Be interesting to see if the small/medium budget teams look to close the three, now obvious, negotiated advantages the big budget teams enjoy:
1. the 'send-him-to-the-minors' addition by subtraction method;
2. the LTIR Cap bumps;
3. the 'he wasn't playing earlier' pro-rating
When the Cap was lower, with budgets and the Cap more in balance, these strategies weren't worth eliminating (or perhaps noticeable) because NO team would be so far ahead in spending ability that use of any of these strategies would upset the playing field any.
Not the case now.
If a team has a budget of $45 million then a Cap of $54 million means little (with one possible exception **) because any player sent to the minors, lost to LTIR or brought out of retirement STILL counts against the Cap that matters for your team - your budget of $45 million. Mistakes cannot be made because they cannot be recovered from.
For a team that can easily spend $60+ million on player salaries the ability to send a player to the minors or bring one out of retirement is only a matter of math. And the math isn't that hard. Even losing a player to LTIR isn't THAT big a deal because the money to pay for another guy is easily found (even if the player isn't).
Only three ways to fix it:
a) fix #1 and #3 (#2 has some merit), or
b) increase revenue sharing, or
c) use a combo of 'a' and 'b'
Be interesting to see what happens.
It was borderline inevitable really - once the divide between big money and small/medium money teams got large enough to swallow several salaries in it was only a matter of time. I like to think that it was simply a matter of the Cap rising faster than anyone thought it would.
** If more and more contracts go the route of big money early then we might see where teams with lots of Cap space begin to benefit in a meaningful way. Take a lot more contracts built that way for it make a difference however. imo anyways.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
1. the 'send-him-to-the-minors' addition by subtraction method;
2. the LTIR Cap bumps;
3. the 'he wasn't playing earlier' pro-rating
When the Cap was lower, with budgets and the Cap more in balance, these strategies weren't worth eliminating (or perhaps noticeable) because NO team would be so far ahead in spending ability that use of any of these strategies would upset the playing field any.
Not the case now.
If a team has a budget of $45 million then a Cap of $54 million means little (with one possible exception **) because any player sent to the minors, lost to LTIR or brought out of retirement STILL counts against the Cap that matters for your team - your budget of $45 million. Mistakes cannot be made because they cannot be recovered from.
For a team that can easily spend $60+ million on player salaries the ability to send a player to the minors or bring one out of retirement is only a matter of math. And the math isn't that hard. Even losing a player to LTIR isn't THAT big a deal because the money to pay for another guy is easily found (even if the player isn't).
Only three ways to fix it:
a) fix #1 and #3 (#2 has some merit), or
b) increase revenue sharing, or
c) use a combo of 'a' and 'b'
Be interesting to see what happens.
It was borderline inevitable really - once the divide between big money and small/medium money teams got large enough to swallow several salaries in it was only a matter of time. I like to think that it was simply a matter of the Cap rising faster than anyone thought it would.
** If more and more contracts go the route of big money early then we might see where teams with lots of Cap space begin to benefit in a meaningful way. Take a lot more contracts built that way for it make a difference however. imo anyways.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
