There has been some discussion lately about whether or not it is okay for a team to intentionally overspend (i.e. spend money they don't yet have) to match a free agent. This is quite the hot topic right now, and i felt that each side deserved an honest look. i will try to not include any opinion here, just make a case for each side, in order to create a forum to further discuss this issue.
The Spending argument: Why it is okay to overspend.
Teams are given $50 at the beginning of each season to spend in trading, draft picks, and free agency. The use of this money is used soley at the disgression of the GM. There are also penalties in place in case a team was to spend more than their allotted money, resulting in less money given out at the beginning of the next season. Teams are also allowed to forward money from previous seasons, so how is that any different than borrowing from the next season? This is obviously not against the rules then...to choose to overspend. Each GM is aware of the penalties, and if they choose to overspend, they must be willing to face the penalty. It is the same as the person who chooses to speed on the highway. They are aware that if they get caught, they will be faced with a penalty...something he or she does not dispute. No one would question the intentions or morality of the driver. They new the deal up front. Why, then, can a team not choose to overspend and face the penalty?
The Counter argument: Why it is Not okay to overspend.
Since teams are given $50 at the beginning of each season, and know the rules that they must have a full roster at the end, it is up to them to fulfill this demand with the money they are given. It has already been stated that teams cannot bid on players if they have no money or have a negative balance. It follows, then, that team should not be able to match for more than the minimum bid of $3. There is a reality that teams must fill their rosters, even if they go over. However, this should be limited to paying the minimum for players, not going further into the red to match a player that is more than the minimum. If this is allowed, where is a team to stop? If a team has no money, and one of their great players, Reggie Jackson for example (or whoever), brings in a $35 bid, and they were to match him, thus going $70 in the hole and starting even after their $50 initial money at -$20, it would get ridiculously out of hand. Other GM's make bid in free agency based on what they think another team will match, or in some cases, what a team has the ability to match. They may intentionally not bid higher, when they could have, counting on the fact that a team cannot match because the funds are not there. The bidding team then gets the shaft for the matching team breaking the rules.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I don't see it as being against the rules. The fact there is a system for going over tells me that.
It also doesn't make sense to allow matching for the "minimum" but not for over the minimum. Matching is matching and is spending money you "don't have" so why would be okay in one case but not the other.
For one - if a team without money let's Reggie Jackson goes to FA and not be traded...well...
Anyway - so the team is now -20. That makes them -40, so they have $10 to work with in carry over. Where does it stop? Well, it doesn't - however, I have a possible, logical solution to this that would do away with this "you can match here, but not there" confusion.
A team can go in the red to -$25.
There. Problem solved. This uses up all your carry over money and puts the team at $0. Once a team hits -$25, then they can't do anything else.
If they still have empty slots to fill at the start of spring training:
The team still is a $0.
They get filled at the cost of picking up the player ($1 for inactive, $3 for FA).
This puts them in the red already for the coming season, and counts against the -$25 limit. The team will need to sell off picks, etc, to generate cash.
To me, that's a fair, consistent, and logical way to do this. No more of the "double standard" stuff, and puts a limit on how much matching and drafting a team can do in the red.
When woud it stop? And really this favors good teams more than poor teams if teams can spend into the red. As Jeff has stated before there already is a biased to good teams staying good this allowence of letting teams spend in the red will only further this problem. What is to stop a top team from using ssome money in the ammy draft (when they normally would sell the pick to beef up cash for the FA bidding) and figuring who cares I will just overspend in FA. Also by allowing overspending you put a band aid on a much more severe wound. Face it everyone tries to find loopholes and or pushes the rules to the max. So what will stop a team from going over -25 in the red thus offsetting thier entire incoming $50. You have to draw a line somewhere and it seems to me the most fair way is to not allow teams to go into the red to match guys over $3. Trust me if teams know they can spend an extra $25 it will take about one or 2 seasons and some team will be in the red after the incoming $50 and then what do we do?
previous post by Felix-FLA
You have to draw a line somewhere and it seems to me the most fair way is to not allow teams to go into the red to match guys over $3.
This doesn't make sense, though.
I can match a guy (still in the red) as long as he doesn't make more than $3?
But if he makes $4, I can't match him?
Something about that doesn't make any sense. If I'm already in the red, I'm still spending money I don't yet have. If I'm not in the red, and the issue seems to be based on teams going into the red to do what they need/want to do, then why can I go in the red to match a $3 guy?
It seems like an illogical double standard.
I really think this is quite simple. I am running my team according to the rules as they currently exist. Not based on opinion, not using a loop hole, but simply according to the contract.
The analogy of speeding is inaccurate as speeding is illegal. Going in the red in this league is not illegal, it is permitted but with a stipulation, your amount is doubled.
I have gone in the red before and it was never an issue until now. To be honest, I feel that more teams should go in the red, use the rules to your advantage. To me that is part being a shrewd owner.
If things should be changed then there are procedures for doing so, via amendment(s). That is why they exist.
If this is amended then I will honor that with no arguments at all. I really don;t like defending my actions or argueing on my own behalf, because I did nothing wrong.
A good comparison is when the NFL went to the salary cap. Dallas continued signing big name players but stayed under the cap, how? They were the first team to discover the use of incentive laiden or "end loaded" contracts. This eventually caught up with them when the contracts came due but at the time it allowed them to stack the team with awesome talent and become the premier team. All was done within the rules of the cap. They were chastized by other teams and many people, but it didn;t matter. Totally legal.
Regarding this issue of me matching my players, keep in mind that I had two slots to fill and I matched two players. I didn;t bid on any other players at all.
Greg - Indians
The Colorful Owner
I have never heard of any situation where someone is fined but is not breaking a rule. The word fine at least to me means you have broken a rule and the fine is the consequences. Look at article 6 part g. It clearly states that a team that is in the red will be FINED which again by definition of the word fine means a rule was broken. It does not seem to me to take much to understand that the FINE is because you spent more money than you have. Trust me I wish we could spend some of the $50 from next season right now. I could match Colome (I am currently $2 short of being able) and even losing the $4 would obviously not kill me next year. However since there are rules in place we need to try to follow them. my 1/2 cent
Felix-FLA
The bylaws are clear:
Overspending (if you know it)will not be tolerated.
I teach 10 and 11 year old reading, if you can't understand the main idea from that sentence I can hook you up with them for a lesson.
The Comissioner
Fair enough, going in the red is breaking a rule, I will give you that. The punishment is still double the amount in red, that's it. No other punishment, restrictions, nothing. So in retrospect, Nick's analogy of speeding is a bit more accurate than I intially thought.
During the draft when I picked Jeff Conine I was asked if i knew that this would put me in the red. I answered yes and then was granted the pick anyways. This isn;t the first time I have gone in the red at seasons end, in fact I have done it quite a bit, but nobody ever said anything at all.
One thing I really want to make clear on this entire topic is this...
I relly don;t want to lose owners over this. I think that discussions like this are healthy for the league. It is obvious by the number of responses that this is a hot topic. Many owners have issues with this and so it is good to get it all out and allow everyone to state their opinion(s).
Greg - Indians
The Colorful Owner
To my knowledge I have not been nasty at any time about this. If you want to compare me to 10 and 11 year olds on a public forum then I seriously have better things to do.
There's no need for insults. it is quite apparent that this topic has crossed a line. I stated above that I didn;t want to lose owners over this. I didn;t realize it would get to this point though.
This is a "fantasy" league, recreation, fun, exciting, etc. Apparently I have seriously jeopardized that for myself and others.
If I have driven the Comissioner to the point of public insults then it is probably best for myself and the league that I resign.
Greg
Greg do not resign like you said this is all about fun. If you are not having fun then by all means do resign however I think you really enjoy HABLA and this conroversy will pass.
Felix-FLA
Post a Comment