Yet another patch 6.04 update :)

[DarioZ]

Has Markus been able to revert to pre 6.02 with regard to having the AI NOT SIGN FA'S when "Financials" are off. Hope so, from a replay fan.

Thanks... the rest of the fixes look pretty good!!!!!

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by DarioZ

Has Markus been able to revert to pre 6.02 with regard to having the AI NOT SIGN FA'S when "Financials" are off. Hope so, from a replay fan.

Thanks... the rest of the fixes look pretty good!!!!!

i sure hope Markus makes that an option setting....

[JDOldSchool]

Originally Posted by eriqjaffe

Well, I would call that a bug, albeit a minor one. If a player can not lose money in arbitration, then the minimum estimated arbitration salary should never go below the player's current salary. At the very least, it's misleading...

I think it's better how it is. If a player has a $2 million contract, but the estimate shows he's only worth about half that, wouldn't you consider releasing him because he's not worth the $2 million? The same wouldn't happen if the game just listed the current salary as the estimate.

The estimate gives an approximation of the player's worth. It should be common sense that he won't make less than he's already making.

[bosox18]

Well, in an ideal (non-MLB) world, an arbitration hearing would determine a player's actual worth, whether it was more or less than his current salary. Common sense would say that a guy who hits .172 might deserve a salary cut.

[disposableheros]

i believe in the real world, players can get less. i think 20% less is the max though. maybe someone else can confirm or deny?

[Dan Theman]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

i believe in the real world, players can get less. i think 20% less is the max though. maybe someone else can confirm or deny?

Well, sort of ...

First off:
D. Maximum Salary Reduction
(1) No Player’s contract shall be renewed pursuant to paragraph
10(a) of the Uniform Player’s Contract in any year for a salary
which constitutes a reduction in excess of 20% of his previous
year’s salary or in excess of 30% of his salary two years previous.
(shortened for brevity's sake)

But... :
(c) Special Exceptions to Maximum Salary Reduction Rules
(i) A Club may submit a salary figure for salary arbitration
that is at least 80% of the Player’s previous year’s salary and
earned performance bonuses (and at least 70% of his salary
and earned performance bonuses two years previous), the provisions
of Section A(5) above notwithstanding. This exception
shall not be used by any party, or considered by any salary
arbitrator, in support of, or in opposition to, any argument
regarding the evaluation of Player contracts.
(ii) A Club may submit a salary arbitration figure without
regard to the provisions of Section D above if the figure submitted
is with respect to a Player who, in the immediately preceding
year, won a salary arbitration which increased the
Player’s prior year’s salary by in excess of 50%.

[GeoWar]

Does the major league team have the option to offer arbitration or allow the player to become a free agent ? If so the game should provide a list and allow us to chose who to offer arbitration to.

[Erik W.]

Originally Posted by GeoWar

Does the major league team have the option to offer arbitration or allow the player to become a free agent ? If so the game should provide a list and allow us to chose who to offer arbitration to.

You can see who's up for arbitration by going to Front Office and clicking on Player Salaries. Then if you don't want them to go to arbitration, just release them after ther playoffs, before you advance to the next season.

[Mike D]

Actually, being able to non-tender a player for arbitration would be a great thing to add in the future. Hint, hint, Markus....

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

- Adjusted player contract demands AI, preventing cheats by switching positions/role

Could one of the beta testers comment on this? It's just that we were going to put a rule up for vote on this, but if it's indeed fixed (demands will not change regardless of the position or role) then there's no need.

Also, does it look like contract demands are now based on ability or usage? That is, say a pitcher could easily be used as an effective SP, but for some reason is being used as a relief pitcher. Under 6.04, will he be asking for reliever money (usage) or starter money (ability)?

One last thing. In the past, how long has the beta test period usually taken? And if you are allowed to say, how long do you expect this one to take? I'm not asking to rush anyone, it's just for my own time management.

Thanks.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by kq76

Could one of the beta testers comment on this? It's just that we were going to put a rule up for vote on this, but if it's indeed fixed (demands will not change regardless of the position or role) then there's no need.

Also, does it look like contract demands are now based on ability or usage? That is, say a pitcher could easily be used as an effective SP, but for some reason is being used as a relief pitcher. Under 6.04, will he be asking for reliever money (usage) or starter money (ability)?

One last thing. In the past, how long has the beta test period usually taken? And if you are allowed to say, how long do you expect this one to take? I'm not asking to rush anyone, it's just for my own time management.

Thanks.

It is based on both ability and usage, but the player always demands the highest possible amount.

I think the beta testing should not take longer than 2 days from now... *crossfingers*

[pat]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I think the beta testing should not take longer than 2 days from now... *crossfingers*

Hopefully.

[JDOldSchool]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Actually, being able to non-tender a player for arbitration would be a great thing to add in the future. Hint, hint, Markus....

Releasing the player before proceeding to the next season is really the same thing as non-tendering a player. I'm not sure there are any differences at all other than the terminology.