This is Crazy

[rwd59]

I have mentioned this before as well as others. I am going to mention it again. Salaries for relief pitchers are way, way out of line. This guy is a relief pitcher only. Not enough stamina to be a starter. Did I mention he is 3.5 star, 33 1/2 years old with 56/81/48 ratings and a torn rotator cuff?

[low]

Yup. Financials need serious work. Been clamoring for changes for years now.

[EvvCat]

The salary amounts aren't the only thing that needs attention.

I just saw the Rangers sign 40-year-old Kodai Senga (it's June of 2033) to a one-year deal for $4.8 million. Senga has a torn UCL and is out for 8 months.

This contract will expire four months before he's (maybe) healthy. They just gifted him a couple million to sit on their 60-day IL, then become a 41-year-old free agent.

I let most "surprising" transactions go, but I'm glad commissioner mode allows for fixing things like this.

[rwd59]

I have 2 relievers at 43 Million plus per year and 3 others over 30 million per year. There are 5 from 22-26 million per year but I will say that all 5 are former starters so I can kinda understand those as they probably were still starters when they signed those contracts. There is no way relief pitchers should earn 30+ million per year. Seems to me this is an area of the game that needs to be looked at.

[SlimKibbles]

I've seen some crazy stuff with salaries too but I just don't bother dealing with those players. $43M/yr RP? Bug, randomness, or whatever, I'll go sign someone cheaper even if it's my player.

[Guthrien]

Reliever salaries have evolved higher than position players in recent years. Though I think it finally jacked superstars more.

Semi-unrelated: I saw someone complaining about this and didn't put much in it, all the relivers in my playthroughs eventually top out at 60/60, maybe 65. It doesn't break the game, I think skill is still distributed all the same. Maybe it's even appropriate, not sure. Noticed even more when shopping for high-end relievers with their monster contracts.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by SlimKibbles

I've seen some crazy stuff with salaries too but I just don't bother dealing with those players. $43M/yr RP? Bug, randomness, or whatever, I'll go sign someone cheaper even if it's my player.

Yea, believe me they aren't getting that kind of money from me. It's got to be a once in 100 years superstar hitter (not pitcher) who is in his prime for me to even consider that type of money. If it was one of my players asking that I would trade them before the deadline as long as I have someone who can adequately replace them. I have never and will never pay anyone 40M a year. I would trade my own son before paying him that much. In real life, I can see Ohtani getting that kind of money but Soto was a massive overpay that will haunt them before that contract is up.

[Winnipeg59]

In isolation that indeed is a huge number.

But, for the sake of discussion, the team budget is $314M (not sure which team - Check that, it's ATL). Is this a standard league startup or a couple of years in, and where are they - upper third of league or lower third. Maybe the general financials have inflated?

Is that number higher than any other current RP or comparable?
Other demands compatible or is he way out of line?
Is this team a contender? Or is he shooting for the moon to play for a lower end team?

I like to think there's some "thought process" involved in the AI demands.

[DrSatan]

Oscar Gamble was right.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg59

In isolation that indeed is a huge number.

But, for the sake of discussion, the team budget is $314M (not sure which team - Check that, it's ATL). Is this a standard league startup or a couple of years in, and where are they - upper third of league or lower third. Maybe the general financials have inflated?

Is that number higher than any other current RP or comparable?
Other demands compatible or is he way out of line?
Is this team a contender? Or is he shooting for the moon to play for a lower end team?

I like to think there's some "thought process" involved in the AI demands.

The guy in the original post is a free agent. There is one other reliever who makes 43M. That other reliever takes up 43M of a 230M budget. I mentioned other reliever salaries in an earlier post in this thread. The other 43M reliever is the 4th highest paid player in the entire league. No way that would ever happen irl. I might add that he is not even the closer on his team. Whatever the "thought process" it is flawed as far as reliever salaries are concerned in my opinion.

[DocTDC]

Yep, I'm in 2028 and there are 4 closers with salaries over 40M. 4 of the top 10 salaries are for relievers. It's like the OOTP26 treats relievers and starters the same when it comes to salary demands. Previous versions didn't have this problem.

[Jamee999]

Originally Posted by EvvCat

The salary amounts aren't the only thing that needs attention.

I just saw the Rangers sign 40-year-old Kodai Senga (it's June of 2033) to a one-year deal for $4.8 million. Senga has a torn UCL and is out for 8 months.

This contract will expire four months before he's (maybe) healthy. They just gifted him a couple million to sit on their 60-day IL, then become a 41-year-old free agent.

I let most "surprising" transactions go, but I'm glad commissioner mode allows for fixing things like this.

I noted this as an issue nearly a decade ago--disappointing to see that it still happens.

[Baseballman2K5]

I'm hoping turning off inflation curbs this issue...

[DocTDC]

Has anyone found a setting that can help with 30yr old closers demanding 6yrs at 44M?

[Bobfather]

Every couple of seasons, I fool around with salary by player type, Superstar makes xx, etc. But the salaries for just about everyone are higher than suggested for a superstar. So what good are those settings? Even a soft or hard cap doesn't lower player demands. The only thing I have had success with is switching to fictional finances and fictional salaries.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Bobfather

Every couple of seasons, I fool around with salary by player type, Superstar makes xx, etc. But the salaries for just about everyone are higher than suggested for a superstar. So what good are those settings? Even a soft or hard cap doesn't lower player demands. The only thing I have had success with is switching to fictional finances and fictional salaries.

I think it comes down to if your league has a lot of money floating around then teams will spend it and players will make demands based on it.

My game was started in v4 and imported all the way to v26. Meaning my financials are not v26 defaults or based on today's real world numbers. IOW I have no idea how the game plays using 2025 real contracts like Ohtani's or Soto's.

The only thing I can say is I have "yes, owners control budget" enabled instead of "entire revenue available". Revenue sharing enabled, national contracts same for all teams etc. I think the biggest one to curb "contract run away" might be "Cash Maximum". Mine is set to $36 mil, which may still be a bit high in the context of my league, but keeps teams from having loads of cash available to spend. I would suggest anyone in this thread, not just you, check their "Cash Max" setting. If it's set to "none" or a very high amount you may be flooding your league with too much money. If nothing else it's an easy place to start.

My superstar contract amount is $26.8 mil and out of 1927 MLB players that come up in my list 14 make more than that. Two players are $42 and $49 mil. Six players are in the $30 mil category ($31-$36 mil). Six are $28-$29 mil.

I have three stud closers making $18-$29 mil. The next nine make $10- $13 mil. All IMHO are worth the contract except two where injury or age has taken a toll making the final years of longer term deals look bad.

Are there contracts I question? Sure, but overall I think it's pretty realistic in context with my league and salary level settings. Maybe I'm lucky or more accepting of what I see.

Maybe none of this helps but I thought I'd at lease share in the hope that there is a nugget in there that does.

[maayrts]

Regardless of why this is happening, the AI should know that spending 40m+ on a RP is insane, and the AI players should know that demanding that is insane. The very top end RPs should be making at most about half of what top batters and SP are making.

From my observations playing this version quite a bit now (on mostly default financials), teams do have too much money laying around, and there's not enough options for using it. IMO, star batters and SP sign team friendly extensions way too easily, and star RP become the best players in free agency (you could argue this has been an issue in OOTP before, but I've played this game for 10 years and haven't seen it so extreme).

Even if this trend matched real life, MLB teams wouldn't start paying RP 40m+ because they're the only players to spend money on.

[sofla97]

I'm about 5 years in my save and the Dodgers have signed the leagues 5 top closers at 40m+ a year.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by maayrts

IMO, star batters and SP sign team friendly extensions way too easily, and star RP become the best players in free agency (you could argue this has been an issue in OOTP before, but I've played this game for 10 years and haven't seen it so extreme).

I totally agree with this! In this version there are never any top players in free agency unless it is someone coming from another league. Now there are tons and tons of average or below players especially relief pitchers with high potentials with low current ratings. I have never tinkered with the financial settings in any version of the game. I just assumed they were set at a level to achieve the most realistic results. Maybe that's not the case with this version. I don't know. I do know I have never had $45M per year relief pitchers until this version.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by maayrts

Regardless of why this is happening, the AI should know that spending 40m+ on a RP is insane, and the AI players should know that demanding that is insane. The very top end RPs should be making at most about half of what top batters and SP are making.

From my observations playing this version quite a bit now (on mostly default financials), teams do have too much money laying around, and there's not enough options for using it. IMO, star batters and SP sign team friendly extensions way too easily, and star RP become the best players in free agency (you could argue this has been an issue in OOTP before, but I've played this game for 10 years and haven't seen it so extreme).

Even if this trend matched real life, MLB teams wouldn't start paying RP 40m+ because they're the only players to spend money on.

Maybe cutting the "cash max" will mean fewer players sign those easy extensions at a "team discount" because the team doesn't have the money to make the offer? Those players become FA and take more money out of the system leaving a smaller pile of money to spend on relievers. The RP may still ask for $40 mil but if it's not there to get, he's not getting it. At least in theory.

I'm not saying the ask by the RP is realistic. My post in fact was answering Bobfather's post that was about salaries in general (at least thats how I read it). In either case, in my experience, the cash max allowing too much money to be available is a big part of the issue (for all players). Something that has been true in OOTP for as long as I can remember.

Would I like them to work on making the financials better? Sure.
Would I like them to tweak the code to make RP ask for less in a patch? Sure, as long as it's tested and doesn't break something else. IE where is the money (that we have too much of) going, now that it's not going to RPs. Is a superstar now asking for $100 mil per? IDK.


But for now you have to work with what you have, and if you have a financial system with too much money issues will come up. I don't know if lowering the cash max will help those users posting in this thread. For all I know they already have a low cash max. I'm simply stating as the game sits now, cash max is a good place to look to try to find a solution.