Sounds better.  But the salary should still be prorated to keep it consistent with everything else.

Are IFA salaries pro-rated?   I'm pretty sure WifS has said that amatuer salaries are treated differently.   I don't know how MLB treats them but I'm assuming a rook signs his deal for 100k and gets 100k instead of a pro-rated 78k.

It doesn't look like IFA salaries are pro-rated.  Manny Wang was signed after Rookie league started, but he's still receiving the RL min $7,650.  If they get promoted, though, their salary becomes pro-rated at that level's min.  So I have Jose Chavez who is receiving the Lo-A min of $27,000, but it's pro-rated to $20,164 since he was assigned to Lo-A mid way through the season.

And there's your answer.  First pro contracts are not pro-rated.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/10/2010 8:33:00 AM (view original):
Too long.

The post wasn't for you. I have realized that your comprehension skills are severly lacking and to attempt to continue any sort of dialogue with you would be pointless. You don't even know the meaning of the word "any". You have sufficiently displayed your lack of intelligence. That's enough for me.

 

(Kept under 3 lines for the folks that seem to have a sub-3rd grade level vocabulary/comprehension skill-set)

We've moved on to the point of the thread.   I suggest you do the same.   Good day.

And, if you do move on, I hope you stumble across a box of common sense.   I'm not sure you'll have the common sense to pick it up but it would be a good thing if you did.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/10/2010 9:55:00 AM (view original):
So teams with no cap space can sign picks when the playoffs start?    Maybe they should model it after MLB and have a cut-off date for signing picks.

Doesn't seem like it... now that we are in the playoffs, I still can't sign an IFA or a draft pick.

No, that's what he was suggesting.  What happens is exactly what I said.   All draftees/IFA require $7650 in cap space.  They are not pro-rated.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/10/2010 4:32:00 PM (view original):
No, that's what he was suggesting.  What happens is exactly what I said.   All draftees/IFA require $7650 in cap space.  They are not pro-rated.

Gotcha... setting a deadline for draft pick signings like MLB seems like a good plan; I wonder why it is not setup like that now....

I think the developers understand how many owners operate with regards to IFA/draftees.    A lot of people hold off on draft picks until the IFA market is over.   Then, if they miss out, they'll sign those borderline BL draftees. 

Personally, I think the draft should be shortened to 10 rounds and every pick who'll sign for slot gets auto-offered.   Cuts out a lot of the BS manuevering.    Undrafted players go to FA where, here it comes, their salaries will be pro-rated if/when they're signed. 

Why is that BS maneuvering?

If I don't care to sign a guy for $600K when he's picked, I'm not going to be especially happy to pay him $600K later after he's missed 3 ratings bumps.

Why?   I know I'm one of the "This isn't MLB" guys but you don't see MLB teams drafting players they don't intend to sign unless they can't get Sam Kamekazi in the IFA market.   I don't think we should be drafting players we aren't going to sign.   Of course, I'm also for shortening the draft to 10 rounds.  It wouldn't take much effort to convince me that we should be able to set the number of players we'll draft like we do in the R5.  Try to convince me that isn't a good idea.

If that happened, the auto-offer would make even more sense. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/10/2010 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 9/10/2010 7:11:00 AM (view original):
It looks like it did add in the payroll of the players. I am not sure what I seen or did not see last time.

$7650 each, right?

So I guess my point about selling a back-up catcher for 55k once the playoffs begin stands.    That 55k = 7 draft picks that you could not have signed if you had $0 cap space.   I doubt this changes your opinion about selling of players but I do think you have to recognize that "Only 55k" can make a huge difference in the future of a team.

I just eyeballed it and it looks about $7650 each player. I signed 9 players.

I did not do this experiment to prove that selling players was good or bad, you made a point and I was curious to see if it was true.

  I don't believe most first round picks are worth 5 million, so when I see a top quality player being sold for straight cash I will veto, however if I see as a example a 78 overall player being traded for a 76 overall player and 1 million being added to the deal to compensate then I may consider that ok.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/10/2010 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 9/10/2010 7:11:00 AM (view original):
It looks like it did add in the payroll of the players. I am not sure what I seen or did not see last time.

$7650 each, right?

So I guess my point about selling a back-up catcher for 55k once the playoffs begin stands.    That 55k = 7 draft picks that you could not have signed if you had $0 cap space.   I doubt this changes your opinion about selling of players but I do think you have to recognize that "Only 55k" can make a huge difference in the future of a team.

 This happen yesterday...I was over the cap in player salary and my prospect was 6. I had the 26th pick in the draft and no supplemental picks. I went in with the idea that I was not going to sign my 1st round pick this season. Because I did not have enough players on my rookie team the sim moved 1 million from my prospect to my player payroll and now I have enough to sign all my draft picks.....A loophole that takes away any concern about making moves to sign draft picks.....From this point on I see no problem in signing draft picks.

Season	Player	Prospect	Coach	Coll. Scout	HS Scout	Int'l Scout	Adv Scout	Training	Medical
14	96 (97)	5	12	13	13	5	4	20	16
13	87	6	13	14	14	6	8	20	17