2020 Offseason SIM 1.5 (Options/Arbitration) Complete - Next SIM Tues 1/24

[PaulC]

I think you will see more of those types of deals. Especially once budgets get set and there is money left over.

I agree! Especially in a world where there is no carryover money. there is no reason to not spend the extra budget money, if it's just getting taken by an owner.

[PaulC]

Agreed!!! But with Batavia being the only team ever with 150 million in history to have a budget who will have this type of cash for a "fragile" player?? (though since leaving Pawtucket he rarely gets hurt)

That's key too. The greater the salary room, the greater opportunity to take a chance on guys that appear to be less of a sure thing.

[liquidcrash]

I'd have a difficult time handing out a $30 million salary. I can see doing it for one or two years if I knew I had the money and the guy was a great fit, but giving that much money for more years than that would be difficult. I'll be more of a bargain shopper again this year.

Here in Washington, we have a new manager as I moved up Gene Legere from AAA to manage the big club. I like what I've seen from him the past two years in Richmond with a 151-90 record and doing an excellent job developing players. We're willing to overlook that he used to play in Virginia.

[Guest]

I think you will see more of those types of deals. Especially once budgets get set and there is money left over.

No offense to anybody that does it, but that's really stupid.

[Guest]

I agree! Especially in a world where there is no carryover money. there is no reason to not spend the extra budget money, if it's just getting taken by an owner.

Takes away from the realism a bit, and no small/mid market is ever going to have a chance to sign a top tier free agent if the big budget teams are gonna give a guy $40 million a year because YOLO.

I'd argue that my team is mid-market. Is there a plausible scenario in which I'd have that much money for free agents? Sure, but use all of my money to get one guy and I'm more or less going to need the best collection of cost-controlled talent the league has ever seen to build a good team around it.

[umd]

Takes away from the realism a bit, and no small/mid market is ever going to have a chance to sign a top tier free agent if the big budget teams are gonna give a guy $40 million a year because YOLO.

I'd argue that my team is mid-market. Is there a plausible scenario in which I'd have that much money for free agents? Sure, but use all of my money to get one guy and I'm more or less going to need the best collection of cost-controlled talent the league has ever seen to build a good team around it.

That's why I've been a proponent of teams having a fund over $10m cash that builds based on a percentage of the profit you turn in a given year. You'd have that money to spend on a big ticket free agent as a "reward" for being profitable.

[Guest]

That's why I've been a proponent of teams having a fund over $10m cash that builds based on a percentage of the profit you turn in a given year. You'd have that money to spend on a big ticket free agent as a "reward" for being profitable.

I'd be supportive of something like that.

[Carlos]

That's why I've been a proponent of teams having a fund over $10m cash that builds based on a percentage of the profit you turn in a given year. You'd have that money to spend on a big ticket free agent as a "reward" for being profitable.

I still think reaching 10mm in excess is reward enough for being profitable.

It means you spent a lot of money and made a lot of money.

A team that doesn't reach 10 mm excess cash either spent more than they should have or is now in debt. And that's a punishment because their budget decreases and they can't pay players.

But remember your 10mm excess can be like 30mm excess to a team with a lower budget. This isn't an attack on profitable good teams. The simple fact you can still have a 10mm excess while spending 30mm more than another team that finished with between 0 and 10mm excess cash is exactly the reward for being a profitable good team.

The money is right there. You're spending it.

[Guest]

I still think reaching 10mm in excess is reward enough for being profitable.

It means you spent a lot of money and made a lot of money.

A team that doesn't reach 10 mm excess cash either spent more than they should have or is now in debt. And that's a punishment because their budget decreases and they can't pay players.

But remember your 10mm excess can be like 30mm excess to a team with a lower budget. This isn't an attack on profitable good teams. The simple fact you can still have a 10mm excess while spending 30mm more than another team that finished with between 0 and 10mm excess cash is exactly the reward for being a profitable good team.

The money is right there. You're spending it.

I just think adding incentive to save money would help curtail the ridiculous contract offers.

The Astros sucked more or less on purpose for several years with a super low payroll to get high draft picks and stock their minor league system. Now that the fruits of their labor are manifesting themselves, they've signed a few prominent free agents and have positioned themselves to keep the Altuve/Correa/Springer/Bregman/etc. core intact for several years. That's just one real life example. It's not really possible to do that here, so basically the only option is to spend the money. So people give players $30+ million more because they can than because they are worth that.

[umd]

I still think reaching 10mm in excess is reward enough for being profitable.

It means you spent a lot of money and made a lot of money.

A team that doesn't reach 10 mm excess cash either spent more than they should have or is now in debt. And that's a punishment because their budget decreases and they can't pay players.

But remember your 10mm excess can be like 30mm excess to a team with a lower budget. This isn't an attack on profitable good teams. The simple fact you can still have a 10mm excess while spending 30mm more than another team that finished with between 0 and 10mm excess cash is exactly the reward for being a profitable good team.

The money is right there. You're spending it.

I don't disagree. I was thinking more along the lines of it being a cumulative effect of being profitable multiple years in a row. As of now that $10m is like a one shot deal.

I also think a big part of this discussion is based on who you choose to sign and for how long. Bad contracts or above average salaries compared to production are killer. Sometimes you have to know when to let players walk and when to shorten a contract (years) in your offer.

[Carlos]

I just think adding incentive to save money would help curtail the ridiculous contract offers.

The Astros sucked more or less on purpose for several years with a super low payroll to get high draft picks and stock their minor league system. Now that the fruits of their labor are manifesting themselves, they've signed a few prominent free agents and have positioned themselves to keep the Altuve/Correa/Springer/Bregman/etc. core intact for several years. That's just one real life example. It's not really possible to do that here, so basically the only option is to spend the money. So people give players $30+ million more because they can than because they are worth that.

I get what you're saying. I do think we have some of that here.

My team, for example, has seen its budget climb every season for the past 4 or 5 seasons. It was at 88mm at one point. It's now at $106.

That was because I started saving money, finishing under budget and my owner has started rewarding me. I spent less money because I stopped paying veterans and started rebuilding. I still spent some money so I could (try to) compete but ultimately I spent less than I needed.

So now that I have my youth here, I'm able to retain guys like Reyna and Smith while paying for a Reynaldo Jimenez and Dave Slack and making a mistake with Wil Perez. Some of the benefits of profitable good teams! I hope with more good money management, I'll be able to pay for Healey's eventual rise to the billionaire club with a couple others.

Is it a slower move this way than with having actual millions being saved? Yeah. I think it also controls spending in the league too.

[Carlos]

I don't disagree. I was thinking more along the lines of it being a cumulative effect of being profitable multiple years in a row. As of now that $10m is like a one shot deal.

I also think a big part of this discussion is based on who you choose to sign and for how long. Bad contracts or above average salaries compared to production are killer. Sometimes you have to know when to let players walk and when to shorten a contract (years) in your offer.

This a million times two.

[Guest]

My unscientific rule of thumb with free agents in this league so far has been that if you're getting $4 million or less per 1 WAR, you're getting value. The number this year for MLB has been roughly $8 million.

I ran Pittsburgh into the fucking ground financially, so needless to say I'm trying to be a little more frugal this time around.

[Pat]

I ran Pittsburgh into the fucking ground financially, so needless to say I'm trying to be a little more frugal this time around.

You also had the best regular season in BLB history.

[Guest]

You also had the best regular season in BLB history.

I did, but it wasn't worth it in the end. Didn't get a title (or even a series win) out of it, and I was more or less scrambling to dump salary up until I was gone. Gremades was the only guy I had with a team friendly contract.