Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **Lofunzo** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 11:36 am

I never said it was or wasn't. I just said that they did things that are allowed under the current system. There are flaws in both ways. I find it terrible when you have owners who choose not to improve their teams when they can.

The system is flawed but there should be more effort in fixing the system rather than killing the Yankees.

by **Pogotheostrich** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 11:40 am

Lofunzo wrote:The system is flawed but there should be more effort in fixing the system rather than killing the Yankees.

Excellent point. If they are going to have a luxury tax for going over a set payroll, there should be a salary minimum. What ever amount you are under the minimum gets deducted from your revenue sharing.

by **Lofunzo** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 11:44 am

Pogotheostrich wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:The system is flawed but there should be more effort in fixing the system rather than killing the Yankees.

Excellent point. If they are going to have a luxury tax for going over a set payroll, there should be a salary minimum. What ever amount you are under the minimum gets deducted from your revenue sharing.

I have no problem with that. ;-D

Just like I have no problem with the Yanks paying for going over the limit, teams should be required to keep a minimum salary level as well. George has this money to spend because of the market that he is in but also because of some great business deals that he has made.

by **Madison** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 11:58 am

Count me in for a minimum team salary requirement. ;-D

by **blankman** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:10 pm

A minimum payroll is probably the best suggestion I've heard. Force to owners to use their revenue sharing and luxary tax money on their team rather than pocket it.

by **wrveres** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:23 pm

blankman wrote:A minimum payroll is probably the best suggestion I've heard. Force to owners to use their revenue sharing and luxary tax money on their team rather than pocket it.

agreed ton the minimum salary, but it shouldn't go into place until a 'Cap' is put into place first. Somewhere around 125. mill could be a solid start. Whats that you say? It will only affect one team?

Imagine that................ :-)

by **Madison** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:47 pm

blankman wrote:A minimum payroll is probably the best suggestion I've heard. Force to owners to use their revenue sharing and luxary tax money on their team rather than pocket it.

Exactly. It would force the owners to at least put a semi productive team on the field. ;-D

by DK » Wed Oct 29, 2003 7:38 pm

i agree that there should me a minimum after a maximum is created.

by **Transmogrifier** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 7:44 pm

You know the funny thing? The union opposes a minimum payroll on the logic that by supporting a minimum payroll, a hard salary cap is the next step.

Faulty logic, in my opinion.

Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

How about this juicy little Gammons nugget

Who is online