Post by David_ExposGM on Jan 22, 2017 11:20:27 GMT -5
While not on the same level as my PBL "Post-Zevin" suggestion (and the resulting debate, which is always welcomed), in fact this is not even a SUGGESTION at all, a recent post sparked an idea.
Often we are challenged by inadequate AI when negotiating as human beings in an online league (or in a solo league in many cases too). Contracts, whether it's my opinion or just my focus, is where it seems to arise. I've argued at length about ways I would improve the negotiating skills of the AI (if I could code, I would be far more effective in offering up tangible suggestions) when it comes to both the need to really strengthen the young stud AI to not bite on long deals that take away their leverage and also strengthening escalating payouts, which should be routinely demanded by the AI, particularly for elite older players, whether in free agency or contract extensions, then deftly negotiated. However, because of the following, I'll shift focus to "option years" and specifically "vesting options".
Here's the specific passage in the specific post that immediately scorched a few of my brain cells...
** (New) Francisco Perez (CL?)
There's $35.8-Million dollars being called out here!
And the quick response from the Cubs GM...
Or I can switch Perez to starter if one of my guys falters or, God forbid, gets hurt and roll with Spensley as my closer for this season. He gives me options I didn't have last season. Maybe it works out maybe it doesn't.
Last week Perez blew a save, he's 0-1 on the season, and has an ERA of 13. So.....hmmmm
Oh and his personality says he is "tenacious and undisputed leader." I like that.
And before we go any further, please note that this exchange simply started my thought process, in NO WAY am I criticizing the actions of the Cubs GM. I think I would be on solid ground in saying we have ALL done this (maybe not to this financial degree) at one time or another (or many times).
I have!!!
What if...
When a vesting option is proposed (let's keep the focus on pitchers as that is what started my brain cells twitching but the same would apply to a position player) the AI made very specific demands related to that option(s), one example being you lock-in the player's role for the life of the contract, if not the specific year of the "vesting option"??
As it stands, when negotiating a vesting option with a pitcher, you are presented with the following basic choices to which you can attach a value that will trigger (or, if you're so inclined, NEVER trigger) the option.
- Games Started
- Innings Pitched
- Games Finished
Every league usually has a set of "house rules" (which I am always seeking to eliminate if possible by in-game mechanics, if that can be accomplished). For example, in PBL:
For both incentives and vesting options, the following rules also apply:
No vesting option can be triggered based on the number of At-Bats of a pitcher
Amount of At-Bats must be 550 or less
Innings pitched for Pitchers with Endurance greater than or equal to 5 must be 180 Innings Pitched or lower
Innings pitched for Pitchers with Endurance less than 5 must be 80 Innings Pitched or lower
No Cy Young Award bonuses for Pitchers with Endurance less than 5
No deliberately unachievable incentive clauses such at-bats for a pitcher
My idea would be that the minute you propose a vesting option to a SP (again to keep with the exchange above), the AI should demand that you also lock in the "promised role" as a SP, because it can be done now int he game, BUT this should be extended to other, as yet seen in the game, mechanisms to beef up the AI negotiating skills.
FURTHER, the AI should be coded (and this would take some work obviously because not every created game would be an MLB 162-game schedule, so it would have to scale - OR - if it could be specified in the back end, as an in-game house rule, that would work) to FIRST recognize what is being offered and intelligently respond.
Vesting year for an SP by tossing 300-innings? Uh, no! And you are pissing me off, so you get one more shot at this and the offer better be fantastic, in fact reconsider the vesting year as a guaranteed year now (or some other form of term and dollar amount) and totally in my favour!!!
Vesting year for an SP by any number of games finished, when my stamina is below maximum and nobody in the history of this league has ever pitched a CG? We are done here (and your GM reputation just took a severe hit)!!!
Vesting year for an SP by starting 95 games? You, sir, are incompetent and there will be no further discussion about my services. In fact, my agent is on the phone right now to your division rival!!!
I so wish!
But, more to the point of my discussion, as I mentioned earlier, hand in hand with a legitimate vesting offer I think the AI should "clarify" the option by negotiating the "promised role"! If you propose a vesting option for anything related to a SP, then the AI should make sure it will be locked in as a SP! Same for a reliever and especially for a Closer!
And should the scenario above play out - playing out of position with respect to the ability to trigger a vesting option - the AI should immediately...
- Kindly (and repeatedly, if needed) "remind" you (through their agent, but really just as a message) that you negotiated a vesting option and it is in the best interest of both parties that we be in a position to trigger that (especially mine)?
- And this should also be directly tied to the "personality" of the player - a confident, easy-going, type with the suggestion above - but a hot head immediately going to "11" through messages from his agent!
Should you continue to play the player out of position, your rep as a GM should take a massive hit among the players (frankly, it may very well now) so that it makes you less likely to be able to negotiate with higher grade talent in the future, for a period of time, until your rep recovers.
- This could, of course, be followed by either a polite, or more hostile, trade demand!
- It could also begin to trigger a downturn in fan support, again tied to the reputation of the player (well known locally, etc.).
- It could also prompt the "Owner" to become involved, in some way also based on his personality. A meddling owner, the worst kind (and assuming being fired is not an option - an entirely different discussion), might just step in and "take over" negotiations and sign him to a sweetheart deal OR may cut off any further negotiations you could have with that player, making your job that much tougher.
I also so wish!
There are infinite possibilities!
While I could break this down for bullpen arms and especially, of course, position players, I'll stop there. But I do think there is an idea here that will..............................likely, never see the light of day.
Oh how I wish I was in my teens again, with the life lessons, knowledge, and love of this game I currently possess and with a mind like a Gates or Wozniak (or any of the current OOTP developers/writers) when it comes to writing computer code!!!
Again, this is not meant as a slight to ANYONE, but it did burn a temporary hole in my brain and I thought I would share. And please note..........no actual proposal to PBL was ever suggested above.
Often we are challenged by inadequate AI when negotiating as human beings in an online league (or in a solo league in many cases too). Contracts, whether it's my opinion or just my focus, is where it seems to arise. I've argued at length about ways I would improve the negotiating skills of the AI (if I could code, I would be far more effective in offering up tangible suggestions) when it comes to both the need to really strengthen the young stud AI to not bite on long deals that take away their leverage and also strengthening escalating payouts, which should be routinely demanded by the AI, particularly for elite older players, whether in free agency or contract extensions, then deftly negotiated. However, because of the following, I'll shift focus to "option years" and specifically "vesting options".
Here's the specific passage in the specific post that immediately scorched a few of my brain cells...
Chicago Cubs
** (New) Francisco Perez (CL?)
- $17.9 Mill through 2041.
- $17.9 Mill vesting option in 2042 after 160 IP.
- $17.9 Mill vesting option in 2043 after 160 IP.
- I think I almost see what the Cubbies are playing at here. You take a one year salary hit with Perez, but make him your Closer instead of Starter to guarantee his option doesn’t vest. But if that’s the move, why claim him off waivers to begin with?
There's $35.8-Million dollars being called out here!
And the quick response from the Cubs GM...
Another awesome writeup. Love this stuff! So here is my thinking on Perez and why I claimed him off waivers. Initially I needed him as a starter and he was a 4-star overall guy so I claimed him. But then I played around with his "set position" by changing it from starter to closer and he became a 4.5-star overall guy and his stuff improved from 7 to 8. I had no closer and so I thought, "BINGO" here is my closer. He has great stuff, movement, and control ratings plus he just became a 4.5 star guy with the position switch! I was going to have to spend $$ on a closer anyway and here was maybe an elite one, according to his ratings. The bonus was, if he doesn't perform well 1) I have Spensley who closed for LAA and 2) I only have to live with him and his contract for one season (he won't meet the 160 IP to vest). Also, I have a closer coming, Carlos Montano, but he is a season away probably so maybe Perez is a placeholder for Montano.
Or I can switch Perez to starter if one of my guys falters or, God forbid, gets hurt and roll with Spensley as my closer for this season. He gives me options I didn't have last season. Maybe it works out maybe it doesn't.
Last week Perez blew a save, he's 0-1 on the season, and has an ERA of 13. So.....hmmmm
Oh and his personality says he is "tenacious and undisputed leader." I like that.
And before we go any further, please note that this exchange simply started my thought process, in NO WAY am I criticizing the actions of the Cubs GM. I think I would be on solid ground in saying we have ALL done this (maybe not to this financial degree) at one time or another (or many times).
I have!!!
What if...
When a vesting option is proposed (let's keep the focus on pitchers as that is what started my brain cells twitching but the same would apply to a position player) the AI made very specific demands related to that option(s), one example being you lock-in the player's role for the life of the contract, if not the specific year of the "vesting option"??
As it stands, when negotiating a vesting option with a pitcher, you are presented with the following basic choices to which you can attach a value that will trigger (or, if you're so inclined, NEVER trigger) the option.
- Games Started
- Innings Pitched
- Games Finished
Every league usually has a set of "house rules" (which I am always seeking to eliminate if possible by in-game mechanics, if that can be accomplished). For example, in PBL:
For both incentives and vesting options, the following rules also apply:
No vesting option can be triggered based on the number of At-Bats of a pitcher
Amount of At-Bats must be 550 or less
Innings pitched for Pitchers with Endurance greater than or equal to 5 must be 180 Innings Pitched or lower
Innings pitched for Pitchers with Endurance less than 5 must be 80 Innings Pitched or lower
No Cy Young Award bonuses for Pitchers with Endurance less than 5
No deliberately unachievable incentive clauses such at-bats for a pitcher
My idea would be that the minute you propose a vesting option to a SP (again to keep with the exchange above), the AI should demand that you also lock in the "promised role" as a SP, because it can be done now int he game, BUT this should be extended to other, as yet seen in the game, mechanisms to beef up the AI negotiating skills.
FURTHER, the AI should be coded (and this would take some work obviously because not every created game would be an MLB 162-game schedule, so it would have to scale - OR - if it could be specified in the back end, as an in-game house rule, that would work) to FIRST recognize what is being offered and intelligently respond.
Vesting year for an SP by tossing 300-innings? Uh, no! And you are pissing me off, so you get one more shot at this and the offer better be fantastic, in fact reconsider the vesting year as a guaranteed year now (or some other form of term and dollar amount) and totally in my favour!!!
Vesting year for an SP by any number of games finished, when my stamina is below maximum and nobody in the history of this league has ever pitched a CG? We are done here (and your GM reputation just took a severe hit)!!!
Vesting year for an SP by starting 95 games? You, sir, are incompetent and there will be no further discussion about my services. In fact, my agent is on the phone right now to your division rival!!!
I so wish!
But, more to the point of my discussion, as I mentioned earlier, hand in hand with a legitimate vesting offer I think the AI should "clarify" the option by negotiating the "promised role"! If you propose a vesting option for anything related to a SP, then the AI should make sure it will be locked in as a SP! Same for a reliever and especially for a Closer!
And should the scenario above play out - playing out of position with respect to the ability to trigger a vesting option - the AI should immediately...
- Kindly (and repeatedly, if needed) "remind" you (through their agent, but really just as a message) that you negotiated a vesting option and it is in the best interest of both parties that we be in a position to trigger that (especially mine)?
- And this should also be directly tied to the "personality" of the player - a confident, easy-going, type with the suggestion above - but a hot head immediately going to "11" through messages from his agent!
Should you continue to play the player out of position, your rep as a GM should take a massive hit among the players (frankly, it may very well now) so that it makes you less likely to be able to negotiate with higher grade talent in the future, for a period of time, until your rep recovers.
- This could, of course, be followed by either a polite, or more hostile, trade demand!
- It could also begin to trigger a downturn in fan support, again tied to the reputation of the player (well known locally, etc.).
- It could also prompt the "Owner" to become involved, in some way also based on his personality. A meddling owner, the worst kind (and assuming being fired is not an option - an entirely different discussion), might just step in and "take over" negotiations and sign him to a sweetheart deal OR may cut off any further negotiations you could have with that player, making your job that much tougher.
I also so wish!
There are infinite possibilities!
While I could break this down for bullpen arms and especially, of course, position players, I'll stop there. But I do think there is an idea here that will..............................likely, never see the light of day.
Oh how I wish I was in my teens again, with the life lessons, knowledge, and love of this game I currently possess and with a mind like a Gates or Wozniak (or any of the current OOTP developers/writers) when it comes to writing computer code!!!
Again, this is not meant as a slight to ANYONE, but it did burn a temporary hole in my brain and I thought I would share. And please note..........no actual proposal to PBL was ever suggested above.