If a guy's going to arb, it means he's young enough to develop. So if you leave a guy on the bench, he'll want less money, but he probably won't develop into the player he was supposed to be anyway if he isn't getting any at-bats. I would say stunting the growth of players who would otherwise be good enough to bother using this loophole on is a big disadvantage to any team.

Quote: Originally posted by prezuiwf on 10/06/2009If a guy's going to arb, it means he's young enough to develop.

That's not at all true. I've had 29-30-year-olds go to arb before. Now, what some people appear to be missing is that holding a player out of a lineup, even past the age of 27ish, may result in him declining over the course of the season.

Quote: Originally Posted By soursurfer on 10/06/2009

Quote: Originally posted by prezuiwf on 10/06/2009 If a guy's going to arb, it means he's young enough to develop.

That's not at all true. I've had 29-30-year-olds go to arb before. Now, what some people appear to be missing is that holding a player out of a lineup, even past the age of 27ish, may result in him declining over the course of the season

The update stated that a player moved to a backup role wouldn't significantly increase his arb demands. So you could still affect his arb demands by making him a sub, and not cause him to decline.

Quote: Originally Posted By plague on 10/06/2009I dont like the arb change, I see that as a tankers abuse tool.

Tying performance to ratings improvement would resolve this.

So they are saying that the tie-breaker for multiple max offers has just been first to put in the offer now? Support and knowledge base have always said its been based on your record last season with a small loyalty bonus for previous team. New update says they are tweaking it so that its not just first to offer contract???

Quote: Originally Posted By ohiopirate on 10/06/2009So they are saying that the tie-breaker for multiple max offers has just been first to put in the offer now? Support and knowledge base have always said its been based on your record last season with a small loyalty bonus for previous team. New update says they are tweaking it so that its not just first to offer contract??

The way I interpreted it is that the first to offer a contract is a tiebreaker, used after several other tiebreakers have already been employed, and the update will add a couple more before this criterion has to be used.

Quote: Originally posted by jvford on 10/06/2009Not sure if I like the arb demand being affected by performance.  Doesn't that mean that some owners will hold a player out of the lineup to keep his demand down the next season?

I LOVE this change.
A) Go ahead and sit your guy to save money. It costs you wins and not to mention development points due to lack of playing time.

B) Gives a little bit of an edge to owners with 2 good players at the same position. Great examples are owners lucky enough to have 2 good Catchers or 1B. If you have 2 good SS or 2B, you can move them around and start them at other positions. You can't move a C or 1B. You can now keep them both if you so choose.

C) Gives an edge to owners who like to platoon. Personally I don't like to platoon but have done it alot in recent seasons simply due to lack of star power. I can keep both players maybe at the price of 1 now.

B and C are especially helpful if both players have low durability and/or health.

Many recent changes have taken away some of the advantages from good teams and given advantages to poor teams. This change gives a little something back to good teams in the form of financial relief.

I'll give an example of how this could also be helpful. I assume this is one of the reasons why this change was put in.

A 2B on one of my teams. In his first arb year, he was awarded a $1.7m contract. He ended up getting injured in the final game of spring training and missed the entire season. Suffered a pretty significant ratings hit in range, speed and base running. So much so that he was a now a defensive liability as a middle infielder since I value good defense.

In his second arb year, he was awarded a $4.5m contract. I decided that I could afford to keep him, but that he would only be a backup/bench player. He only got 189 PA's for the season.

This was his third arb year. His demands: $7.7m arb, or 4 x $5.8m long-term. I released him, couldn't justify an outrageous arb demand from a damaged guy who accumulated a total of 189 PA's in the previous two seasons. I would have liked to keep him as a role player for a reasonable salary, but not at his asking price.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Once a team is out of the playoff race the owner will now have a incentive to bench their arb eligible players. That will create a unrealistic decision process in this game. Myself. if they go through with this change I will game the process. and I will not feel bad about it because I have stood up against implementation of this change, and I will look at it as playing within the intended system.

The Arb players we are talking about is the 4th and 5th Pro year players who have already fully developed. These players generally have 3 to 4 years in the minors and now 3 years at the pro level, they have already improved as much as they are going to improve, any (if any) improvement or stunt in growth will be minimal if any at all. I have never had players degress at the major league level due to lack of playing time, so I don't consider that a factor.

I think the arguments to keep a excellent player as a backup will just perpetuate the problem of the haves and have nots. At the same time you have opened a door for have nots to play a full time starting player 200 ABS so he can pay that player considerably less in ARB.

Quote: Originally Posted By train on 10/06/2009Being able to directly control arb demands by sitting arb-elig players is just another weapon in the tanker's arsenal.

That's my impression as well. Not an improvement in the game.

The arbitration change will also promote playing the service time game to delay arbitration as long as possible.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By dgtrache on 10/07/2009The arbitration change will also promote playing the service time game to delay arbitration as long as possible.

don't most people already do this anyways? i don't think the update will change this...

very true davidbutler

Also, this happens in real life. Every year a ton of rookies debut in early June only because the GM's know that at that point they're very unlikely to be "Super 2's". It's the same idea.

As for performance affecting arb, this is a great thing. I'd love to see it in FA demands too. We all know that overall rating is not particularly accurate as a measure of overall player value. If a guy is hitting lights out, he should ask for more. And if you're willing to bench a guy that's good enough to start, well, then enjoy losing while you wait for your one good year tanker.