
Originally Posted by
1908_Cubs
So, I'm going to answer this question with an anecdote. I teach middle school Social Studies. I have for a decade now. In about my third year, I realized something very important; when I told my students they had to write "at least 2 sentences to answer" a specific question, almost all of my students would only write 2 sentences, whether they had fully answered the question or not. They'd miss things, they wouldn't fully explain...because the minimum required was 2, this was the line that was required to meet, many would stop at the minimum. So you know what I did? I stopped giving minimum sentences. "How long does it need to be, Mr. 1908?" my students would ask. "As long as you need to answer the question fully". Magically, my quality of answer went up. Some students needed 2 sentences to answer that question; others four. But they answered the question much better. My lazy students still gave me lazy answers, but on the average, much better.
I answer with such an anecdote because I don't believe a "floor" benefits anyone. Teams will haphazardly find new ways to exploit a floor. As stated, the NHL has a floor. The ****ing Phoenix Coyotes were trading for retired players and guys who would never suit up again to make these minimum floor requirements. Teams signed players to front loaded contracts in terms of cash payment, but because the floor is AAV, would then trade high cap/low cash players to the cheap teams to get them to the floor. The NFL gets to minimums by claiming "dead money". Leagues play with floors to do the bare minimum like my students.
The Pirates will find fun ways to "buy" their way to the floor. They'll "trade" for Heyward-type bloated deals. Teams will give up their prospects to send high AAV players to other teams; and then retain salary and/or purposefully add years with low cash payouts. The Pirates will buy the AAV, get a prospect for it, and maintain their way to salary floor. Does that benefit the sport? The league? It'll be the new "DFA". Trade bad contract X to Poor Team Y and help them get to the floor. It'll be the same thing; teams who don't want to put a real competitive team on the field...won't.
People love to believe a "floor" benefits players because it some how will guarantee them X, when in reality, teams will always do the bare minimum when it comes to spending if they don't have to do more. So get rid of the minimum. Tell them you can spend $60m if you are a good team; if you want to do **** like the Rays and make life hard on yourself; fine. But the end needs to be "winning gets you something". Revenue sharing is the easy answer.
Now, as I've stated, I realize how unrealistic it is. But that's where I come down on floors and ceilings. I think they're ********. If you make winning matter (look at the English Premiere League), no one ****ing tanks. Everyone tries. Every year. That's good for the sport.