|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 5, 2016 16:28:32 GMT -5
A NEW, AND EVEN BETTER (IMHO), ZEVIN ALTERNATIVE - NOW INCORPORATING OOTP17's OPT-OUT!
AND, NEWLY ADDED, A PROVISION FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSIONS TO AVOID ARBITRATION!
CLEANER VESTING LANGUAGE!
RESEARCH-BACKED LANGUAGE FOR GENERAL STIPULATIONS REGARDING ALL MULTI-YEAR EXTENSIONS AND FREE AGENT CONTRACTS!
THIS WILL BE MY LAST/FINAL/ULTIMATE VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL HERE!
Interim suggestion (featuring "The Shane Clause") now deemed FAR too complicated can be viewed HERE!
MY INTERIM ZEVIN ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION CAN ALSO BE FOUND HERE! * Good, but I strongly believe in the first now
By the way, I am now officially withdrawing my "Calendar-based" alternate proposal. If you care to read why, it is at this link - HERE!
If you would like to read some vigorous debate about the proposal, read on! If you would just like to cut to the proposal itself, just go to the first link above! One of my former superiors, in real life, used a phrase that has stuck with me my entire life, "Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions!" It probably wasn't originally his, but I think it's a good saying. And I would like to offer up the following "solutions", building on a number of things in PBL: - Zevin, and the need for something other than just the game when negotiating contracts, free agent and especially extensions
- The vigorous, and very interesting, discussion in THIS THREAD
- Shane's suggestion (he said 3 years, I'm suggesting something different, with explanation) in that same thread
- Tim (San Fran) and my own work and research into the numbers over the years
- And of course, other input gleaned from being part of PBL and other leagues
There is a little summary at the end of the contract language.
I might also propose that the solutions below come with elimination of the current "budget rules" that have also been vigorously debated, to simplify the overall set of rules governing PBL (but that might be a different conversation yet again).
Enjoy! Poke holes! Offer alternatives (trying to keep the big picture in mind and not specifics)!
OOTP CONTRACT RULES (A solution - I think a pretty good set):
While any player is on a minimum contract, or has arbitration years remaining, only a ONE OR two-year contract may be negotiated.
• Example – A player still on a minimum contract – you may offer A ONE OR two year CONTRACT • Example – A player that has been through one or two arbitration years – you may offer A ONE OR two year CONTRACT • Example – A player with arbitration years noted remaining in the team’s player salaries list – you may offer A ONE OR two year CONTRACT
A waiting period of roughly one year is required between any contract offers. In other words, if an automatic renewal, arbitration award or contract signing happens in November, or any other month, then a subsequent contract offer may not be extended until the following November, or corresponding other month, begins.
Once a player no longer has arbitration years remaining, any contract, up to a seven year maximum (as set in the game), may be offered, with the following stipulations:
1. There will be no front-loading of contracts whatsoever (including option years). Each year of a multi-year offer must be equal to, or greater than (pending the back-loading rule below), the first year.
2. Back-loading of contracts (those with increasing value in any contract year) must be limited to a maximum increase of 20% year over year in any contract year (including option years)
3. All team option years offered must include a 20% buyout
4. A player option year may not follow any other type of option year
Any illegally negotiated front or back-loaded contracts will have all years of the contract changed to the value of the highest year as a guaranteed contract by the Commissioner.
Any illegally negotiated option year contracts will be changed to guaranteed years and to the highest yearly amount of any contract year, be it option or not, by the Commissioner.
If you are unsure of the legality of a contract offer, please contact the Commissioner before submitting the offer for clarification.
Vesting year contracts may be offered, with the following maximum stipulations:
1. Starting Pitchers a. Games Started – 30 games b. Innings Pitched – 180 innings c. Games Finished – 10 (complete) games
2. Relief Pitchers a. Games Started – 10 (spot start) games b. Innings Pitched – 75 innings c. Games finished – 30 games
3. Batters a. Plate Appearances: 500 plate appearances b. Games Played: 140 games
** The intention here is to provide legitimate stretch goals for players on your roster, not to “game” contracts with unrealistic goals in order to get a player to sign! If there is any abuse of the numbers above, then the Commissioner reserves the right to adjust and/or eliminate entirely, these Vesting option goals.
Incentive Clauses may be offered, and must be based on the vesting goals above, with the additional stipulation that the maximum of any incentive bonus is limited to $250,000.
Any illegally negotiated vesting option year contracts will be changed to a number that guarantees the bonus will be obtained in every year of the contract, by the Commissioner.
The rules above do not contemplate every contract negotiated in real life. Nor will they be unanimously accepted as everyone plays the game differently.
They hopefully will keep the contracts offered to the weak game AI from getting out of hand and may also save some GM’s from themselves, whether they are brand new to the game or veterans of online OOTP, in this league and/or others.
They also serve to maintain the concept of arbitration, where you can either let a player go through that process, offer a one year contract to avoid a year of arbitration, offer a two year contract for the same reason. The two year limitation will prevent completely buying out every arbitration year as the game uses this to value young players. You may also non-tender any arbitration eligible player of course.
The intent of the contract stipulations above is to offer more of a financial management challenge, while maintaining enough options to ensure flexibility in running your franchise, in the absence of a more robust AI and without human intervention. The intent is also to maintain the financial structure contemplated by the MLB settings when the league was initially launched.
You are tasked in OOTP with managing a baseball team and keeping your franchise winning and financially healthy or face the consequences and then work your way back to a healthy position.
Should any of the rules require further review, should any new human loopholes be discovered OR should the rules no longer be required, because of advances in the next OOTP game version, then they will of course be revisited, with ample warning of changes. In every case the intention is to make them as solid as possible in the online league environment, while maintaining the challenge of OOTP for every GM.
David_AngelsGM
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 5, 2016 16:42:01 GMT -5
I like what you have started here but I would like to suggest that if you can back load a contract by 20% then to allow it to be front loaded as well.
Plenty of real life teams do this to not only pay for production while a player is in their prime but also to plan for future contracts by moving money from one year to another based on the salary makeup in future years.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 5, 2016 18:26:35 GMT -5
Thanks Sean,
As I mentioned, this will not capture every contract scenario, real life or otherwise. There will be plenty of exceptions. Front-loading, back-loading, obscene amounts in excess of 20% and yes, buying out every arb year all certainly occur in real life. And have been repeatedly proven to happen in OOTP, much to it's detriment, in my opinion.
Contracts, in any business but especially in sports, can be extremely complicated. I wanted to keep things as simple as possible (and even the text above is a little lengthy) and I also wanted to come at this from a player perspective, instead of what might be best for the team and/or GM, as the players have so very little protection in the cut-throat waters of online OOTP.
My feeling is that a flat contract is indeed the alternative to a back-loaded contract, especially over seven years if you choose the max. And simple to remember for the GM and for those reviewing any and all deals (as we all can).
Thanks for the input. I hope it spawns more discussion.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 5, 2016 19:52:39 GMT -5
Further, the other mechanisms that could come into play, in lieu of a front-loaded contract, would be...
1) A shorter term contract 2) The later option of extending that player with another contract 3) Allow the contract to lapse of course, as your protection from declining skills compared to your needs at the time (which would put the player into free agency, which I see as an added benefit - someone else may need your cast-off) 4) One or two vesting options, again protecting the GM from a performance decline, but rewarding the player should they hit their targets 5) One or two team options, again flexibility for you (granted at a higher price than a front-loaded deal of course)
With respect, and again with protecting the player AI negotiating ability (more lack thereof) as much as possible, a seven year, front-loaded deal is sort of "have your cake, and eat it too," where most of the benefit is on the team and GM. Yes, the player does get "more" up-front money (not necessarily "more", but compared to the subsequent years "more"), which is often a first-response to the idea of disallowing front-loading, but the other options above offer flexibility, in my opinion, and a significant level of player AI protection in the game.
And, just to drive it home again, simplicity is also the intention as Derek did point out in the other thread that GM's are skirting (or forgetting) the current rules. No sense in trying to complicate things external to the game, but instead rely on what the game will allow, with a little help for the player negotiating skills, as mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 7, 2016 9:26:17 GMT -5
Just added some wording, purely for clarification, in RED, to the first post.
I believe I will call this "Zevin v2.0"
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 7, 2016 9:57:46 GMT -5
The Prototype Deal – Donaldson/Blue Jays
If you’re wondering where all of this came from, while certainly some came from experience in online leagues (PBL and others), as I am sure most of us have, the deal is also grounded in reality and not simply "top of my head, arbitrary rules". I happen to be a Blue Jays fan and watched, with great interest, the acquisition, performance, then negotiations between the Jays and Josh Donaldson as his time with the team played out (and still is playing out, and hopefully for a very long time). I won’t beat things into the ground, but in OOTP a player like this can be or would have been locked up, at well below market value, for the maximum number of years long before what you will read below. While attempting to keep thing as simple as possible, so that every GM in the league can easily reference and abide by the rules, the intent was to simulate what happens, in this case, in real life MLB. I completely acknowledge there are exceptions to every rule in MLB regarding contracts, but feel this is a great example of how protection can be afforded the player, with a simple set of rules (unfortunately) outside the game, in order to better approximate what happens with very good to exceptional players in MLB. It also, strictly in my opinion, challenges the GM within the OOTP/MLB financial structure to make choices, from multiple options available – even if you think this is restrictive in any way – to run a franchise much like the real thing. Whether you agree with me that these rules can accomplish in a far less hands on, much less work intensive (for the Commissioner/Zevin), and much more impartial (as the Commissioner/Zevin is now just one of the GM’s instead of trying to wear multiple hats), way or not…I think this is a favourable compromise IF you agree that the intention of PBL is to approximate what happens in MLB of course. Here’s one of the articles summarizing the Donaldson history to this point, which along with previously mentioned other input and research, helped lead to the rules in the first post. The player’s get paid. The GM’s get challenged. Oh, and the fact the impending decisions on what to do with “Bat Flip” Bautista and Edwin Encarnacion (and maybe even the huge contracts of Tulo and, eventually, Russ Martin) make this even more of a challenge for “ non-OOTP Shapiro!” But that’s why I, at least, love to play this game!!! Blue Jays, Josh Donaldson Reach Two-Year Extension
By Jeff Todd | February 10, 2016 at 11:52am CST The Blue Jays have announced a two-year, $28.65MM deal with star third baseman Josh Donaldson. He’ll earn $11.65MM in 2016 and $17MM for the following year. The sides had been set for arbitration, with Donaldson filing at $11.8MM and the team countering at $11.35MM. While the gulf between those numbers is obviously a pittance compared to the overall value involved, the Jays employ a “trial and file” strategy that made a hearing inevitable after numbers were swapped — barring a multi-year deal. The sides could have worked out a deal to buy out all of Donaldson’s remaining arb years — he was a Super Two last year and is under control through 2018 via arbitration — if not a yet longer pact to lock up some free agent seasons, but chose the more straightforward option. Fresh off of an American League MVP award, Donaldson had enormous earning power at the arb table. MLBTR contributor Matt Swartz broke down his case in January, noting that the projected $12MM salary would have represented a record $7.7MM raise. Obviously, both team and player agreed that was a bit more than was warranted, though even the Jays were willing to pay the same bump that the prior record holder received (Chris Davis, with a $7.05MM raise). The new deal not only rewards Donaldson for his monster 2015 season with a nice salary in the coming season, but also promises him a second huge payday. It’s less than he might have earned with another strong season — and much less than a repeat MVP effort would have brought — but significantly reduces his risk in exchange for some potential cost savings and certainty to the club. Donaldson, who came over from the A’s last winter, went to a hearing with his new club before he ever suited up. The club won, with Donaldson settling for $4.3MM — a fair sight shy of the $5.75MM that he sought. Of course, he’s now more than made up for it with this new deal. There certainly weren’t any lingering effects from that adversarial proceeding on Donaldson, who exceeded already-high expectations last year. The MVP tab was well deserved, as the 30-year-old delivered a .297/.371/.568 slash and 41 home runs, helping to lead Toronto to an AL East pennant. With typically stellar defense mixed in, Donaldson tallied 8.8 rWAR and 8.7 fWAR. Something of a late-bloomer, Donaldson represents a tough decision as a long-term extension candidate. There’s little chance he’d take a significant discount to give away free agent years, but he’s already under control through his age-32 season and has every right to demand a premium payday. Toronto is, of course, already examining the possibility of buying up seasons of sluggers in their mid-30s, as pending free agents Edwin Encarnacion and Jose Bautista are on the docket for extension talks this spring. Having Donaldson’s salary for 2017 already on the books certainly removes a variable, though balancing the long-term checkbook still seems a matter that will require some care.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Mar 7, 2016 9:58:36 GMT -5
I am 100% against a "flat" contract... It takes all financial creativity away.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 7, 2016 10:04:18 GMT -5
I am 100% against a "flat" contract... It takes all financial creativity away. You have every right to your opinion, I simply disagree and offered reasons. If you're against "flat" then go "short".
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Mar 7, 2016 10:12:28 GMT -5
Ok then.......
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 7, 2016 10:47:01 GMT -5
I'd prefer Zevin and some sort of delayed sim if contracts get backed up rather than add more rules to this league.
I can provide many examples where front loaded contracts make complete sense for a player and the team.
I would rather not stunt creativity as Anthony brought up by having every contract follow the same format. We mine as well just Institute a cap and base contracts on player rating.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Mar 7, 2016 11:14:20 GMT -5
I just think we can make this all simple by making the amount of years we can sign somebody to a limit. It increases the annual salary.
Arbitration years can only be bought out 1 year at a time.
This is a simple solution.
Waiting on zevin is tough cause Derek is busy but also for us too. I know a lot of us go through periods where all we can do is make changes and export. When zevin was around , if our schedules didn't mesh then there simply wasn't any negotiation possible to do.
And also slowing sims down for zevin negotiations is a terrible idea. That could take forever, whose to say everybody would even be available on the set time to do it.
Waiting on zevin is he'd for
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 7, 2016 15:16:36 GMT -5
I'd prefer Zevin and some sort of delayed sim if contracts get backed up rather than add more rules to this league. I can provide many examples where front loaded contracts make complete sense for a player and the team. I would rather not stunt creativity as Anthony brought up by having every contract follow the same format. We mine as well just Institute a cap and base contracts on player rating. Sean, not challenging you, nor was I trying to shut down Anthony earlier, but will respectfully reply to your points. If you return to the rules and read the Zevin section alone, my language (minus explanation, which I felt was necessary to illustrate the proposal), is actually "less rules", no more. They are a bit different, but generally fewer than we have now. My intention was to try to come up with a solution to replace Zevin that was simple enough for everyone to follow and reduce the "rules". Zevin, as I understand it, was implemented to keep in-game contract extensions from being taken advantage of, as we all know the AI is very poor in this area. My proposal is simple enough, can easily happen without human intervention, the associated delays and contemplating sim delays . Front-loading seems to have struck a nerve. I do not see the "flat" contract in lieu of a front-loaded contract as stunting creativity (and offered creative alternatives). It does prevent front-loading outright, but along with that unrealistic front-loading (and each of us has seen those types of contracts, so I will not get into quality of player, age of player, length of deals, etc.) for which, in order to realistically protect against, you would indeed have to create more and likely specific rules. And I'll leave it there as I do not want to appear overly argumentative. Thanks again for contributing to the discussion. All of it helps.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 7, 2016 15:35:02 GMT -5
I just think we can make this all simple by making the amount of years we can sign somebody to a limit. It increases the annual salary. Arbitration years can only be bought out 1 year at a time. This is a simple solution. Waiting on zevin is tough cause Derek is busy but also for us too. I know a lot of us go through periods where all we can do is make changes and export. When zevin was around , if our schedules didn't mesh then there simply wasn't any negotiation possible to do. And also slowing sims down for zevin negotiations is a terrible idea. That could take forever, whose to say everybody would even be available on the set time to do it. Waiting on zevin is he'd for I would not be opposed to reducing the number of years for every year prior to free agency to one. I do feel mine is, oddly enough, a little more "flexible" in that area, but only one-year extensions is an alternative that accomplishes the goal of at least getting a player to free agency with a number more suited to their talent level and/or potential on a contract. As I pointed out, I was basing some of my proposal on the Donaldson deal, which actually does give the GM more flexibility prior to free agency in some ways. Only because I have experienced this elsewhere, I am quite confident that multi-year extensions will be done immediately after the final arbitration year (be it a one-year contract extension or arb award). Guaranteed it will happen, unless you drop a line in, as I did. With Zevin, he, as agent, can simply say not right now if this was attempted and just make that known to everyone. I'm just proposing we protect against an obvious loophole in the game logic. And, OK, I will revisit this again , undoubtedly you will see front-loaded contracts, immediately after the final arb year, that will likely pay well in the first year, but then progressively worse over many years. And if that player is a stud, it's tough to swallow the player making a fraction of their value when compared to what would be a current example of a peer. And one might even argue that once the "formula" for front-loading is perfected by a handful, clearly observed by all others, then copied and adapted by all, as really the only way to stay competitive, any flexibility offered as an argument, is irrelevant. Again, I won't offer examples, because I am certain any and all could be debated, but we have all seen those deals in the game. I am seeing them right now elsewhere (and I am certain I am not alone)!
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 7, 2016 15:44:53 GMT -5
A further thought.
Derek went out of his way to outline, rather thoroughly, how "Zevin" would generally evaluate contracts in the current rules. Undoubtedly that still spawned some healthy one on one debates with those, some more rigorously than others, negotiating extensions.
What if Zevin, had a set of guidelines similar to my initial proposal from which to work?
- No more than two years until I get to FA for my client, in fact I would rather stick with one, thank you. - We just signed (or you were awarded) one year for your final arbitration year. My client is now very confident in his ability to make himself even more valuable in that year so that he can secure something long term at a much higher price point, so let's revisit this after the season. - Sorry, my client is far too good to entertain a front-loaded contract, even at the generous first year amount you have offered. We believe we will take the chance and try for much higher value over the final years so that his next contract will also be that much more valuable. I appreciate you are trying to do what's right for your team, but I am trying to do what's right for my player and if we cannot reach an agreement here, then we'll explore free agency.
Just trying to come at this from the player's perspective to offer more of a challenge to the GM's in this great league, and to try and replace the very unique concept of Zevin, while keeping extensions healthy (with which the game really struggles...still).
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 7, 2016 16:46:49 GMT -5
I'd prefer Zevin and some sort of delayed sim if contracts get backed up rather than add more rules to this league. I can provide many examples where front loaded contracts make complete sense for a player and the team. I would rather not stunt creativity as Anthony brought up by having every contract follow the same format. We mine as well just Institute a cap and base contracts on player rating. Sean, not challenging you, nor was I trying to shut down Anthony earlier, but will respectfully reply to your points. If you return to the rules and read the Zevin section alone, my language (minus explanation, which I felt was necessary to illustrate the proposal), is actually "less rules", no more. They are a bit different, but generally fewer than we have now. My intention was to try to come up with a solution to replace Zevin that was simple enough for everyone to follow and reduce the "rules". Zevin, as I understand it, was implemented to keep in-game contract extensions from being taken advantage of, as we all know the AI is very poor in this area. My proposal is simple enough, can easily happen without human intervention, the associated delays and contemplating sim delays . Front-loading seems to have struck a nerve. I do not see the "flat" contract in lieu of a front-loaded contract as stunting creativity (and offered creative alternatives). It does prevent front-loading outright, but along with that unrealistic front-loading (and each of us has seen those types of contracts, so I will not get into quality of player, age of player, length of deals, etc.) for which, in order to realistically protect against, you would indeed have to create more and likely specific rules. And I'll leave it there as I do not want to appear overly argumentative. Thanks again for contributing to the discussion. All of it helps. You use Josh Donaldson, I use Jhonny Peralta. There are plenty of examples, such as Albert Pujols, that show why contracts that pay the same amount every year are not equal to all parties. Player X is 32 years old and you want a 6 year deal. The production at 38 most likely won't be at the level of age 32, so that's why I feel like front loading contracts shouldn't just be outright eliminated. I'll pay you now but later when you aren't at the same level, I want that $ so I can spend it on other areas to improve. Of the proposals I've seen so far,I prefer Shane's proposal of limiting the term of the contracts and thus increasing the salary while also eliminating that additional time needed for Zevin so that Derek can use it how he wishes. I believe this addresses the concern with negotiations, still allows for creativity on the GM side, and also increases salary for each player. I think we really wouldn't have to change the rules we have in place, other than putting the cap on 3 years to resign your own player. A win-win-win scenario!
|
|