OOTPX always allows one extension contract over the salary cap

[Killebrew]

OOTPX always allows one extension contract over the salary capVersion: OOTP 10, version 10.2.16
PC/MAC: PC
What were you doing? Trying to find out why it is so easy for teams to go WAY over a salary cap using OOPX.
What happened? When a team is under the salary cap for the next season, the game allows an extension contract well over the next seasons cap. Example: Cap is 75 million, next years team payroll will be 73 million. OOTPX will allow an extension of $20 mil/season for the next year, which will put the teams next season payroll at 93 million in a 75 million dollar cap league. Note that in a few of our tests (several league commishes are testing for this issue) we found there was no limit to the size of the extension contract, but at least one commish was not able to offer more than 20 million. It appeared like our test leagues were the same, not sure what the difference was.
Reproducible? Yes, always happens.
Problem occurs with other leagues? Tried it in two test leagues, one with arbitration OFF in case that had an impact - it did not, same result whether arb is used or not.

Note #1: Once the team is over the next seasons cap, the game will always enforce the cap.
Note #2: We are testing this in 'owner' mode, not in 'commish' mode. I know that the game will purposely not enforce the cap for commishes, that is not the issue here.

[Tony M]

The problem I see with enforcing the salary cap for the following season during the current season is that if you want to offer an extension that takes you over the salary cap next year you would then have to release players before the current season is over.

The team may potentially be over the cap for the next season, but it doesn't mean they will be when they get to the next season.

[rem]

I agree. The NFL allows teams to go over next season's salary cap and the teams just must be under by a deadline. The NBA has a soft cap, as does MLB. The problem, however, is that there isn't a way that a team can force itself under the cap because contracts are guaranteed, unlike in the NFL, perhaps the game should more accurately model a soft cap.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by remangiii

I agree. The NFL allows teams to go over next season's salary cap and the teams just must be under by a deadline. The NBA has a soft cap, as does MLB.

MLB has a salary cap? The MLBPA has been asleep at the switch if they let that happen!

If you meant the NHL, it has a hard salary cap, not a soft one.

Originally Posted by remangiii

The problem, however, is that there isn't a way that a team can force itself under the cap because contracts are guaranteed, unlike in the NFL, perhaps the game should more accurately model a soft cap.

An alternative which can allow a hard cap and guaranteed salaries is to allow the club to pay a buyout fee in order to get out of the contract and release a player.

In the NHL, the buyout fee is either one-third or two-thirds of the remaining contract value, depending on the age of the player. The buyout fee is then spread out in equal payments over twice the number of years left on the contract. This allows a player to be released and get paid while leaving the club cap room.

I would argue OOTP needs selectable contract buyout fee amounts anyway. It would allow for much better recreation the reserve clause era, where players could be released from their contract and were owed as little as 10 days' termination pay. Add to that the flexibility buyout fees offer to salary cap leagues.

[rem]

MLB and NBA both have luxury taxes, which I consider a soft cap. What else would a soft cap be? The MLB's luxury tax, in particular, acts as a cap because it's rarely significantly exceeded by teams other than the Red Sox and Yankees. It does sort of given an advantage to teams that can exceed it in a round about way.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by remangiii

MLB and NBA both have luxury taxes, which I consider a soft cap. What else would a soft cap be?

It's not a salary cap in the customary sense of clubs being limited in some fashion in what they can pay either to individual players or what clubs pay as a whole.

In the NBA, a salary cap is set based on league revenue, but it's a soft cap in that there are many exemptions which allow clubs to exceed the stated club payroll limit. The NBA also specifies maximum salaries which can be paid to players, and limits contract lengths and how raises are structured in contracts. There are also salary and signing bonus limits on new players entering the league.

For a comprehensive review of the NBA's salary cap system, see this web site.

In contrast, in MLB there's no practical limitation at all on what a club can pay to an individual player, nor on the club's payroll as a whole. It can spend as much as it wants without having to invoke salary cap exemptions. There are no limits in how raises can be structured in the contract. There is also no limit on what a major league club can choose to pay a new player making the big leagues for the first time.

[rem]

It's true that the NBA has many more restrictions but it's not inaccurate to refer to the systems as in the same category. For the purposes of the conversation, it's true that both the NBA and MLB have a number that can be exceeded but there's a penalty. That's a soft cap.

League revenue, maximum salaries, contract lengths and raise restrictions do not directly effect the payroll number. Yes, in theory the maximum payroll is 11 times the maximum salary but that would not qualify as a "practical limitation."

We would agree that the MLB system is more player friendly than the NBA, but maximum salaries, contract length, raise restrictions and what not work against that making them irrelevant to this discussion.

It's not relevant, but an argument can be made that the NBA system is more rookie friendly than MLB. Blake Griffin is guaranteed 16M over his first three years which is better than most MLB amateur draftees. It's true that NBA players make a lot more on average than MLB players but that's not really what were talking about.

Most relevant NBAers don't play in the development leagues whereas greater than 99% of MLBers spend significant time in the minors. And while the NBA dictates three year rookie contracts, an MLB club gets a player for six years of arbitration plus possibly as many as three to six years in the minors depending on when the player goes on the 40 man roster and my knowledge of minor league service time which I haven't thought about in a long time.

[Tony M]

Killebrew, are you happy with the explanation? This doesn't appear to be a bug, so are you ok with it if this thread is closed?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Tony M

Killebrew, are you happy with the explanation? This doesn't appear to be a bug, so are you ok with it if this thread is closed?

Er, can you at least move the salary cap dicussion posts to the General Discussions forum or something? That discussion does involve material which may be relevant to OOTP in terms of its financial system...