Salary Cap in an online league

WWBL Commissioner · 01-05-2002, 11:15 PM

Question: Is it better to use a cap or not? The league we are starting in the GBC is considering not having a cap. Looking for some veteren input as to why or why not use a cap.

sporr · 01-06-2002, 12:47 AM

In my experience, it really depends on the people you have in the league. If you don't have a cap, then owners have to be much more careful about keeping their payroll down to a level that they can afford. I think with a group of smart owners that you could go either way and be fine. Having no cap also leads to teams overspending in one year to "buy" a championship - especially if they have some cash reserves to cover the loss. On the other hand, having a cap requires a little more work on your part as you'll have to pay more attention to team payrolls to keep them under the cap. It's something that you may have to adjust every so often as well.

Cooleyvol · 01-06-2002, 03:01 AM

I use a "floating" type of cap in one of my league. It goes like this:

Salary Cap = last year's revenue + cash on hand

Using this method, if a team loses money for the season, then cash on hand decreases, making next year's cap decrease.

But if you make money and keep your cash at the 10M maximum, you always have room to sign a player late in a playoff run. Course, you might lose money that year, which would decrease the next year's cap.

I start with all teams at 10M cash on hand and its up to the owner from there.

Killebrew · 01-06-2002, 04:40 AM

One league I am in uses a complex cap system, and that seems like an option for more hardcore leagues where you expect the owners to do some calculations themselves. Another league uses a hard 70 mil cap and that seems like a good option for a more casual league - I think that can make things easier for the GM's and commish at least. My last league uses no cap, and so far it's been very interesting, though again, more complex especially for the commish. Since properly judging financial system rules can take many years of sims it's tough to say which is best, but using no cap with rookie owners seems to often lead to some terrible spending decisions (like 5 million for 1 coach etc.).

General Mike · 01-06-2002, 03:58 PM

One of the leagues I'm in uses a hard salary cap, and a salary floor. Good system, but I've never really been a fan of limiting what someone can pay for their players. I do believe all leagues should use some sort of salary floor based on average league revenues, and the value you set your cash cap at.

01-05-2002, 11:15 PM	#1
WWBL Commissioner All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 887	Salary Cap in an online league Question: Is it better to use a cap or not? The league we are starting in the GBC is considering not having a cap. Looking for some veteren input as to why or why not use a cap. __________________ Offey WWBL Commissioner(2004-2014 real life years) WWBL: Hawaii Island Warriors 2005 Pacific League Champion 2006 Pacific League Champion 2007 Pacific League Champion 2008 WWBL WORLD CHAMPION 2010 WWBL WORLD CHAMPION 2019 WWBL WORLD CHAMPION 2029 WWBL WORLD CHAMPION The Island Warriors are 21-23 in World Series play. BadAssBaseball: Boston Red Sox 1906 American League Champion 1907 WORLD CHAMPION

01-06-2002, 04:40 AM	#4
Killebrew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 3,326	One league I am in uses a complex cap system, and that seems like an option for more hardcore leagues where you expect the owners to do some calculations themselves. Another league uses a hard 70 mil cap and that seems like a good option for a more casual league - I think that can make things easier for the GM's and commish at least. My last league uses no cap, and so far it's been very interesting, though again, more complex especially for the commish. Since properly judging financial system rules can take many years of sims it's tough to say which is best, but using no cap with rookie owners seems to often lead to some terrible spending decisions (like 5 million for 1 coach etc.). __________________ FOBL Capital City Metropolitans CDL Minnesota Twins

01-06-2002, 03:58 PM	#5
General Mike Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Somerset, NJ Posts: 255	One of the leagues I'm in uses a hard salary cap, and a salary floor. Good system, but I've never really been a fan of limiting what someone can pay for their players. I do believe all leagues should use some sort of salary floor based on average league revenues, and the value you set your cash cap at. __________________ ACL - Houston Astros SHIBA - Los Angeles Dodgers [url=http://baseball.slammedia.net]BL2[/url - New York Mets BTTF - Florida Marlins

01-06-2002, 12:47 AM	#2
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	In my experience, it really depends on the people you have in the league. If you don't have a cap, then owners have to be much more careful about keeping their payroll down to a level that they can afford. I think with a group of smart owners that you could go either way and be fine. Having no cap also leads to teams overspending in one year to "buy" a championship - especially if they have some cash reserves to cover the loss. On the other hand, having a cap requires a little more work on your part as you'll have to pay more attention to team payrolls to keep them under the cap. It's something that you may have to adjust every so often as well.

01-06-2002, 03:01 AM	#3
Cooleyvol Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Union City, TN Posts: 6,383	I use a "floating" type of cap in one of my league. It goes like this: Salary Cap = last year's revenue + cash on hand Using this method, if a team loses money for the season, then cash on hand decreases, making next year's cap decrease. But if you make money and keep your cash at the 10M maximum, you always have room to sign a player late in a playoff run. Course, you might lose money that year, which would decrease the next year's cap. I start with all teams at 10M cash on hand and its up to the owner from there.