of the current season (or maybe historically within BWB). Extending a guy 5 years out isn't very likely, but is more possible in successive seasons rather than in a single 5-year extension.
Thoughts?
Posts
4 comments:
It seems that going out 2 years for low to mid-range players is the typical scenario and high-priced players 1 year, so beyond that is a non-issue. I think that owners who are savvy enough to resign players deserve to be rewarded (although sometimes this backfires when you paid for players who have season ending injuries). That being said, I wouldn't object to a limit of the number of players under contract for future seasons that would be pegged at maybe the most that 80 percent of the teams do now. This would mean that several teams in each league would either be putting players back in the pool or resigning them at higher salaries for one year which ultimately will get them back in the pool or traded much sooner.
I am in favor of the higher costs. It could add more higher priced talent to the FA pool in the offseason.
I would certainly be in favor of making the early years of a contract more expensive. It's a no-brainer to sign Jose Abreu to a 2 or 3 or even 4 year deal because the profit is so huge. I think 500 or even 1000 for year 1 of the deal would be fine. Maybe 1000 for year one, 2000 for year 2, 3000 for year 3, etc could work for cheaper players. Coouldd evenn just roound up the the next 1000 for a 1 year extteension to make it standard and uniform and add a mil per year u want to keep a guy. so a 4300 guy would cost 5000 to bring back for 1 year and 11000 (5+6 for year 2) to bring back on a 2 year gig.
I like the new minimum/maximum idea, or even Jason's higher minimum.
Post a Comment