|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jul 12, 2016 18:16:00 GMT -5
In general though, I'm confused as to why a player wouldn't want a front loaded deal in the first place? I mean if you could get half of your money now, why wouldn't you do it? I just think in some situations it works for both the player and team. For example, look at my contract with Will Taylor. It allowed me to spend more on guys like Rauschenbe and Soto, while he still got the same amount and same aav. I like having the flexibility to be creative with building a team. I agree with a lot of the things you've proposed, more specifically the alterations Ron has made, but I just don't see how this one really improves the league. Even though I know I am overtaxing the patience of some int his thread and on this topic, I will answer this one last time. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, a front-loaded contract is not a good thing for the GM. Of course it is! The more front-loaded (if you have the money) the better! The longer the better! If you can go with a huge first, even two years, relative to the rest of the contract then you do have more money to assemble a team around that player. If you can manage it as young as possible then it works even better because, unlike Smith, the player will be totally undervalued later in the contract.We have all seen deals like this, which is why most leagues have some kind of "house rules" to guard against this. ZEVIN is the ultimate example of this!!! Just too much work. I am totally suggesting, backed by my assembled stats, that this rarely happens in real life (I will concede Peralta as one example). In most other cases a player's agent negotiates an escalating deal, even for elite talent well past Peralta's age, as seen in the stats. In fact the only place where values dip is potentially at the beginning of the next deal (presumably because they might not have lived up to the pricetag of the final year of the previous, which is a gamble). Yet, next one - escalates! Why... Because everyone wants to maximize their value (player, agents, player's family - except, of course, the GM and Owner of the team). That allows them to maintain and increase their lifestyle. That allows them to negotiate from a much higher number when they next get to the table. That allows them to have much higher value should they decide to walk from a lowball offer from their current team. That also floats all boats on behalf of the MLBPA! Which helps every other player int he league to maximize their value. I will never be in the (pardon the pun) "ballpark" of what pro baseball players pull down, but frankly I would never accept an iron-clad, front-loaded contract where I toil for years after the money for pennies on the dollar. But that's just me.There are any number of specific clauses and amendments, we could try and craft to deal with every eventuality (I've tried a few myself, age, service time, amount of contract, ratio of first to last year, and more), but (as seen) it just ends in circular arguments and pisses people off - which truly is not my intent. I was trying to emulate real life, using an in-game mechanism and trying to keep the rule as simple and compact as possible. Now it's even simpler, which is fine. I still maintain the 5/50 to maximize initial value of the player and prevent undervalued, first multi-year contracts, is the single most important thing in my proposal. If that flies, I will be thrilled! And I hope the game will be far better negotiating at that value in the sixth year of service. I'll leave it to others to recognize any future exploitation of the AI in options and opt-outs (or even front-loading). Everyone tries to push the envelope. I'm just happy if we can continue to trim several pages of rules in an effective way. To that end, I have some others ideas, in other areas! Too soon???
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jul 12, 2016 18:24:49 GMT -5
In general though, I'm confused as to why a player wouldn't want a front loaded deal in the first place? I mean if you could get half of your money now, why wouldn't you do it? I just think in some situations it works for both the player and team. For example, look at my contract with Will Taylor. It allowed me to spend more on guys like Rauschenbe and Soto, while he still got the same amount and same aav. I like having the flexibility to be creative with building a team. I agree with a lot of the things you've proposed, more specifically the alterations Ron has made, but I just don't see how this one really improves the league. Even though I know I am overtaxing the patience of some int his thread and on this topic, I will answer this one last time. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, a front-loaded contract is not a good thing for the GM. Of course it is! The more front-loaded (if you have the money) the better! The longer the better! If you can go with a huge first, even two years, relative to the rest of the contract then you do have more money to assemble a team around that player. If you can manage it as young as possible then it works even better because, unlike Smith, the player will be totally undervalued later in the contract.We have all seen deals like this, which is why most leagues have some kind of "house rules" to guard against this. ZEVIN is the ultimate example of this!!! Just too much work. I am totally suggesting, backed by my assembled stats, that this rarely happens in real life (I will concede Peralta as one example). In most other cases a player's agent negotiates an escalating deal, even for elite talent well past Peralta's age, as seen in the stats. In fact the only place where values dip is potentially at the beginning of the next deal (presumably because they might not have lived up to the pricetag of the final year of the previous, which is a gamble). Yet, next one - escalates! Why... Because everyone wants to maximize their value (player, agents, player's family - except, of course, the GM and Owner of the team). That allows them to maintain and increase their lifestyle. That allows them to negotiate from a much higher number when they next get to the table. That allows them to have much higher value should they decide to walk from a lowball offer from their current team. That also floats all boats on behalf of the MLBPA! Which helps every other player int he league to maximize their value. I will never be in the (pardon the pun) "ballpark" of what pro baseball players pull down, but frankly I would never accept an iron-clad, front-loaded contract where I toil for years after the money for pennies on the dollar. But that's just me.There are any number of specific clauses and amendments, we could try and craft to deal with every eventuality (I've tried a few myself, age, service time, amount of contract, ratio of first to last year, and more), but (as seen) it just ends in circular arguments and pisses people off - which truly is not my intent. I was trying to emulate real life, using an in-game mechanism and trying to keep the rule as simple and compact as possible. Now it's even simpler, which is fine. I still maintain the 5/50 to maximize initial value of the player and prevent undervalued, first multi-year contracts, is the single most important thing in my proposal. If that flies, I will be thrilled! And I hope the game will be far better negotiating at that value in the sixth year of service. I'll leave it to others to recognize any future exploitation of the AI in options and opt-outs (or even front-loading). Everyone tries to push the envelope. I'm just happy if we can continue to trim several pages of rules in an effective way. To that end, I have some others ideas, in other areas! Too soon???From a pure investment standpoint, your money is worth more the sooner you can get it. The best example of this would be winning the lottery. I don't know about you guys but I have been testing the waters with my arbitration guys and none of them seem to be interested in a multi-year deal. In previous versions of the game, most guys seemed to be willing to negotiate a multi-year contract once they hit arbitration. To me, that seems to be somewhat of an improvement but my experience may be different than the rest of the league.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jul 12, 2016 20:02:28 GMT -5
You are not wrong Sean, provided you properly invest the money, depending on the amount and (in the case of a substantial lottery win) people generally abandon "work" after that. If you were forced to work for the ten years following your win for minimum wage, then it's not as attractive or, at best, your heart would not be in it. Don't get me wrong, I would still love to win the lottery btw!!!!!!!!!!!And we all know how well, generally, athletes deal with a huge lump sum! Why then doesn't every player agent negotiate huge front-loaded contracts on behalf of their clients, with a mere trickle of income for the rest of his contract term? Tounge-in-cheek, sort of... Maybe an "Opt-Out" should be mandatory two years into any front-loaded contract??? I think I might have proposed that at some point along the line as this evolved?
Let the player decide??
An example of how you can quite easily complicate house rules to deal with every scenario.
And I too hope the game REALLY advances in this area. I did suggest they sign a deal with Scott Boras, to go with their MLB and MLBPA affiliations. THAT would dramatically change the game. Thanks for the discussion!!
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jul 17, 2016 15:57:46 GMT -5
Can we please remove/retire FA's that haven't played in the PBL in a season or more?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jul 17, 2016 16:16:50 GMT -5
Can we please remove/retire FA's that haven't played in the PBL in a season or more? Cull the herd! I say two seasons removed just to be safe. There's lots of em
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jul 17, 2016 16:35:30 GMT -5
1600+ players in the FA pool, as of this post (and of course it will balloon next sim when the free agents file) is a lot, but not an outrageous amount - I've seen far worse.
Might also go hand in hand with the draft creation parameters. Maybe that could be trimmed a bit too? Whatever it's set at now, if done to produce "better draft classes," might be a bit much. Especially in light of 17 reworking the draft class "stars" so that the classes look much better?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jul 19, 2016 20:29:06 GMT -5
1600+ players in the FA pool, as of this post (and of course it will balloon next sim when the free agents file) is a lot, but not an outrageous amount - I've seen far worse. Might also go hand in hand with the draft creation parameters. Maybe that could be trimmed a bit too? Whatever it's set at now, if done to produce "better draft classes," might be a bit much. Especially in light of 17 reworking the draft class "stars" so that the classes look much better? I don't believe there are draft creation parameters, but the game will naturally attempt to balance out the amount of hitting and pitching. The biggest reason I championed the idea of culling the herd was because old hitters stay relevant as DH's a lot longer than old pitchers stay competitive, and if old pitchers are good they're signed, whereas old hitters who are DH's only are not as coveted. The idea being that the game considers everyone in the universe when attempting to balance out the classes and the free agent batters give the universe MORE bats than pitchers, which in turn led to constant floods of aces in every draft class, and very few hitters of note.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jul 19, 2016 22:14:18 GMT -5
1600+ players in the FA pool, as of this post (and of course it will balloon next sim when the free agents file) is a lot, but not an outrageous amount - I've seen far worse. Might also go hand in hand with the draft creation parameters. Maybe that could be trimmed a bit too? Whatever it's set at now, if done to produce "better draft classes," might be a bit much. Especially in light of 17 reworking the draft class "stars" so that the classes look much better? I don't believe there are draft creation parameters, but the game will naturally attempt to balance out the amount of hitting and pitching. The biggest reason I championed the idea of culling the herd was because old hitters stay relevant as DH's a lot longer than old pitchers stay competitive, and if old pitchers are good they're signed, whereas old hitters who are DH's only are not as coveted. The idea being that the game considers everyone in the universe when attempting to balance out the classes and the free agent batters give the universe MORE bats than pitchers, which in turn led to constant floods of aces in every draft class, and very few hitters of note. Player Creation Modifiers is what would increase the talent level in the draft pool... but lets not make any changes until we actually see another 17 draft pool. From experience, this can be very damaging if not watched very carefully
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jul 20, 2016 1:09:43 GMT -5
I don't believe there are draft creation parameters, but the game will naturally attempt to balance out the amount of hitting and pitching. The biggest reason I championed the idea of culling the herd was because old hitters stay relevant as DH's a lot longer than old pitchers stay competitive, and if old pitchers are good they're signed, whereas old hitters who are DH's only are not as coveted. The idea being that the game considers everyone in the universe when attempting to balance out the classes and the free agent batters give the universe MORE bats than pitchers, which in turn led to constant floods of aces in every draft class, and very few hitters of note. Player Creation Modifiers is what would increase the talent level in the draft pool... but lets not make any changes until we actually see another 17 draft pool. From experience, this can be very damaging if not watched very carefully Anthony obviously knows his shit way better than I, and I certainly think we should not modify any draft modifiers at all. Perhaps it is best to chill and see what we have for now.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jul 20, 2016 9:49:24 GMT -5
Sorry, when I said draft creation I did, in fact, mean "player" creation. And I too am on the don't touch anything and let the game work this out side of this.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jul 20, 2016 9:56:12 GMT -5
I could understand a bump in positional players maybe up from the default of 1.0 --> 1.05 but anything more than that you risk creating "super players"...
This happened in SBL when I took over, all player creation mods were at 1.25+ so there were dozens and dozens of super players created. Almost all of whom never flamed out.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jul 20, 2016 12:46:09 GMT -5
I could understand a bump in positional players maybe up from the default of 1.0 --> 1.05 but anything more than that you risk creating "super players"... This happened in SBL when I took over, all player creation mods were at 1.25+ so there were dozens and dozens of super players created. Almost all of whom never flamed out. I didn't ask if we could mess with a setting. I asked if we could retire players that haven't played in more than 2 years. Thought being that the game is counting these players in the overall talent pool of the game, even though they are not playing in the league.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jul 20, 2016 13:45:02 GMT -5
I really dont see how free agents would affect the players created for the draft
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jul 20, 2016 17:22:20 GMT -5
I really dont see how free agents would affect the players created for the draft See post above on the overall player talent pool.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jul 20, 2016 17:40:37 GMT -5
Im posting from my experience. Ive seen leagues with 5000 FA's have draft pools hundreds of times better than PBLs.
|
|