VOTING: Zobrist Rule

[Colorado Rockies]

THE FRANCHISE

Voting 1: 'Zobrist Rule'

We have seen that players that are not worth the amount of cash get big contracts in our league. 
This has been due to the fact that some teams have a lot of money left. Therefore, a few managers 
were asking for a little change that would allow you to take some money with you. 

The poll is up for exactly one week and the results will be visible after that.
Please make your vote and voice concern if you have any.
Please do not offend each other or start arguing. 

Thank you. 
Hannes

[Boston Red Sox]

For those inquiring minds...it's called the "Zobrist rule" because the Bosox out bid the Cubbies last month for the services of Ben Zobrist for the very pricy sum of $18M. Seems like a lot, but he was the perfect fit for the missing 2b/lf on my roster and not having anything else to do with the cash (You win zero categories by having extra money) Boston, much to the dismay of the Cubs, went all in on Zobrist. If there had been a way to sandbag some of the 2016 left over cash, the Bosox might have reconsidered.....Nah! LOL

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

Not really sure the point of this and how it would exactly help , can we get an example based of of one of our leagues teams and how this might have helped , or affected our league

Thnx

[Deleted]

I believe this idea all comes down to managing one's own budget. Of course there are a few inflated salaries, just as there are a lot of deflated salaries, it's called checks and balances. FA gives a team a chance on bidding for a player that a team covets. If that team has positioned themselves to bid on a FA, even if that bid is escalated, then so be it. It's the same idea if a team likes to collect low salary players in order to give themselves a chance of taking on a big salary later on. I for one need all the low salaried players I can get because in time I need to pay for Mike Trout. Again, it's called managing one's roster which includes salary.

Besides, how many more ideas will the league have when it comes to next season's budget?
For example we already have:
-- yearly increase of 3M
-- trading future cash
-- now this winning categories idea
-- and currently this carryover idea

BTW, I'm not complaining nor arguing here. I'm simply stating the obvious.

[Chicago White Sox]

I am confused on what you mean by money carrying over to next year? Can you please explain more

Are you saying if we have up to $5M left in are salary at the end of the season it will roll over to the next?

[Deleted]

Yes. If you have $10M left over, only $5M carries over.

[Chicago White Sox]

Voted Zero, like California mentioned we have added a couple other salary additions so I don't think we need anymore

[Deleted]

Voted Zero. I don't see the purpose for this.

[Atlanta Braves]

I voted for 5 Million carry over. If any manager has 10 million left over at the end of any season, then I feel we should be able to bank some cash for the following season. Why should we lose any surplus money.

[Deleted]

Voted zero as well, I don't agree with Boston's "all in" argument, because we can still trade during the season, so even if I have 20 million in cap space for this year I could do a move to occupy that space during the year, and it makes more sense than just giving owners a bonus for not "allocating" cap space. Plus I could drop a player with a 2 year contract worth 10 million at the end of the year (thus having 5 million in cap space, and 5 million in penalty for next year), and get 5 million for next year, essentially paying no penalty for dropping him.

[Deleted]

Voted zero. I like simplicity and all those extra rules make my head hurt. I think there are already enough money rules in place.