|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 4, 2017 22:03:26 GMT -5
Here is a rule that won't affect us until 2020, but after the 1st year i realized this possible needs adjusting after getting a feel for how the league is going to go.
Here is the rule as it stands now...
104 - players Arbitration eligible will follow the formula below based on their final yahoo rank the past season.
1-25 previous season’s salary X 600% 26-50 previous season’s salary X 480% 51-100 previous season’s salary X 350% 101-200 previous season’s salary X 200% 200+ previous season’s salary X 150%
I want to change it to...
1-25 previous season’s salary X 600% 26-50 previous season’s salary X 500% 51-100 previous season’s salary X 400% 101-200 previous season’s salary X 300% 200+ previous season’s salary X 200%
This is not a huge adjustment but it simplifies the numbers for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2017 23:10:10 GMT -5
I prefer the lower numbers as a cost conscious owner.
|
|
|
Post by Baltimore Orioles on Sept 12, 2017 6:21:31 GMT -5
I would prefer the lower cost as well for the same reason the Rangers has said, but if the league does prefer the higher costs as a simpler way of doing things that's fine with me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 20:23:57 GMT -5
The more money we have access too the more we can compete, so lower costs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 20:52:50 GMT -5
I would prefer to keep it the same.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Pirates on Sept 15, 2017 0:02:33 GMT -5
No preference here, looks like keeping it the same is favorable; so I'm okay with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 8:56:48 GMT -5
I don't have a preference. The percentages apply to everyone so I don't see it being that big of a deal either way.
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 15, 2017 9:27:08 GMT -5
The numbers I have introduced now not simplify it, they fit the salaries in the league better. When I originally had the arb numbers we had a $120 cap
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 9:49:50 GMT -5
Keeping more money active keeps owners active, so I would think that would be the way to go
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 15, 2017 10:07:19 GMT -5
I dont agree with that at all. If your active your active, if your not your not. Toronto was working with less than a $1 all year and he was the most active player in the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 8:32:49 GMT -5
Whatever the league decides is fine with me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 7:44:31 GMT -5
My thoughts were more offseason and future related
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 18, 2017 9:14:27 GMT -5
Again I still disagree
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 11:28:24 GMT -5
Typically speaking, the spending habits of an owner stay the same no matter how much salary is available. If a league increases the budget then most likely an owner who spends their cash will spend the expanded budget money anyways. If an owner has extra cash at the end of one season then most likely that same owner will have extra cash at the end of a season where the league increases the budget.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 11:48:44 GMT -5
I would guess if your a game out your spending more money to try an acquire the one player you need to get you over the top, like I did in my deal. If you out of the running you probably aren't looking to spend this years money to finish 5 back instead of 6 when you could use that money down the road. That's my thoughts on having money and being competitive
|
|