OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post - Looking for clarification on soft cap, luxury tax, cash max

Sweed · 08-10-2008, 12:09 PM

Glad I took the time to check this tread out. I was aware of both sharing models but used the soft cap for my first season which netted the bottom teams
a little over a million a piece while my Cubs paid about 4.5 mil in luxury tax. The 1 mil is hardly a help to teams like Tampa Bay in my game with an almost nonexistent market and a $26 mil payroll. Or to the Reds in my division who can only maintain a $50 mil or so payroll while trying to compete with my $130 mil payroll.

With the percent of income, I'm trying %20, the results are much better. Tampa Bay will end up with about $9.4 mil in additional cash while Cincinnati will bring in an extra $8+ million. The cost to my Cubs will be an additional loss of approx $3.5 mil in taxes (total of about $8.5 mil compared to the $4.9 mil I paid under the soft cap system).

While it may not seem like a lot it will force me to choose more wisely on who to keep and who to let go. With the soft cap I was already in a position of making a couple of tough calls with a high payroll and veterans that are fan favorites coming up for renewal. Using the income model I will probably have to let one more go than I wanted to.

Like hefalumps I'm also now thinking that the cash max should go away. First with my team and a high payroll it's hard to generate a large profit so the cash pile grows very slowly. Especially if you're doling out $8 + mil a year in taxes. But being able to at least sock away some profits, knowing you can use them in future seasons, seems more reasonable now and not such a huge advantage for the human.

For the AI I think the no cash max would also help? I know it tends to spend the money it has but if it had an exceptional year while having a below average payroll it wouldn't be penalized but instead would retain the money for the next season. I'm thinking of a small market team with young talent either coming into arbitration years or being FA eligible. Now instead of being cash strapped the Tampa Bays of the world could use the cash reserve to keep these players. Thoughts?

08-10-2008, 12:09 PM	#11 (permalink)
Sweed All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Iowa Posts: 1,915 Thanked 24x in 10 posts	Glad I took the time to check this tread out. I was aware of both sharing models but used the soft cap for my first season which netted the bottom teams a little over a million a piece while my Cubs paid about 4.5 mil in luxury tax. The 1 mil is hardly a help to teams like Tampa Bay in my game with an almost nonexistent market and a $26 mil payroll. Or to the Reds in my division who can only maintain a $50 mil or so payroll while trying to compete with my $130 mil payroll. With the percent of income, I'm trying %20, the results are much better. Tampa Bay will end up with about $9.4 mil in additional cash while Cincinnati will bring in an extra $8+ million. The cost to my Cubs will be an additional loss of approx $3.5 mil in taxes (total of about $8.5 mil compared to the $4.9 mil I paid under the soft cap system). While it may not seem like a lot it will force me to choose more wisely on who to keep and who to let go. With the soft cap I was already in a position of making a couple of tough calls with a high payroll and veterans that are fan favorites coming up for renewal. Using the income model I will probably have to let one more go than I wanted to. Like hefalumps I'm also now thinking that the cash max should go away. First with my team and a high payroll it's hard to generate a large profit so the cash pile grows very slowly. Especially if you're doling out $8 + mil a year in taxes. But being able to at least sock away some profits, knowing you can use them in future seasons, seems more reasonable now and not such a huge advantage for the human. For the AI I think the no cash max would also help? I know it tends to spend the money it has but if it had an exceptional year while having a below average payroll it wouldn't be penalized but instead would retain the money for the next season. I'm thinking of a small market team with young talent either coming into arbitration years or being FA eligible. Now instead of being cash strapped the Tampa Bays of the world could use the cash reserve to keep these players. Thoughts?