2032 Season - Sweet Home Alabama (Ready 2/16)

[nick]

I could only spend 200k on a player. I grabbed a solid SS

[Wasted Memory]

I think your numbers are a little off though, if I read it correctly. It says for anything over $2.5M. I only spent $5.03M over.


I'm not worried about next seasons IFA. I liked the 3 I went after so, if I'm lucky enough, it'll work out for me.

[dakshdar]

I think your numbers are a little off though, if I read it correctly. It says for anything over $2.5M. I only spent $5.03M over.


I'm not worried about next seasons IFA. I liked the 3 I went after so, if I'm lucky enough, it'll work out for me.

RIght. LIke I mentioned, just subtract $2.5 mil.

[Wasted Memory]

I think your numbers are a little off though, if I read it correctly. It says for anything over $2.5M. I only spent $5.03M over.


I'm not worried about next seasons IFA. I liked the 3 I went after so, if I'm lucky enough, it'll work out for me.

RIght. LIke I mentioned, just subtract $2.5 mil.

Yep, sorry. Missed that the first time through.

[DRiccio21]

Wasn't expecting to get all 3 of those international free agents. That's going to bite me in the @$$ financially.

Yeah, it says anything over $2.5 M spent on international free agents gets hit with a 100% fee.
So have fun with that.

It's even better than that though (if our settings match the OOTP ones I found online):

Each team will have a $2,500,000 soft cap for signing bonuses given to international amateur free agents with penalties for going over this amount.

•Any amount over the cap will be taxed with an additional 100%
•If a team spends between 5 and 10% over the cap, it won’t be able to sign more than one player for a bonus of more than $500,000 next year.
•If a team spends between 10 and 15% over the cap, it won’t be able to sign any (IAFA) player for a bonus of more than $500,000 next year.
•If a team spends more than 15% over the cap, it won’t be able to sign any (IAFA) player for a bonus of more than $250,000 next year.

Here's how this year's spending shakes out for the big spenders (assuming the tax means you pay double bonus and not 100% on the amount over the cap, if it is the other way around, just deduct $2.5 mil from the total shown):
Cookeville $7,530,000 - taxed to be $15,060,000, no IAFA signings next year over $250k
New England $11,175,000 - taxed to be $22,350,000, no IAFA signings next year over $250k
Washington $9,153,000 - taxed to be $18,306,000, no IAFA signings next year over $250k

I know the financials shown on the website aren't always the best indicator, but it looks like two of those three teams would be in trouble financially based on that spending (again, if the website numbers are to be believed).

I'm actually surprised there isn't a hard cap somewhere as well, given that the penalties are obviously set-up for minor exceedances of the soft cap and, it would seem, the game doesn't expect any team to be going over the soft cap by 800% like New England did.

lol, had no idea about that.

oopsy.

[Whittness10]

All that talk about stocks and you didn't know about this??

sorry, I just found that funny...

[ReignOnU]

Wasn't expecting to get all 3 of those international free agents. That's going to bite me in the @$$ financially.

Yeah, it says anything over $2.5 M spent on international free agents gets hit with a 100% fee.
So have fun with that.

It's even better than that though (if our settings match the OOTP ones I found online):

Each team will have a $2,500,000 soft cap for signing bonuses given to international amateur free agents with penalties for going over this amount.

•Any amount over the cap will be taxed with an additional 100%
•If a team spends between 5 and 10% over the cap, it won’t be able to sign more than one player for a bonus of more than $500,000 next year.
•If a team spends between 10 and 15% over the cap, it won’t be able to sign any (IAFA) player for a bonus of more than $500,000 next year.
•If a team spends more than 15% over the cap, it won’t be able to sign any (IAFA) player for a bonus of more than $250,000 next year.

Here's how this year's spending shakes out for the big spenders (assuming the tax means you pay double bonus and not 100% on the amount over the cap, if it is the other way around, just deduct $2.5 mil from the total shown):
Cookeville $7,530,000 - taxed to be $15,060,000, no IAFA signings next year over $250k
New England $11,175,000 - taxed to be $22,350,000, no IAFA signings next year over $250k
Washington $9,153,000 - taxed to be $18,306,000, no IAFA signings next year over $250k

I know the financials shown on the website aren't always the best indicator, but it looks like two of those three teams would be in trouble financially based on that spending (again, if the website numbers are to be believed).

I'm actually surprised there isn't a hard cap somewhere as well, given that the penalties are obviously set-up for minor exceedances of the soft cap and, it would seem, the game doesn't expect any team to be going over the soft cap by 800% like New England did.

lol, had no idea about that.

oopsy.

Our settings are the same... or at least very similar. There's nothing wrong with spending a little money on IFA.

[Wasted Memory]

I did go into it thinking "What would Reign do?"

Supposedly International is my Scout's area of expertise. If they pan out like he thinks they will I'll be just fine with the penalty.

[dakshdar]

True. I seem to remember some discussion about how these 16-18 year old IAFAs that are showing 70+ potential don't have the same track record as drafted players showing similar potential. Though, maybe we don't have the data to back that up yet...

[The_Niddler]

Our settings are the same.
It told you all of that on the top of the screen of IFA players.

[Uuaww]

True. I seem to remember some discussion about how these 16-18 year old IAFAs that are showing 70+ potential don't have the same track record as drafted players showing similar potential. Though, maybe we don't have the data to back that up yet...

95% of them will crash in potential within 1 month of sims.

but it's only money so if you have it it is worth the risk.

[shel311]

5% of them will crash in potential within 1 month of sims.

The only IFA I ever got that didn't crash in ratings, I traded...Jose Diaz.

[Cnasty]

So is a -6 Pythag the managers fault?

What are you trying to say Coug?!?!

[cougnix]

So is a -6 Pythag the managers fault?

What are you trying to say Coug?!?!

Oops, I didn't know you were the only one...

[Cnasty]

I thought you were only -1? Must have looked in the wrong spot

[Ry]

So is a -6 Pythag the managers fault?

Being a team that has had more negative pythag than positive Ive tried to research this....

My simple mind interprets it as W-L record vs. Runs scored and runs against. A negative pythag represents some bad luck (bad bounces, errors,wild pitches, passed balls) that may lead to a loss when a team should have won. In Boston's case with the amount of runs scored vs runs against and a -6 pythag you are looking at a team that wins big often but in the close with a small lead tends to blow it as evidenced by Boston's 10-15 record in one run games and 4-6 record in extra innings.

Im sure someone will point out the errors in my analysis but that's how it looks to me.

[shel311]

Ry is spot on...see even someone simple minded can easily understand Pythag!!!

[Cnasty]

Great analysis Ry!!

And that makes sense considering my team is top 3-5 in all offensive categories and my worst statistical feats are bullpen era and defensive efficiency.

Trade block time!!

[cougnix]

I like the pythag talk. So in that same respect a team that has a positive and maybe a high positive would be a lucky team? Maybe not as good as the record shows?

[Cnasty]

Yes see Cleveland circa a couple seasons ago when he was like +20 exaggerated of course and he started talking pythag