eh. I think Jamie knew the rule and honestly missed the 5 mil that got offered back to him. And he found a way to argue it. He really doesnt have much use for that cash. Alternatively I could probably allow a double transfer--Like transfer 4 mllion out of player payroll to wherever, and then transfer the resulting 2 million back to payroll--so he'd take a 3 mil hit--or whatever amount gets the player budget under 100 mil. Just so he loses that extra cash in penalty, if he doesnt want to go through another trade.

So if a top 16 draft pick team signs a type A FA - what is the most they lose?

Posted by dmurphy104 on 2/3/2011 10:42:00 AM (view original):
We are having a boy, btw. I know I didnt post that here--just on fb.

 Cool. Congratulations. Hopefully he has his mother's *****.

Posted by AlCheez on 2/3/2011 10:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by r0b0t on 2/3/2011 9:55:00 AM (view original):
I figure I'll at the very least get a couple of picks back for Belliard. And he should mean the difference in more games this season than Morris would have.

He's an absolute difference maker in CF, and definitely a good deal for you. My thinking is that if Clarke gets anywhere those projections, I'll have gotten back from you young talent similar to what Belliard's compensation picks would have gotten, plus Morris, and then next year I'll either keep Morris, or get compensation picks. So, much better long term than just letting him go to free agency, and I don't expect to be a legit contender this year.

I think Morris is a much cheaper resign for you, if you so chose. I'm thinking he might  be a Type A next season, but I'm sure someone will sign him and you'll get the comp picks out of it.

funny. from the ultrasound, it looked massive.

Posted by moy23 on 2/3/2011 11:48:00 AM (view original):
So if a top 16 draft pick team signs a type A FA - what is the most they lose?

their second round pick.

Posted by dmurphy104 on 2/3/2011 11:50:00 AM (view original):
funny. from the ultrasound, it looked massive.

so it might not be yours?

Why can't you just let the trade go through, contingent that Jamie move that money? He could easily transfer it to prospect or send $5m in another trade.

The AL isn't that bad, moy. I think it'll be better this year. stu and calvinhydro each have some top prospects about to hit the majors, the reigning champs signed a few guys to get even better, gin/rlahann/babypop could all decide to start trying, bret is finally showing some improvement, and I'm hoping my team is at least as good as it was last year...

it should be vetoed, ideally.

transferring it to prospect gives him an advantage over everyone else.

sending it via trade to someone other than the original owner gives him a benefit in that he had the excess cash to send, that he shouldnt have had available.

Posted by r0b0t on 2/3/2011 11:55:00 AM (view original):
The AL isn't that bad, moy. I think it'll be better this year. stu and calvinhydro each have some top prospects about to hit the majors, the reigning champs signed a few guys to get even better, gin/rlahann/babypop could all decide to start trying, bret is finally showing some improvement, and I'm hoping my team is at least as good as it was last year...

fair observation. I still think my team will be able to compete for a playoff spot on defense and pitching alone (assuming no major injury)

I think you overrate your pitching. It's good, but not win lots of games without any offense good. Your 5th starter is going to get destroyed by righties, and your #3 and #4 are solid, but nothing special. Bullpen is stacked, but not as stacked as it was before you dealt Keller.

Posted by moy23 on 2/3/2011 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jwelsh1023 on 2/3/2011 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dmurphy104 on 2/3/2011 10:43:00 AM (view original):
And jwelsh, that trade violated the salary cap rule. Budget cant go beyond $100 mil. We've enforced that in the past when an owner set their budget incorrectly--and we had to put in the rule v exception to allow budgets to go over 100 mil in only that case.

Then it should say that, all it says now is salary cap. Not salary budget cap.

sorry welsh - I disagree. I understand what you are arguing but it doesn't hold up. In RL salary cap is just that... a salary cap.

You are now at a $105 mil salary CAP. If your player payroll is at $90 mil you would be 'below the salary CAP'. If your player payroll is at $110 mil you would be considered 'over the salary CAP' in RL terms. The yankees are above the salary CAP every year and have to pay for it. NHL teams can not exceed the $59 mil salary CAP.

Did you just argue both sides?

Posted by jwelsh1023 on 2/2/2011 4:01:00 PM (view original):
I broke no rules in KP, should my trade be vetoed I shall wreak havoc.

Either way, it will go through.  You either do it again without the cash or send it back.  Pretty minor I think.

Posted by r0b0t on 2/3/2011 9:30:00 AM (view original):
Clarke's projections were concerning for me, mostly because I wasn't sure just how much a DITR can improve to reach those numbers:

Event	Season	Height	Weight	OV	RA	GL	AS	AA	PC	DU	HE	SP	PA	TP	MK
Current	-	6-1	204	48	10	13	23	10	7	48	62	28	77	36	50
Projected	-	6-2	208	64	12	16	28	15	10	48	63	28	80	31	55

Event	Season	CN	PW	LH	RH	BE	BR	BU	PP	ST	CT	LH	RH	VE	GB	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5
Current	-	21	0	28	15	17	14	60	64	22	62	61	64	51	22	69	56	28	0	0
Projected	-	21	0	36	18	25	19	67	67	25	88	85	89	58	22	82	72	31	0	0

Not hitting those