|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 23, 2014 10:41:08 GMT -5
Nick I see your point but your proving my point. You feel a $10m buyout on $20m is too much so you won't do it and now you won't be tricking the AI into thinking the player is getting more than he really is. Now on the flip side right now your putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage because a team is going to be willing to try the AI into it and signing the player you want.
|
|
|
Post by Nick_BrewersGM on Apr 23, 2014 10:45:53 GMT -5
Nick I see your point but your proving my point. You feel a $10m buyout on $20m is too much so you won't do it and now you won't be tricking the AI into thinking the player is getting more than he really is. Now on the flip side right now your putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage because a team is going to be willing to try the AI into it and signing the player you want. im proving your point in that itll prevent people from doing it but it will also take away a tool that teams could use. Sometimes a player decreases his ratings and that team would use their options and then resign the guy for a deal that makes more sense, if a team uses the option now they are hand cuffed at paying a guy an unbelievable amount of money for nothing
|
|
|
Post by Nick_BrewersGM on Apr 23, 2014 11:07:59 GMT -5
nvm i forgot this is only for backloaded contracts. i guess im not that opposed to 50% if the salary for that option year is more then any other year than i agree it should be 50%...sorry i shouldnt speak if im not 100% with all the facts haha
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 23, 2014 11:19:30 GMT -5
Okay Tomas, I got an idea. You and a handful of others come up with all the rules you want and don't want and I'll follow them. I have suggested ideas over and over to help the league and every single one has been shot down but the veterans of the league with the excuses of how we did it in the past or how MLB runs its league. The ONLY reason a team would be against a higher buyout is because they know they take advantage of the system. Whether its as extreme as the Josh Johnson example or not.
Its quite easy to do this less noticeably as well. When a player sends their message saying I liked your offer but got a better offer from another team if you want my services this is what I require.... All you need to do right now is offer that contract, twist it around to benefit you and then you fool the AI. The AI doesn't get it!!!!
If a player says to sign with you I want this contract:
year1: $10,000,000 year2: $10,000,000 year3: $10,000,000
This is a total 3-year contract worth $30,000,000
You can revise a deal to look like this:
year1: $7,500,000 year2: $8,500,000 year3: $9,500,000 year4: $13,000,000 team option
This really is a 3-year deal worth $25.5m with a $13m option or $3.25m buyout right now. so in 3 years that player is making $28.75m
Not a bad looking deal and not one person in this league would call out the GM for this offer. The problem I have is If the team who made the previous offer was 3 years @ $10m per ($30m total) then he gets screwed over because the reality is the AI just turned down that money and in return is getting $25.5m guaranteed and his buyout of $3.2m so that 'better offer' he turned down from the other team was actually $1.3m more than your offering. However, if the buyout was 50% then the contract he rejected came in just short ($2m) than your offer and YOU DESERVINGLY WON THE BIDDING for that players services.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 23, 2014 11:31:07 GMT -5
In the example above, your not telling me as a player that the second offer is better than the first. Your taking $2.5m less in year 1, $1.5 less in year 2 and $500k in year 3. and if you do great then yeh the team picks up your $13.m option. If you play under the other deal and actually make more money in the first 3 years and play great then your going to get a deal worth the $13m at least anyways so there is no reason for a player to sell himself short. Also worse case scenario and he struggles, you don't think that player can fetch a 1-year deal worth $3.2m? and if he did that then he would of made $7.7m more in the 4 years in the league.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Apr 23, 2014 11:33:48 GMT -5
What about if the option offered is over 10 percent of highest paid contract then 50 percent must be the buyout?
Also in general when we figure out the new rules or just reaffirm the old ones for anything do you think it would be a good idea to put the rules in a thread and then make it a must that every GM signs that they read it and understand the rules like a role call?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 11:41:47 GMT -5
Okay Tomas, I got an idea. You and a handful of others come up with all the rules you want and don't want and I'll follow them. I have suggested ideas over and over to help the league and every single one has been shot down but the veterans of the league with the excuses of how we did it in the past or how MLB runs its league. The ONLY reason a team would be against a higher buyout is because they know they take advantage of the system. Whether its as extreme as the Josh Johnson example or not. Its quite easy to do this less noticeably as well. When a player sends their message saying I liked your offer but got a better offer from another team if you want my services this is what I require.... All you need to do right now is offer that contract, twist it around to benefit you and then you fool the AI. The AI doesn't get it!!!! If a player says to sign with you I want this contract: year1: $10,000,000 year2: $10,000,000 year3: $10,000,000 This is a total 3-year contract worth $30,000,000 You can revise a deal to look like this: year1: $7,500,000 year2: $8,500,000 year3: $9,500,000 year4: $13,000,000 team option This really is a 3-year deal worth $25.5m with a $13m option or $3.25m buyout right now. so in 3 years that player is making $28.75m Not a bad looking deal and not one person in this league would call out the GM for this offer. The problem I have is If the team who made the previous offer was 3 years @ $10m per ($30m total) then he gets screwed over because the reality is the AI just turned down that money and in return is getting $25.5m guaranteed and his buyout of $3.2m so that 'better offer' he turned down from the other team was actually $1.3m more than your offering. However, if the buyout was 50% then the contract he rejected came in just short ($2m) than your offer and YOU DESERVINGLY WON THE BIDDING for that players services. So was this discussion about fairly winning a bid or the PBL not seeing enough quality free agents? We are now going all over the place it looks like. 25% or 50% buyout on a 13M contract, does that even make a difference? Why do you want discussions if I can't even disagree with you. Like I said before, why do we all of a sudden need to change the team option rules? paramountbaseball.proboards.com/thread/7083/team-option-talks-on-endWhat has changed?
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 23, 2014 11:54:54 GMT -5
So now it has to be about one or another. If a rule can be in place that benefits the league and helps a team win a bid fairly AND potentially increases Free agency which again helps the league then guess what? I'm putting that rule in 100% of the time.
You have a right to disagree. Everyone does but I will not lie and say it doesn't make me get sick of this from time to time and not want to do it. I get all these comments, complaints, suggestions on things being fair, rules, etc. and as soon as they are addressed they are immediately shot down.
I had at least a handful of ideas I wanted to implement in the league so far and I scratched everyone because I knew with it would be more issues than fun.
Does a 25% or 50% increase even make a difference? To you the answer would be no I am assuming yet your fighting against the rule change. I don't get it but yes I bet to some GMs who manage their team and are frugal then yes I'm willing to bet a $3.25m buyout is much more easier to swallow than a $6.5m buyout. That $3.25m difference can get you a good reserve, middle reliever or back of the rotation starter.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 23, 2014 11:56:58 GMT -5
As far as your link, I think the 25% of HIGHEST contract year was one of the best things we did. However, I do think we can improve upon the rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 12:06:21 GMT -5
So now it has to be about one or another. If a rule can be in place that benefits the league and helps a team win a bid fairly AND potentially increases Free agency which again helps the league then guess what? I'm putting that rule in 100% of the time. You have a right to disagree. Everyone does but I will not lie and say it doesn't make me get sick of this from time to time and not want to do it. I get all these comments, complaints, suggestions on things being fair, rules, etc. and as soon as they are addressed they are immediately shot down. I had at least a handful of ideas I wanted to implement in the league so far and I scratched everyone because I knew with it would be more issues than fun. Does a 25% or 50% increase even make a difference? To you the answer would be no I am assuming yet your fighting against the rule change. I don't get it but yes I bet to some GMs who manage their team and are frugal then yes I'm willing to bet a $3.25m buyout is much more easier to swallow than a $6.5m buyout. That $3.25m difference can get you a good reserve, middle reliever or back of the rotation starter. It doesn't have to be about one or another. It's just that I was reacting to the lack of quality free agents part and not fairly winning a bid. What has been shot down exactly? As far as I remember I am not able to shoot down anything. You are the one who makes the final decisions. I am just stating that I think there are more important issues that need to be addressed. You came up with the Josh Johnson example which was from a period where we didn't even had buyouts or had them be mandatory. The discussions we are having now are discussions we had more than five seasons ago. I was just wondering what has changed since that ruling was made? Since that ruling was made I've never come across an outrageous contract or someone who I felt was taking advantage of the OOTP engine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 12:12:42 GMT -5
You have a right to disagree. Everyone does but I will not lie and say it doesn't make me get sick of this from time to time and not want to do it. I get all these comments, complaints, suggestions on things being fair, rules, etc. and as soon as they are addressed they are immediately shot down. I am sorry you feel this way, but I understand. I can't imagine how it must be to keep 32 GM's satisfied. Everyone is very passionate about the PBL, we all have our opinions. You have the final say though, of course, and you can't keep everyone happy. We all understand that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 12:26:48 GMT -5
When the 25% rule was enacted, I argued that we should just limit option year variance with the rest of the contract. I still believe that.
But the truth is that I don't really see a problem with options at this point. If they are being exploited, it is not out of hand and increasing the percentage won't change anything. The percentage necessary to prevent exploitation approaches the point where team options just become unused.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Apr 23, 2014 14:49:22 GMT -5
Oh the JJ deal. Atleast it's been long enough where they don't even remember it was me who signed him, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Apr 23, 2014 16:21:15 GMT -5
I had at least a handful of ideas I wanted to implement in the league so far and I scratched everyone because I knew with it would be more issues than fun. Why don't we prioritize a list and then address each one beginning with the highest priority issue? Once we resolve the issue, we move on to the next one. If we don't address every item on the list we carry over to the next off-season. Is it possible use the poll feature to post a list of options and have GM's who vote rank the options in order of importance? If so we could use a poll to assemble the list of priorities with, say, a 24 hour window in which to vote. GM's who vote influence the list of priorities. Personally, I believe defining a penalty system for non-compliance with the positive budget room requirement should be the top priority. For me, other possibilities would be secondary. This discussion about team options is interesting, but I live within the current rule and, if it is revised, I will adapt. I use team options quite a bit, but I do so to have some flexibility in case a player suffers a sharp decline in talent. I haven't considered gaming the system by offering contracts with annual salaries that fluctuate wildly from one year to the next, so I do not consider this a major issue.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Apr 23, 2014 20:04:54 GMT -5
Just sitting down at the PC and you guys have a novel going here. So far, I haven't read an overwhelming majority against the team option 50% hike. Only a handful in fact. For the record, I'm for anything that drives fairness and integrity across the league. off the record, I hate having too many house rules, which are time consuming to police. A rules committee could be a solution on some level, to ensure everything is monitored properly. I like the idea of a team option being worth 50% of the highest yearly salary across the length of the contract. That way, you can't front-load/back-load/middle-load a contract. For those saying it isn't a problem, might be missing the point. Putting fair controls in place is good at anytime in my book, current-problem or not. IMHO of course.
|
|