Quote:
Originally Posted by coljesep
Of course, but I think you missed the point of me providing that info.
Perhaps I wasn't clear though. If the salary page and such align rounded or not, why wouldn't a team be able to offer that salary as a 1 year extension to avoid arbitration if those funds are already attributed to the expense budget? And it's inconsistent... one player the "owner" allows it, and another the owner does not.
And, if a team decides to withdraw that $ from their arb screen, shouldn't those funds be taken out of the projected expense budget? If they are added as a projection, why wouldn't they be subtracted as a projection?
|
Yep, took it as it's own separate issue.
Never had the other situation you are describing with the offer. You say the owner doesn't allow it for one but does for the other. Maybe since the new contract would actually be an extension, not arbitration, the owner likes the idea of signing one and not the other? He thinks the prepopulated estimate for the arb offer, to the one he doesn't want to extend, is too high? Maybe the text description file is not adequate and doesn't have an "I don't approve extending Joe Baseball" option, so goes with "not enough money"? Maybe it has both responses and the bug is it picks the wrong one? IDK, I can only guess. Matt or Markus will have to answer, and I would have left it to them, but you asked me.
