Once and for all... Let's get this straight!

[OrioleMagic]

I'm one of the two who say whole value, if for no other reasons than to make the math easy and make it easy on mission. I'd assume changing this to the 1/3 would require some kind of calculation and keeping track on his part, and he's got a lot of shit going on as it is.

Plus all it does is require you to get more creative in deals. Hasn't seemed to stop too many of us so far.

You don't understand. This is coded into the game engine. The Commissioner has no control over whether all or a pro-rated part of a players contract is paid by the receiving team. Please read the links I posted or go run some searches at the OOTP Boards, or better yet, PM Markus or Steve Kuffrey and ask them! They will respond. They have for me several times over the past few years.

[OrioleMagic]

Sure, let's get rid of the rules so teams can do completely horrible things like Sabu, or insert douchebag here. The real problem is, GMs come and go and if someone destroys their finances and leaves, how is that fair to the rest of the league? How is that good for the league period? Sure, the commish can manually fix things for the next GM but again, that's not exactly fair.

These rules really have never been an issue until recently, in which you were apart of a deal I vetoed. And I still would veto that deal. You have your opinions, I have mine, we'll agree to disagree.

If this is an attempt to override the rule in this league, I will be fully against it. What you do in your league, I could care less, it was never stated you had to adopt any rules Mission may have came up with or adopted from other leagues for his own.

You miss my point completely, my friend. I support Mission's rule, and now Molina's, and if all goes well with a short discussion in the off-season, it will be a rule in my league too.

This thread was a result of a new GM getting advice from a senior GM that was just flat wrong and nearly stopped a trade I was attempting to make. I assume you will see the trade in the TC shortly.

My point is this. The receiving team in a trade is only responsible for paying the pro-rated part of the contract for that player while he is on that receiving team. Not the entire contract.

This discussion about FA money available and the S3SL rule is completely irrelavent to the OP and poll.

Mission's rule is a good rule and a safe rule to account for the GM that you describe so eloquently, but it is not part of the game engine. That is all I am saying. This is probably hard to grasp for those who do not own that game and have not toyed with it for 4+ years now.

I don't wish to beef with anyone and think we will adopt the same rule in HSL.

This is about senior GMs, who are very good and have success in the past to prove it, but in this case are mistaken about how much of a contract goes with a traded player.

So Haf owned one of the 2 votes for A. Anyone care to own the second?

[OrioleMagic]

Sure. Anaheim has about 21 million in FA room. Let's say I deal for Bermejo and Krull, the two highest paid players in the game, combining to make 37 million a year. Since it's the trade deadline, I could acquire them for a cost of only 12 or 13 million this year, well within my FA room. However, the same trade would not be allowed if I waited until the offseason to make it. Makes sense to me.

This is spot-on.

[OrioleMagic]

You pay the prorated amount, but the game will require that you have the contract amount. That was my experience running a league. The previous team has already paid money to the player so you pay the rest. Hence the "Total Player Expenses" part of the financial report.

If you were taking on a $9 mil contract now, you'll only pay 3. The game will require $9 mil available though. I think it's just a mechanical flaw in the game.

I'm not 100% sure, but that's how I remember it playing out.

Sorry, I am reading this thread backwards here. I just wanted to say that I have never seen the game reject a trade for lack of finances. It always just puts the team into the red when the season rolls over.

For example, at the trade deadline, Team A has 4M cash, no available FA money, and 11M available for extensions. Team A's payroll is already at 95M. Last years revenue was at 86M, with this year projecting to be about a million more... Logic says that they will go into the red, or bankrupt if they take on any contract, but the game will still allow Team A to add payroll up to... I don't know. So they could add a 5 milllion dollar closer and make their payroll 100 million and miss the playoffs by one game. After the season, rolls over this team will show -9 million cash, which is negative 13 million difference between player expenses/payroll and revenue plus the 4M cash figure. (this is providing that no extensions or expiring contracts were involved)

That is why Mission's rule is a good rule!

[Porter]

I was the 3rd for A. Assuming this is from the deal in MSL. This is to keep said GM from spending money he doesn't necessarily have (regardless of cash on hand, which still goes in the red after the offseason regardless).

If you're just going of normal situations then the pro-rated amount is fine. It goes by situations personally. You can't spend money you don't have.

[OrioleMagic]

I was the 3rd for A. Assuming this is from the deal in MSL. This is to keep said GM from spending money he doesn't necessarily have (regardless of cash on hand, which still goes in the red after the offseason regardless).

If you're just going of normal situations then the pro-rated amount is fine. It goes by situations personally. You can't spend money you don't have.

Do you own OOTP 5, 6, or 6.5?

BTW, this isn't about the deal in MSL, although there is some cross-over...

[Providence A's]

Sorry, I am reading this thread backwards here. I just wanted to say that I have never seen the game reject a trade for lack of finances. It always just puts the team into the red when the season rolls over.

For example, at the trade deadline, Team A has 4M cash, no available FA money, and 11M available for extensions. Team A's payroll is already at 95M. Last years revenue was at 86M, with this year projecting to be about a million more... Logic says that they will go into the red, or bankrupt if they take on any contract, but the game will still allow Team A to add payroll up to... I don't know. So they could add a 5 milllion dollar closer and make their payroll 100 million and miss the playoffs by one game. After the season, rolls over this team will show -9 million cash, which is negative 13 million difference between player expenses/payroll and revenue plus the 4M cash figure. (this is providing that no extensions or expiring contracts were involved)

That is why Mission's rule is a good rule!

No prob. I was a stickler for finances in TSSL. Maybe that's where I'm getting it from. I never let deals go through if a team didn't have enough FA money regardless of prorated salary or not. If you were taking on $5 mil, then you needed to have $5 mil in FA money.

[cjkalt]

I was the 3rd for A. Assuming this is from the deal in MSL. This is to keep said GM from spending money he doesn't necessarily have (regardless of cash on hand, which still goes in the red after the offseason regardless).

If you're just going of normal situations then the pro-rated amount is fine. It goes by situations personally. You can't spend money you don't have.

I'm the 4th A vote because it seemed closer to my position in that I don't want teams to spend money they blantantly don't have, but I am for B in this this example:

What if a team is 4 million under this year on the cap, and has 15 million coming off the books the next year and wants to acquire a 9 million dollar player, he can pay him next year but under A wouldn't this year... i feel like in cases like this he should be able to get the player... I know thats neither option choice but someone can convince me which I really support would be nice

[DiamondDave]

A vote here as well

[Saber]

Yeah, Saber's right!

[OrioleMagic]

I'm the 4th A vote because it seemed closer to my position in that I don't want teams to spend money they blantantly don't have, but I am for B in this this example:

What if a team is 4 million under this year on the cap, and has 15 million coming off the books the next year and wants to acquire a 9 million dollar player, he can pay him next year but under A wouldn't this year... i feel like in cases like this he should be able to get the player... I know thats neither option choice but someone can convince me which I really support would be nice

You can vote A, but you are still wrong. Please read the links I posted earlier. This isn't a vote soliciting opinion. This is OOTP 101, Class, and some senior GMs have failed. (or buy the game and see for yourself)

[redsfan28]

I understand the logic of the argument. The fact that the game designers didn't write the code properly is the problem. From what I understand, in real MLB, the acquiring team doesn't start paying the whole contract (if the player is still under contract) until the offseason. However, the designers of OOTP didn't hard write that into the code.

[Providence A's]

You can vote A, but you are still wrong. Please read the links I posted earlier. This isn't a vote soliciting opinion. This is OOTP 101, Class, and some senior GMs have failed. (or buy the game and see for yourself)

Who failed?

[OrioleMagic]

Who failed?

Whoever voted A. That's obvious. I think some guys didn't read the whole thread and mistook the poll for a solicitation of their opinion, when it was not. It was a question of OOTP game knowledge. There is still the un-named GM that gave Zodious the errant information...

I am glad 12 GMs got it right!

[Providence A's]

I think that's where having the game and playing around with it helps. It really gives you a knowledge of how it works and all of the little intricacies of the game.