That's funny - because yesterday the Verrett card was worth 6 million plus
It opens a window on how STRAT establishes their salary, and how it is biaised towards encouraging the super-reliever strategy.
As a starter, Verrett was set at 6.27M. Since Verrett is a non-star fifth-inning starter (S5), his expected number of innings is somewhere near 200 innings (32 starts X 6 innings = 192 innings). Beyond 200 innings, he is likely to pitch fatigued. Well, since he has a very good card, he might reach 210 innings without getting fatigued, but I highly doubt he could pitch 7 innings reguarly---the fatigue mode usually triggers automatically even if the pitcher doesn't allow a hit two innings after his maximum number of inning.
As a reliever, Verrett's price was downgraded to 3.56M. Yet he is a R(3), and as a R(3), he can easily pitch 210 innings without getting in a fatigued mode. Surely, some of those innings will be in very low leverage situation (games with a large lead or a large deficit)--so not as useful as innings from a starting pitcher. But he is priced as if he will be limited to 119 innings (3.56 / 6.27 X 210 innings). No way Verrett will be limited to 119 innings.
This example shows that the salaries of relievers are way lower when where they should be compared to starters.
This said, I understand that the system worked this way for a long time, so Strat is probably not inclined to change the salary structure of relievers.
Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:26 am