This is the most sane, simple solution I’ve seen. Thread.
I like the simplification, but that seems like a very significant increase to the cap. I'm all for it as long as most teams would be on board, but I'm a bit skeptical that some of the clubs (Colorado, Columbus, Cincy, etc.) would follow suit.This is the most sane, simple solution I’ve seen. Thread.
Seems he’s implying the transfer numbers shouldn’t impact the Cap Numbers. Let it be a separate standalone fee paid.I like the simplification, but that seems like a very significant increase to the cap. I'm all for it as long as most teams would be on board, but I'm a bit skeptical that some of the clubs (Colorado, Columbus, Cincy, etc.) would follow suit.
One thing that that tweet doesn't mention at all, is the impact of transfer fees. Perhaps he's implying that they shouldn't be considered at all? I'm not sure.
All in all, I think this is the direction we need to go, just feel like what he's laid out is maybe 2-3 years away (from a salary cap limit perspective).
This is the most sane, simple solution I’ve seen. Thread.
Also, I'm imagining if they are going to simplify things and increase the cap a good deal, they will need to institute a salary floor to ensure that some clubs don't just drop off.I like the simplification, but that seems like a very significant increase to the cap. I'm all for it as long as most teams would be on board, but I'm a bit skeptical that some of the clubs (Colorado, Columbus, Cincy, etc.) would follow suit.
One thing that that tweet doesn't mention at all, is the impact of transfer fees. Perhaps he's implying that they shouldn't be considered at all? I'm not sure.
All in all, I think this is the direction we need to go, just feel like what he's laid out is maybe 2-3 years away (from a salary cap limit perspective).
I like the simplification, but that seems like a very significant increase to the cap. I'm all for it as long as most teams would be on board, but I'm a bit skeptical that some of the clubs (Colorado, Columbus, Cincy, etc.) would follow suit.
Don't forget that -- at least for now -- all money spent by a club on salaries except for DP spending above the single player cap maximum does not come directly out of the club's pockets. Unless they change this, there should be no issues with low spending clubs.Also, I'm imagining if they are going to simplify things and increase the cap a good deal, they will need to institute a salary floor to ensure that some clubs don't just drop off.
Easy to tweet this when you aren't opening up your wallet to pay for it.This is the most sane, simple solution I’ve seen. Thread.
Look at the principles of the tweet on their merits, not the actual $15M. You’re getting bogged down on specifics and failing to appreciate the streamlined nature of the proposal.Easy to tweet this when you aren't opening up your wallet to pay for it.
$15 million is already more than 21 of the 24 team payrolls this season, and that would be before 4 DPs, which I guess would whomever are the top four earners on each team. Plus, another $2-3 million for charter flights every week. And most teams are cash flow negative as it is.
The only think that I see here that really makes it any different is the 'no tam or gam", everything else seems just as complicated as it was before... and to be honest, the only really confusing part was the whole 'salary cap' + 'tam/gam' thing to begin with....Look at the principles of the tweet on their merits, not the actual $15M. You’re getting bogged down on specifics and failing to appreciate the streamlined nature of the proposal.
That’s all you unpacked from it???The only think that I see here that really makes it any different is the 'no tam or gam", everything else seems just as complicated as it was before... and to be honest, the only really confusing part was the whole 'salary cap' + 'tam/gam' thing to begin with....
There will always be a need for some sort of Cap expert, because it’s assumed future contracts will increase with tenure justifying somebody to weigh pros/cons of keeping/releasing.If we end up simplifying to the extent suggested by player demands and various tweets, what happens to all the "capologists" out there? Including the one who is now our SD?
Not so concerned by the evaporation of arbitrarily constructed work as much as the idea that the utility of the primary qualifications of our new SD may end up evaporating with it.
It just can’t be true that cap management is Lee’s *primary* skill. That’s one set of rules that looks complicated to us from the outside because we never quite know the actual dollar amount for anything, so we’re kind of constantly estimating things, but if we’re being realistic, at the end of the day it’s just three or four buckets of money available under slightly different circumstances. I’m sure there is plenty more to Lee’s TD background and apparent good reputation than the slightly procedural arithmetic you might find in a fifth-grade word problem.If we end up simplifying to the extent suggested by player demands and various tweets, what happens to all the "capologists" out there? Including the one who is now our SD?
Not so concerned by the evaporation of arbitrarily constructed work as much as the idea that the utility of the primary qualifications of our new SD may end up evaporating with it.
I have to apologize, I didn't notice it was a thread, so I only saw t he first tweet. You are right, a lot is different. My bad!That’s all you unpacked from it???
1. No TAM/GAM.
2. DPs don’t count against CAP, so youth/senior ignored.
3. Transfer Fees aren’t prorated into salaries.
4. No drafts.
5. No allocation list
6. Real Free Agency
7. (Assumed) fixed number of international slots.
Many of those changes do away with the mental gymnastics of current trades and future considerations. Makes the CAP and transfers straight forward
Has anyone seen any reports on the negotiations? Anyone else surprised that it has been so quiet?