-
Requiring that taxes be paid before the trade goes through also defines an enforcement mechanism -- the commissioner rescinds any trade not paid for.
-
Both of those points are why I would prefer that taxes be paid before the trade goes through.
-
The thing about taxing loans based on the finances page is the loans column captures small loans by teams not over the $425 as well as big loans by teams that are.
-
Yeah, the finances page does show loans. It also shows base salary. We could use base salary - $425 as of of September 1st. as the tax basis. That won't capture fluctuations in a team's total salary over the course of the season, but it keeps things simple. However, it does allow a team that is falling short to cut salary aggressively on August 31st. to avoid the tax. That strategy, however returns players to the market that teams with salary can grab.
-
Doesn't the ottoneu finances page keep a running tab of everyone's incoming loans? Easy to use that on September 1st (day after trade window closes) as basis for everyone paying up.
-
Agreed. Option B with the yo-yo tax
F.B.T. Suaves on
December 1, 2018 8:41 PM
-
Schmegs is the only one not in
Houck Trea on
December 1, 2018 8:24 PM
-
Mikey's Minions's trade block has been updated!
-
Who hasn't joined the league yet?
-
I don’t think it needs to be that complicated. Instead of looking at salary used, you’d just look at how much space they’ve acquired via incoming loan. It doesn’t matter if they use that space or not, so it doesn’t matter if guys are dropped. It also doesn’t matter If they loan space back away, say late in the season when their bid to compete comes up short - they don’t get any credit back for getting below 425. It’s simply every incoming loan dollar in any trade all year is taxe
Houck Trea on
December 1, 2018 5:00 PM
-
I like option B too. I agree that yo-yoing wouldn't happen a lot, but I think it will happen. Say a team goes to $450 on a loan. That means a $25 tax. Then they drop an injured player and their salary goes to $440. Then then make another trade with loan that puts them at $460. The yo-yo tax is $20, not $10. This will be easier to track then taxing against high water mark, and adds some extra cost risk for any team that goes over the $425 limit.
-
I vote option B, $425 until June 1. But I vote that at least some of the tax money go to teams 4, 5, and 6 to increase the interest of more teams; I'd also support something to the 7th team as well. I can't imagine we'll get that much tax money, but I'd be ok with some combination of something to incentivize interest among more teams and adding to next year's pot. All that said, I'll go along with the majority.
-
If we're voting, B and $425 till June 1.
-
Also, I feel the 425 cap should be a hard cap until at least 6/1, and maybe later, as an extra 100 salary in May is like 200 in August
Houck Trea on
December 1, 2018 9:35 AM
-
Yeah, I was thinking option B. Every trade in which you go over 425 is a taxable event. But to be honest, we don’t see a lot of yo-yoing. I don’t care about when the money is collected, as I assume everyone in this league is good for it, but I do think it should go to the following year’s pot.
Houck Trea on
December 1, 2018 9:33 AM
-
Just trying to sum up the conversation so I understand it better. Option B is interesting in that if a team yo-yos in salary above the $425 limit, they will incur a tax on each increase. That's a little easier to track and makes clear the nature of the penalty.
-
OPTION B • Hard salary cap at $500; Commissioner will roll back any trade in which either team's salary, after loans, exceed $500 • Tax is on every dollar increase in a teams total salary after any loan-based trade in which the team's total salary is over $425. • Taxes are due immediately, but applied to next season's prize pool • Prize pool is distributed somehow to reward success and encourage participation
-
OPTION A • Hard salary cap at $500; Commissioner will roll back any trade in which either team's salary, after loans, exceed $500 • Tax is on high-water-mark salary, for every dollar over $425. • Taxes are collected at the end of the season and applied to next season's prize pool • Prize pool is distributed somehow to reward success and encourage participation
-
... but don't feel strongly about it.
-
I like the proposal with a dollar for dollar tax from $425 - $500; hard cap at $500; any trade sending a team over $500 immediately voided with the offending team taxed at 1:1 above $500; all taxes occurring in real time, so, for example, a team that goes over $425 to $450, then drops back down to $400 before the end of the season owes a $25 tax for the year; need to make a decision about what happens if that team goes back over $425 during the season, I would vote for additional tax dollars...
-
Will he bow to peer pressure?
-
We are at 11/12 out of FC. Anyone have contact with Schmegs? He’s currently ignoring me because he has like 5 guys I want and he doesn’t want to trade them.
Houck Trea on
November 30, 2018 3:28 PM
-
👇
-
I agree with next years pot as well. Especially as a "side-league" a little incentive to continue to next year could be useful.
-
"Next years pot" -- smart. Alternatively, the pot is just distributed across all teams, like NFL television revenue.
-
💡
Houck Trea on
November 30, 2018 1:26 PM
-
Looks like Hitch figured out how to use emojis
-
I pity you fools
Houck Trea on
November 30, 2018 12:56 PM
-
Hahaha, wine and mice
Houck Trea on
November 30, 2018 12:00 PM
-
Yeah, I see that I screwed that up in my original post - I said .50 on the dollar, but my example was dollar for dollar. I think maybe the former if it’s a $50 league, and the latter if it’s a $100? And yeah, definitely a hard cap at some #, so nobody can (like I would) just buy a title.
Houck Trea on
November 30, 2018 11:49 AM
-
I like it too, and the $500 hard cap. Fifty cents on the dollar, or dollar on the dollar? Trades not approved until taxes are paid into the treasury? Are tax responsibilities tradable? (“Sure, i’ll Take your $62 Trout for my $2 Franco, but only if you pay half the tax”?) I also like the penalty for poor performance, though I wonder if it would ever get triggered.
-
I like that as long as there is a $500 hard cap above the soft cap. With just a soft cap it could turn into too much of a pay-to-play scenario.
-
I also think there needs to be a penalty for any team that fails to reach 15,000 points. Like a vote-off. Maybe the other 11 owners vote on which player to be dropped from that team's roster?
Houck Trea on
November 30, 2018 11:04 AM
-
So to go above $425 you would have to pay real money to do it? With no hard cap as long as you are willing to pay the tax?
-
So if in June a team makes a trade and takes on a loan that takes their cap up to $475, they're $50 into the luxury tax, and would owe $50 to the pot, which could be used to go to teams in the middle of the standings. Or, my preference would be to the next year's pot.
Houck Trea on
November 30, 2018 11:03 AM
-
Alright, based on everyone's input from both message boards, it seems the greatest consensus would be for something like this. We have a $425 cap to allow some wiggle room for smaller trades. It's a hard cap until June 1, then becomes soft, and a luxury tax is in place for teams that choose to pay it (up to like 500). Instead of a 1-time assessment of the tax at a given point, seems to me like every loan that occurs which puts a given roster over 425 triggers the tax. 50 cents on a dollar.
Houck Trea on
November 30, 2018 11:01 AM
-
I hadn't thought about having to keep up with a second message board. I vote for a new auction, but am open to other ideas, and the tax idea with some sort of variable payout depending on the tax collected for teams 4 - 8(?).
-
I think it interesting that the problem with a $400 cap isn't the number. The problem is that we know that the loan cap needs to higher than salary cap because every team will spend their salary cap in the draft. I actually think that a tight cap (say $440) will work fine through the season because managers will have opportunity to clear salary space with drops. It happens every year. Players get injured or massively underperform.
-
** by unrealistic, I mean compared to real baseball, even the Yankees can't assemble a line-up with an all-star at every position and a pitching rotation of all aces.
-
... of the ball (but maybe that's the "fantasy" the majority wants). Accordingly, I'd favor a fairly tight cap ($425-$450) until the all-star break and then a $500 hard cap the rest of the way. Anyway, my idea of "improving" the game wasn't to eliminate payroll flexibility altogether, but rather to refine how having no cap affects the game (i.e., shortens the season to April and May and allows for an unrealistic all super-star team top to bottom).
-
I view a $400 hard cap as being as extreme in one direction as having no cap is extreme in the other direction. I think either of those extreme ends is sub-optimal for having the most engaging league we can have. For me, the two biggest things I've wanted to see fixed from the no-cap league is the way team performance in April and May totally dictates the rest of the season, and the ability of one or two teams to assemble totally unrealistic "dream teams" from top to bottom on both s
-
Although if we did go to some sort of delayed payout, I would defer to the true dynasty enthusiasts for the length of the delay, so that it best captures what they think of as a full build-contend cycle, with no loan-induced distortions.
-
I think for an experiment to work, we have to treat it like a legitimate league. A cap is pretty immaterial if no one is buying prospects because we assume it's a one-off experiment. This doesn't work unless the assumption is that it will be around for 3+ years. To that end, if we do have a prize pool I would not be opposed to keeping it offsite and not paying out until 2021, with some portion saved for the most overall points over three years.
-
Or are we less interested in the pure experiment and more in addressing the perceived problems in original Ottoneu? Then I think the escalating cap Jr discussed is a better choice; it would still allow loans to lubricate trades, and would provide opportunities throughout the year. Maybe something like $450 after the draft, $500 after 6/1, and $550 after 8/1? I could do either of these approaches.
-
So what do we want this league to be? An experiment to test how a cap would work? Or a legitimate alternative to the original league, that—like Mikey suggested—we might eventually move to? A hard cap @$400 would be the purest experiment, but I suspect it wouldn’t be much fun to play—a few first-mover trades in April, then we’d spend 5 months watching it play out with only the occasional injury creating a chance to do something. (I might be totally wrong about this and would be happy to
-
I too vote for $400 cap
F.B.T. Suaves on
November 29, 2018 9:59 AM
-
I'm good with auction. I thought there could be some kind of continuity from FCA, but thinking more about it, I'm not sure what it offers. I do vote for a $400 cap. Teams can still trade up, but they will have to be ready to trade or drop higher-priced players to make it happen. I would think underspending at auction might also be a legit strategy.
-
I say new auction too
-
I would vote new auction, if only because that's half the fun of a year 1 league.
-
If a keeper draft is the way to go, don't worry about me, I'm totally OK with it.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages