Broken Bat - Help: Salary Management

Forum >> Help >> Salary Management

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#71911	03/06/2020 6:28:21 pm	Aug 21st, 2044
JohnnyBoi62 Joined: 06/21/2019 Posts: 356 Florissant Falcons VI.21	Ask the Houston Asterisks, Chicago Cubs, and KC Royals whether they think tanking is an effective strategy. It worked out back to back to back for them. KC was more market size driven than the other two (saving your bullets for a run every couple decades), but you can't expect me to believe they were giving it there all or rolling out the best club every game all season long in their multiple underachieving years leading up to their championships.

#71913	03/06/2020 7:52:22 pm	Aug 21st, 2044
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	Sadly, the Royals were giving it their all for three decades. We were just that bad. As you hinted, most of that has to do with their payroll. Their budget was less than half of big markets most the time. The real world is a totally different dynamic. That's my point. There are endless numbers of things we do here that could be deemed shady by the righteous. Any time someone plays a left throwing catcher or infielder (non-1b). Any time a good player is cut in the middle of a season. Those are huge absurdities, but we want to mock someone who tries to save a little coin by attempting to manipulate a player's salary a bit? Silly. Updated Friday, March 6 2020 @ 7:55:40 pm PST

#71915	03/06/2020 10:02:56 pm	Aug 21st, 2044
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9595 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Anyway, for purposes of science, I think that I'm going to try Just to warn you, the results will likely be somewhat inconclusive. Salaries seem to go up and down by some random modifier as well. At least I am frequently stumped about why they moved in different directions. So you likely won't be able to get enough data to really make a determination how effective it was. I think there is too much noise. Updated Friday, March 6 2020 @ 10:03:42 pm PST

#71918	03/07/2020 12:38:16 am	Aug 21st, 2044
JohnnyBoi62 Joined: 06/21/2019 Posts: 356 Florissant Falcons VI.21	Mukilteo, it pained me to lump the Royals in the with the other two (<- as per the feelings dictated by current and old NL Central grudge matches). I loved the defensive display, baserunning, small ball, and grit the Royals showcased in 2014/2015! Still, they took their lumps big time the years prior to that run. I saw some of the lean years at Kauffman leading up to that, and one 2014 game they hosted of an I-70 series where they really impressed.

#71919	03/07/2020 3:37:21 am	Aug 21st, 2044
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	My hunch is you're too young to remember (if you were even alive), but the Royals coughed up big time money way back when they really stank. Look to the off-season between '89 and '90. They brought disaster upon themselves by going after big-time free agents Storm and Mark Davis. It was probably the biggest fail in Royals history. Mark Davis had just won the Cy Young; he bombed in epic fashion. 44 saves with a 1.85 ERA to 6 saves and an atrocious 5.11. Storm Davis went from 19-7 with Oakland to 7-10 for my guys. The Royals had never made a splash like that on free agency before. I think they were motivated by a couple big things. It was getting close to the end for George Brett; I think they knew this. George hit an amazing .329 in '90, becoming the first (and I think still the only?) player to win batting titles in 3 different decades, so it wasn't his fault they stank. The other biggie was legendary owner and all around awesome guy Ewing Kauffman was nearing the end of his life. I think that was an attempt to give his team one last shot. It didn't even come close to working out. I think that understandably got them gun shy for a long time. It's easy for teams like NY and LA to throw money around like it's nothing; that's not the case for small market ball. I can't really think of any other big chances they took in free agency/spending until another cataclysmic disaster called Gil Meche in 2007. I have no idea what they saw in him, but they spent ridiculous money on him. He went 29-39 in his four years with the club and then retired with his insane wad of cash. To be fair, he wasn't horrible his first two years. However, he got superstar money and produced third-guy-in-the-rotation numbers. Updated Saturday, March 7 2020 @ 3:40:34 am PST

#71920	03/07/2020 8:09:54 am	Aug 21st, 2044
brentswagger Joined: 03/22/2016 Posts: 265 Lakeville Bears IV.2	I will throw out that someone might want to consider. I don't think it matters in this specific case because I believe you are at the lowest league level but I wouldn't want to do this and end up demoting if your goal is to climb as high as you can with your team because you are going to need one season just to get back to where you were and two additional seasons to hopefully move up. I think the other thing I don't like about the idea is that I want to see my best players accumulate the best career stats they can so that might be more personal reasoning but I don't want to take 30 or 40 games away from my star in his prime. Of course I have over 100 million in my bank so trying to save a few bucks on salary doesn't motivate me. I would probably rather offset that high salary by cutting a decent but not star player making 1.5 million and filling that hole with a young player I want to develop.

#71922	03/07/2020 10:02:20 am	Aug 21st, 2044
Geech Joined: 01/12/2014 Posts: 545 San Luis Obispo Turtles IV.8	"I think the other thing I don't like about the idea is that I want to see my best players accumulate the best career stats they can so that might be more personal reasoning but I don't want to take 30 or 40 games away from my star in his prime." This is my take on the concept. I don't think there's anything objectively wrong about trying to manipulate player salaries through playing time or deliberate mismanagement, but I would never do it. I want to see my good players playing good ball. It's one of the things I enjoy about the game.

#71927	03/07/2020 4:28:32 pm	Aug 23rd, 2044
JohnnyBoi62 Joined: 06/21/2019 Posts: 356 Florissant Falcons VI.21	I wouldn't want to play my guys outside of the positions I want them in long term. If you do that too much they start getting experience at these non-ideal positions right? Doesn't that increase their chance of the AI sticking them in a non-ideal position at a critical moment?

#72014	03/14/2020 12:21:50 am	Sep 14th, 2044
michaeltodd2 Joined: 02/20/2018 Posts: 325 Paradise Valley Cubs II.2	Hmm...i platoon certain hitters to face only left or right handed pitchers - the ones who just can't sustain a decent batting average against same armed pitchers - and i've often wondered if i could potentially be saving money by keeping their stats and at bats artificially low.

#72018	03/14/2020 12:01:20 pm	Sep 14th, 2044
amalric7 Joined: 01/20/2016 Posts: 2237 New York Lancers V.4	Franchise fees in Legends run to $18.5M per season. You’re not paying that down in LLVI but all the money you make on the way up here disappears real fast - I had plenty banked and even with three straight championship appearances I made (small) losses. This year I’m turning a massive ($10M+) loss in an effort just to stay mid-table, in all probability. The moral high ground looks inviting but ultimately you have to what you have to do. I love to see vets put up the best numbers they can for their career, particularly if it’s a player you drafted & developed, and usually I do for my favourites. But sometimes sitting a guy like that down the stretch can really make a difference to your team, both in the short and long term. Sometimes you want a great season or two from a stud before you have to let him go, sometimes you want the steady 6-7 years of production instead. To me it’s never as simple as it looks. You have to consider every option.