Changing minimum salaries will fix nothing.
Exhibit A:
There are already a good amount of teams facing salary cap crunches, those that aren't are currently rebuilding. Raising minimums is only going to push those teams already there to drop players.
"But MP! That sounds like a good thing!" On paper, it does sound like a good idea. Parity should increase because teams can't stock up on as much talent. However, the players being dropped by teams aren't going to be franchise players. If I'm tight on cap, you best believe I'm saving that money for my very good players. This means i'll either pay my rookies less, DSFL them longer or let one of my lower TPE IAs go. Is a low TPE IA going to really help parity? It might help Philly for a season keep a valid roster, but it won't suddenly turn them into a playoff contender.
Convincing a good player to take minimum contracts is a mark of a good GM. The player has absolutely no obligation to accept low pay, but can choose to if they want to stay with a team. Why do we want to mess with somebody's ability to play for a team they want to play for?
Exhibit B:
Raising minimums will only cause a necessary rise in salary cap room a few seasons down the line. Suddenly we're right back where we started, but at higher numbers that already have very little meaning due to money not being very scarce.
Exhibit C:
Changing the system entirely is a possibility, but I would caution against it. The current system is simple. A middle-schooler could understand it enough to 'game' it. All teams have the same option to 'game' the system, we have equal opportunity. Equal opportunity doesn't guarantee equal results, but that lies on the GMs for the specific teams. Again, finding players that will play for you for cheap is a mark of a good GM. There are lots of other skills that go into it, but that is one of the more tangible ones.
Changing the system to something more complicated will likely decrease parity in the league. It's easy now, if you're not using the system for an advantage now, it stands to reason you won't with the next system either. Some teams that understand the system now, might not understand the next system and their team could suffer for it.
Exhibit D/Summary:
Minimum salary leads to salary cap inflation. If the salary cap does not raise (either through a rise from the 75,000,000 per team or by adding teams), minimum salary will lead to unemployment instead. As a league, we cannot afford to have players stuck in limbo because nobody can afford them.
Conclusion:
All of that was hopefully coherent and not too rambling. Just repeat the opening sentence:
Changing minimum salaries will fix nothing.
Changing minimum salaries will fix nothing.
Changing minimum salaries will fix nothing.
Exhibit A:
There are already a good amount of teams facing salary cap crunches, those that aren't are currently rebuilding. Raising minimums is only going to push those teams already there to drop players.
"But MP! That sounds like a good thing!" On paper, it does sound like a good idea. Parity should increase because teams can't stock up on as much talent. However, the players being dropped by teams aren't going to be franchise players. If I'm tight on cap, you best believe I'm saving that money for my very good players. This means i'll either pay my rookies less, DSFL them longer or let one of my lower TPE IAs go. Is a low TPE IA going to really help parity? It might help Philly for a season keep a valid roster, but it won't suddenly turn them into a playoff contender.
Convincing a good player to take minimum contracts is a mark of a good GM. The player has absolutely no obligation to accept low pay, but can choose to if they want to stay with a team. Why do we want to mess with somebody's ability to play for a team they want to play for?
Exhibit B:
Raising minimums will only cause a necessary rise in salary cap room a few seasons down the line. Suddenly we're right back where we started, but at higher numbers that already have very little meaning due to money not being very scarce.
Exhibit C:
Changing the system entirely is a possibility, but I would caution against it. The current system is simple. A middle-schooler could understand it enough to 'game' it. All teams have the same option to 'game' the system, we have equal opportunity. Equal opportunity doesn't guarantee equal results, but that lies on the GMs for the specific teams. Again, finding players that will play for you for cheap is a mark of a good GM. There are lots of other skills that go into it, but that is one of the more tangible ones.
Changing the system to something more complicated will likely decrease parity in the league. It's easy now, if you're not using the system for an advantage now, it stands to reason you won't with the next system either. Some teams that understand the system now, might not understand the next system and their team could suffer for it.
Exhibit D/Summary:
Minimum salary leads to salary cap inflation. If the salary cap does not raise (either through a rise from the 75,000,000 per team or by adding teams), minimum salary will lead to unemployment instead. As a league, we cannot afford to have players stuck in limbo because nobody can afford them.
Conclusion:
All of that was hopefully coherent and not too rambling. Just repeat the opening sentence:
Changing minimum salaries will fix nothing.
Changing minimum salaries will fix nothing.
Changing minimum salaries will fix nothing.
[div align=center]
Gus T.T. Showbiz Player Page
Gus T.T. Showbiz Update Page
[div align=center]
[div align=center]
Bavitz Player Page Bavitz Update Page
Gus T.T. Showbiz Player Page
Gus T.T. Showbiz Update Page
[div align=center]
[div align=center]
Bavitz Player Page Bavitz Update Page
