Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePretender
The financial/salary system is easy enough to abuse right now without editing players. In fact, I'd argue arbitration and contract extensions are too low to begin with. I've got a guy who has good ratings and ranked top 2 in Cy Young votes last year and this year, and is set to make $5.5M in arbitration. That's way too low if you ask me.
I have to create rules when I play or else all my players will be signed to $20M/10 year deals (total, not AAV) if I sign them pre-arb. And if I sign them during arb, I can get superstar calibre guys to sign for 55/5 (total, not AAV) buying out 2 FA years, when their FA salaries would be 20-30M each.
So while I agree in real life it should be based on stats, here it should be based by a minimum of ratings, and if two players with identical ratings have different performance, the guy with the ratings + stats should get an even higher arb value. This is to ensure that players are not getting ridiculously low salaries like the ones I've mentioned before.
The salary/financial/extensions is poorly done and easy enough to abuse without having access to the editor. It got to the point in an online league where I could spend $50M a year on two separate players, and still have a payroll under 155M and not go over my budget. So this is definitely something that needs to be improved. But I disagree with your comment, because if it's done the way you suggest it would be even easier to abuse the financial/extension/contract system.
|
Actually, this is a good argument for what I'm saying. If arbitration and demands were based more on stats, and other real life factors like playing time (IP, PA/AB's, etc) and awards (like Cy Young awards, etc.), the players who are performing well would have more realistic demands, which would be higher than what is set by the current setup. A two-time Cy Young winner would be demanding record-setting contracts for arbitration ala Linceum instead of a $3-5mil increase. A guy who hits 125RBI's with 40 HRs would ask for $10mil ala Ryan Howard. Maybe those guys actually suck, and just got lucky, or played way above their true talent level, or got 90% of their career production in a single season. But it's up to the player to evaluate that. If you play stats only for example, that makes things very difficult on whether they're worth the money. Even if you play with ratings on, depending on scouting accuracy, the quality of your scout, and your scouting budget, there's quite a bit of wiggle room in determining future performance and maybe you end up letting that pitcher go and replace him with two league average pitchers for the same price who are worse for a year or two, but in the long run are better value and don't tie up your budget.
On the other hand, it would push some demands down. Guys who sit out a year or perform terribly should not be demanding $2-5Mil arb raises just because their ratings say they SHOULD be better than they actually are. And it would give the player the ability to really game the system with extensions for players with very little service time by locking them into cheap as dirt extensions like Longoria (first contract), Perez, Altuve, Matt Moore, etc. Not every player should want to go in for such deals, but that should be determined by the personality system (greed, team loyalty, intelligence, etc.), not by knowing their own ratings better than the player can (without peeking into the editor).
In my opinion, it could really change the way you evaluate/acquire/use players. Just as in real life, traditional stats (like wins, IP, saves, strikeouts for pitchers, batting average, HR, RBIs for hitters) could be immensely valued in Arb and lead to much higher arb demands and awards, while players who provide their value in other ways (using your best reliever as a stopper in high leverage situations, thus not accruing saves or very defense-oriented players who generally aren't rewarded in arb) would ask for and be awarded less.
I'm not asking for a system that's easier to exploit, but a more realistic one that creates a wider range of arbitration demands. I've never been able to lock up players in 16 to the type of contract you're describing. Kudos to you. Granted, I've only played 10-12ish seasons as I play out every game which takes a long time, so I'm not saying it can't be done. But based on my understanding of how arbitration works, I don't see how. Unless you're locking up mediocre/sub average players, in which case I'd ask 1) how is it unreasonable and 2) why you're locking up those players in the first place.
To give you an example, in my latest MLB quickstart, I'm playing as Cleveland, and I'm in September 2015. I brought Lindor up at the start of June, so he only has 100ish days of service time, with 2 more years at the league minimum and 4 more at arbitration (assuming he's going to be Super 2). His arb number is currently $3.6mil, because he has good ratings, even though he's only batting .235 with a .285 obp (though he does have 7 hr). I asked him about an extension, and the lowest I could get him to sign for was $7mil a year because you really have to talk these young guys up if you want them to sign anything more than a 1-year contract. Yes this guy is supposed to be good (else, why would I extend him) and could become a superstar, but he could also get hurt or regress or never develop. To just buy out his years of team control, I'd have to pay him $40mil+, whereas if I just stay year-to-year, I'd probably get him for $25-$30mil over that same span unless his ratings take a huge jump forward due to the development/talent change engine. In which case, I have to ask, why bother with extensions before the final arb year, as you (the team) is taking all the risk when there's literally a 50/50 chance the player improves or declines.