Discussion for 2022 Prop. #5: Competitive Franchise Boost

[White Sox GM (Michael)]

From previous thread:

5. Competitive Franchise Boost
Teams with a winning percentage will receive a financial cash boost for the following year, only for the following year, structured below:

.500 - .575% = $3M
.576 - .625% = $5M
.626 - .699% = $7M
>.700% = $10M

**Potential update to the above structure**
.350 - .425% = $2M

Goal of the proposition (my words, but Dave/other LMs may rephrase): To encourage competitiveness and trying at the MLB level for all teams, not just the top ones. To discourage tanking/tearing it all down for several seasons as the only justifiable way to rebuild.

Guidelines for making this a productive discussion:
-If you support or disagree w/ the proposition, justify it.
-Tweaks to the rule are encouraged and should be shared.
-If you agree with the goal of the proposition but not the proposition itself, say what you would do in order to reach that goal.

I expect that the proposition will go to a vote after this more structured discussion period.

Thank you for your participation.

[Deleted]

I like the idea and the numbers as they appear. I think it is a great goal and would not make any changes as it is written.

[Tigers GM (Alex)]

I like the rule as written and think the bonuses should start at a .500 record.

[Giants GM (Buck)]

I like the idea but also think the bonuses should start at 500.

There are 26 teams with winning percentages above 350 at the moment and I think giving out a bonus to so many teams would water down the impact of the bonuses.

[Rangers GM (Bill)]

So with 26 teams getting bonuses, we’re basically just raising the salary cap, except for the teams needing the most help. They get nothing, while more lavishly rewarding the teams needing it the least Makes sense. Great plan.

[Tigers GM (Alex)]

15 teams went over .500 last year, seems like a reasonable cut off point. It's really not difficult to go .500 in this league, you can do that with just a few good players.

[Brewers GM (Marty)]

I’m against 5 mostly bc it’s so easy to get money that extra cap is not really an incentive to compete.

If you’re on the top two tiers, you were already competitive. If you’re on the bottom tier, what does 2m do for you in FA’s? Honestly it’s a few extra prospects you can carry with a penalty.

[Mets GM (Jack)]

Gonna be harder to find new owners when the time arises since those owners will mostly be picking off the teams who get nothing

[Mets GM (Jack)]

Jun 15, 2022 14:22:59 GMT -5 @rsmetana said:

I like the idea and the numbers as they appear. I think it is a great goal and would not make any changes as it is written.

"I love the Idea for the Boston Red Sox"*

[Jays GM (Sanders)]

not opposed

[Nationals GM (Alex)]

If you need a cap boost to try to win in this league... why are you even playing...?

Still not in favor of giving cap to teams that win. Eliminate all the extra cap teams can get in trades and do this or don't do this at all... payrolls are already so imbalanced and this increases the issue.

[Rays GM 北海道日(Will)]

I think I'm going to agree with natty here. I'm certainly not against the rule, but I don't think it moves the needle as much.

I strongly think the expanded playoffs (12 teams) + new draft rules (worst 3 teams, best 3 nonplayoff teams - lottery) will encourage competing.

There's no point in tanking to be the worst team with these new rules. Zero guarantee you get a top pick anymore, and you might be stuck with the 6th pick - not a bad pick, certainly, but this isn't basketball or football. It's not worth as much as tanking an entire year.

But if you're trying to compete, the top 15 teams get something. The first 12 make the playoffs, and the next 3 get to add a very good pick to I would assume a solid enough roster. At the same time, you won't hurt the worst teams who still get a solid pick.

The only teams who get shafted a little are the teams who finish from 16-27 ie the middle of the road, mediocre ones, and even then, they only drop 3 spots in the draft. We as a league should reward competitive teams, help the worst ones, and let the middle of the road ones figure it out. That should lead to more balance.