In an effort to bring the somewhat meandering discussions about improving league parity to a conclusion, I'd like to present a proposal, to be voted up or down as a block, for everyone's consideration. I think the parity issue is very important for the long-term health of the league, so I urge everyone to vote - yes, no, or asbtain. Again, to get resolution, please vote on the package as a whole. We need to collectively get off the pot on this issue and resolve it one way or the other.
So, here's the package I propose:
1. Increase media revenues so that they fall into a range of $50M to $70M. The lowest teams get a boost up to $50M. Other teams get proportionate increases up towards the $70M ceiling. I get nothing. (grin) I'll post a list below of the specific changes I propose.
2. Raise the cash cap to $25M.
I would also propose that we make the changes effective immediately. There are good arguments for why we should wait until next offseason, but I think we're still early enough in the offseason that people can make use of these changes now without throwing off league balance. Yes, I've made moves too that I may not have if I knew we were changing the rules, but I think resolving the issue now is important.
I've dropped two elements from prior discussions. Free agent compensation doesn't work in the game, so I wouldn't advise it now. The idea of spending cash on non-salary items is appealing, but it's a complicated issue and I don't think it fundamentally addresses the parity issue. If people want that, I think it should be a separate discussion, especially as to the appropriate values for various changes.
Here's my table of specific proposals:
Brooklyn: Now $64M media revenue; increase media and budget by $2,5M
Cleveland: Now $35M; increase media and budget by $15M
Danville: Now $41M; increase media and budget by $12M
Hickory: Now $39M; increase media and budget by $13M
Houston: Now $41M; increase media and budget by $12M
LA: Now $49M; increase media and budget by $9M*
Maui: Now $35M; increase media and budget by $15M
NY: Now $46M; increase media and budget by $10M
River Cities: Now $58M; increase media and budget by $5M
Saskatoon: Now $64M; increase media and budget by $2.5M
Seattle: Now $70M; no change
Walla Walla: Now $64M; increase media and budget by $2.5M
* LA's raise subject to whatever arrangement Zev and Michael are working out on the other LA budget issue.
So, please vote in the comments on this package. Thanks.
Seattle votes yes.
ReplyDeleteHickory votes yes.
ReplyDeleteCleveland is going to vote no on this, because this just looks like something that will inflate the salaries in this league rather than bring parity to the league. I do like the $25M cash cap and think it should be higher. I will not be bitter if it passes, I think that this is better than most ways of fixing this problem.
ReplyDeleteI think this is likely to provide a short term stimulus but it's better than nothing.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I would have preferred to make a normative move on media contracts where a mean was established but that's neither here nor there.
Yes, I suppose.
Los Angeles votes no to the whole, but yes to increasing the cash cap to $25m, if split votes can be counted.
ReplyDeleteIf not, then file me as a "no."
I'm not sure this will fix the problem (I don't know what will), but I vote yes. It's a slight improvement on the current situation.
ReplyDeleteAlso, word is that Dong Lutz's agent empatically votes YES.
Saskatoon joins the distinguished franchises from the City of Angels and the City Whose River Caught Fire and votes "No."
ReplyDeleteI agree with others that this is likely only a partial (and potentially temporary) solution to the problem, but Maui votes yes.
ReplyDeleteLooks like it is 5-3 so far. I assume that Zev is not voting, that leaves one vote that cannot over turn the majority. Is 5 votes enough to enact this?
ReplyDeleteThe other thing that I think we should think about is how the game is going to view this going forward. Is it going to adjust the amount for future years. The reason I cannot get in the game for FA is not becasue of next season, but becasue of two years off when my budget is down for zero for FA. My owner gets pissed when I offer anything more than one season. So for me personally giving me a $15M shot in the arm does me absolutly no good. I think this should be answered before we enact this right away. I am all for enacting a media contract window next off-season when it will be equal for everyone but I think it should be centrally adjusted rather than just pushing everyone up to the top.
There are 11 owners in the league. Zev, Will, and Brent have not voted and it stands 5-3. If one of them doesn't vote for the proposal, then I guess I'd say we keep the status quo. I can't see making a big rules change with less than a majority of owners voting for it.
ReplyDeleteIs Walla Walla on computer control?
ReplyDeleteI recognize Zev previousy said that he might not want to influence other opinions, but I don't see why he would opt not to vote.
Jeremy, I am pretty sure that if the budgets are changed now, it will change (in your case, increase) the money available in future years.
Oh, I'll vote if it's close enough.
ReplyDeleteZev
Matt's right, Jeremy. Your spending in 2016 is also controlled by the budget this year. If the proposal passes, you would have about $14.5M available in 2016 to spend now on extensions or multi-year FA offers.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure it will change the budgets. I believe they are set once a year by the owners and have already been adjusted.
ReplyDeleteAll of the proposal's changes would require Zev's Super Commissioner Powers (TM) to be deployed. He will have to go in and manually change the media contracts and budget figures as I proposed (and raise the cash cap).
ReplyDeleteBut, once he does that, it takes effect immediately and changes the money available for free agents (i.e., this year) and for extensions (i.e., future years).
If you don't believe me, go ahead and create a test league and try it yourself.
I'll vote in favor.
ReplyDeleteOK, so it looks like we have six owners voting in favor, three against, and one not voting. I would have cast a "yes" vote for this measure, because it will provide some relief this year, but I don't think it's a long-term solution.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually working on a longer-term solution and hope to have something proposed soon.
Zev