|
Rocco's is cool cuz it shows the average player's salary over the course of the contract, rather than the 2003 salary. The salaries, however, are based on 70% of the actual. Yet, this is better than some other sets, which seems to use the 2003 salary, not accounting for annual raises the real-life contracts have, ie A-Rod, Manny will make a lot more towards the end of the contract than the first few years.
However, I did notice that Rocco's doesn't portray markets accurately. For instance, everyone knows the Red Sox have die-hard fans. Yet, Boston is listed as a "Huge" market in the roster set. Then on the other side of the equation, you have LA, which is listed at a "slightly above average" market. For leagues that don't have balance financial systems, the Dodgers are at a disadvantage, with a 80 mil payroll to start, and projected revenues of about $60 mil. Also, in the NL West, the Giants have huge revenues, nearing 100 mil... and the D'backs and Rockies are also more financially prosperous than the Dodgers... so in the end, without drastic price lowering, or roster changes to become a contender, the Dodgers do not come near their 2002 or real-life 2003 attendance.
|