Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

I was thinking about this the other day. If you draft someone and he is on your active roster as of Day 1 of the regular season and you drop him at any time during the season, you would only get a certain fraction of his salary. I totally agree with that logic.

Here is what I don't get. You sign a player as a free agent after the season starts, immaterial of when during the season you sign him you are paying his full 100% salary. But why? I mean, if you sign a free agent during the 95% period (i.e. you release a player you only get 95% of his salary), why shouldn't you only pay 95% of his salary, and so forth? If this was real life, wouldn't the team looking to sign the free agent, factor in how much of the season he is going to be there?

Just wondering if someone could shed some light on the subject.

Thanks.

What's shakin' Adam? Still having fun in the 80's? Hope so.

I think you're asking why salaries aren't "pro-rated" during the middle game since you're not going to receive a full season of play out of those guys?

You're logic makes sense but the reason why can be summed up with one word:

[Start Will Ferrell Impersonation of George Bush]

[b:1dd0506ea6]"Strategery"[/b:1dd0506ea6]

:lol:

Basically, the retail price of free agents adds that extra bit of fun for the game: managing the payroll. Personally, I love that aspect of this game. It helps guard against people slinging cards to the waiver pile somewhat. It's not perfect but it does curtail the roster turnover rate.

Also, the game itself has a limitation. 125 maximum roster moves per team, per season. It's a technical issue that can't be resolved by the TSN staff.

There was a theme league once where trading of all your roster was mandatory during the season. Well, let's just say that league stressed the game engine to the max and ended up corrupting the league stats. :shock:

Hope this helps explain some things?

Player salaries are based on how much they make per year regardless of how long they are on your team.

In real life lets say you take a job making $45K per year. Three months from now you find a job you like better and quit your current job. Even though you only worked for that first company for 3 months you still earned a salary based on $45K per year.

Does that make sense?

Remember too, and this is the operative word, it's a 'game,' not real life.
There are a whole whack of other things TSN could do to improve the game, but changing the free agent salary structure is not one of them.

[quote:73472ed603="yak1407"]Remember too, and this is the operative word, it's a 'game,' not real life. [/quote:73472ed603]

My wife says the same thing. Sounds like you're as crazy as she is.
:twisted:

Relax Adam, you don't actually have to pay these guys. :)

As my former boss used to say "fair is where you take the pig..."

It's the fault of the MLBCPA (Magor League Baseball Cyberspace Player's Association). They negotiated a pretty sweet deal.......

Seriously though, I see your point and this IS how it works in real baseball, but in order to not overly tax the system they have to build in a disincentive to limit roster moves.

But you need an incentive to reduce salary moves. It is part of the fun.
If you allow even 125 moves, but there is no financial penalty, you'll probably just see managers rolling through their rosters trying to find good cards, and it will become just a more active version of the 200X games.
I have no problem with having this in the game.
Remember too, and we're all guilty of this, there is no penalty for trading players. Too often we merely chop, instead of deal.
An incentive to make trades, for example, the salary limit does not apply to trades, you don't have to have a salary match to make a deal (you want Craig Swan and are willing to give up Clemens) and you can go over the $80M cap might encourage more deals. In fact, that happens in re4al baseball and would help the game, in my opinion.
Another way might be a mechanism which allows you to put a player on waivers before dropping him. I've seen several cases where you cut a player to pick someone up and the guy that cut that player picks up yours.

The problem with trades, though is that the players who get moved are usually underperforming. If there were a way for the engine to facilitate a limited number of trades (say 2-3 per team) with, say, a 25% chance the players would change to different (and possibly better cards), I think you'd see more moves. The way it is now, you can't hope to improve a player's performance, unless he is moving to a venue more conducive to his style (i.e., moving to a hitter's park or pitcher's park, or moving to a team with better defense, etc.). That said, you can't fix a bad card.

I don't agree.
I think the problem with trades is that they just take too long.
You want to make a move to improve your team, you put an offer on the table and it sits and it sits and it sits. It's more immediately gratifying to cut the guy and take the salary hit.
If there were some sort of revocable waivers, i want to make a move to improve my team and I'm willing to move Tim Raines so I put him on revocable waivers and see who bites. if they are interested perhaps we can work out a deal.
And, if the salary cap did not apply to trades you might see the guy who is looking to improve his team speed give up a solid performing $3M guy for the speedy Raines.
or you may even make the deal for a guy who is underperforming just so you can cut him to get the additional cap room to improve your team.
That might convince teams which are doing porly to move some of their inexpensive gems to get high priced players to create more salary room to improve their teams.