Should rookie salaries increase to "mimic" arbitration etc.?

[Clay Dreslough]

Although I don't yet have the time to install an arbitration system in the CD-ROM or online game, I have been considering a few shortcuts to make things more balanced and/or realistic.

One would be to have "rookie" salaries increase a bit each year as follows:

1st year: 1 point
2nd year: 2 points
3rd year: 3 points
4th year: 4 points
5th year: 5 points
<free agency>

If I did this, I would still keep the rule allowing you to release such players without buying out their contract. So, teams would actually save a chunk of money by releasing pre-free-agency players they couldn't afford, and other teams could then pick them up.

Clay

[ASchatz]

If you do this, it is important that the salaries don't begin to go above 1 pt until the player has spent time in the majors. Right now there is no arbitration until the player has been in the majors for a while.

Aaron

[Slugger222]

Ashatz brings up an interesting point. The "League Minimum" does not kick in until you are officially declared a "Rookie." That happens, I think, after you have 200 at bats, or 15 innings (over any number of seasons) in the majors.

Of course, you do not have to follow that. But it does seem wrong to increase the salary of a player who sits in the minors for 5 years.

That is not the way it is in RB.

[playshogi]

I like to keep rookies at 1 pt/yr. The small market teams can't afford hardly anything else.

[mikeh5]

I think rookie salaries should escalate based on ML service time and performance. For instance, Albert Pujols should get more for his performance this year than a Corey Patterson or Mark DeRosa even though all were rookies this year and are now closer to earning their free agent rights.

[Slugger222]

I have to change my vote, and agree with playshogi. The small market teams already have a big enough challenge getting talent. Bumpingthe salary each year would only be another advantae for the big market guys.

[Cipster]

I think it's tough enough for small market teams to compete without thei salary bump.
If you have a team consisting mostly of youngsters that could mean that every year your salary would increase by 10-15 pts. When you have a low payroll that would mean a 10% increase. That would not work.
For a big market team a 5 pt. salary is less than one game attendance. For a small market that's 2-3 games sometimes. Over time this would just widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

[jokerswild]

I think that something like 1,1,2,2,3 might be a lot better.

[mikeh5]

I agree that this makes it difficult for small market teams, but this is reality. This is how it works in the majors so I'd like to see players who aren't eligible for free agency (but would be eligible for arbitration) receive salary increases as their on field performances merit.