Cap Coverage Adjustment - Total vs. Individual

[Pirates GM (Max)]

My proposal is quite simple. I think the 75% cap coverage rule in general makes a ton of sense and works well. However, because we truncate to the nearest tenth of a million after multiplying by 0.75, some trades miss out on the full 75%. So, I think that the 75% max coverage rule should apply to the total salaries of the players on each side of a trade, not to the individual players


Example: Team A trades Player 1 ($15M) and Player 2 ($1M) to Team B

• Under the current rules, Team A could send $11.2M (74.67%) on Player A and $0.7M (70.00%) on Player B, equaling $11.9M of coverage (74.38%)
• Under the new proposal, Team A could send 75% of $15M + $1M, which equals $12M

Since we already do not apply coverage directly to players, but rather in the form of a debit / credit to the franchise itself, this change would also be very simple to adopt. In my opinion, it will also better fit the spirit that the rule intended, which is to get as close as possible to 75% coverage on the total amount of money being sent out

[Marlins GM (Travis)]

This is unnecessary. Then some trades won't work because we only to hundredths and not the thousandths place. Alex said it best, owners should manage their CAP better.

[Astros GM (Will)]

Personally I don't feel like changing how we track salary coverage, and I don't think the benefit here (an extra $0.1 every other trade or so) is that impactful.

[Cardinals GM (Nik)]

Player salaries are only allowed to the closest 0.1. It makes sense to me that we would remove the need to chase 0.05 and simply adjust the rule to say cap coverage is rounded to the nearest 0.1.