|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 23, 2014 22:22:38 GMT -5
No one else was giving Tom Chaulk anywhere close to the deal with the Twins. Anthony, I'm a bit confused. Normally we agree on everything except our feelings on the Patriots and Giants but today I can't figure out what planet your on. You throw an example out on Cole Hamel and use that as your example, point proven! Someone points out a PBL reference in Tom Chaulk and you say nobody was going to offer anything close to what the Twins did? That's complete hearsay and an ignorant statement to ignore a valid point to someone who has a different opinion. The Mets should come back and say your Cole Hamels doesn't count because its MLB not PBL. This is where my frustration comes in. To disagree is completely fair. To do so with so much disdain for the other side is quite bothersome. Tim, I appreciate your stance as you don't agree but at least your willing to listen to the options.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Apr 24, 2014 6:00:55 GMT -5
No one else was giving Tom Chaulk anywhere close to the deal with the Twins. Anthony, I'm a bit confused. Normally we agree on everything except our feelings on the Patriots and Giants but today I can't figure out what planet your on. You throw an example out on Cole Hamel and use that as your example, point proven! Someone points out a PBL reference in Tom Chaulk and you say nobody was going to offer anything close to what the Twins did? That's complete hearsay and an ignorant statement to ignore a valid point to someone who has a different opinion. The Mets should come back and say your Cole Hamels doesn't count because its MLB not PBL. This is where my frustration comes in. To disagree is completely fair. To do so with so much disdain for the other side is quite bothersome. Tim, I appreciate your stance as you don't agree but at least your willing to listen to the options. I stated my opinion. I don't believe anyone else was going to offer Chaulk 8 years and 168 million. I don't think that's such an off the wall statement. When he signed that deal, everyone balked at it on the forums so how is that an ignorant statement? And I don't see a problem with the team options so 5 million which is better than 0. I brought up Hamels to show that an MLB contract is roughly 25% buyout (26.666666% to be exact.) Just a reference that a buyout in MLB for an top of the rotation pitcher is around the 25%. I think the 50% is a HUGE jump and it's a lot of money. I even offered other suggestions. 1) Increase to 30 or 35 % 2) Add buyout to Player Options But instead of commenting on a few of my counter ideas, you call my statement ignorant. I'm not sure how throwing out Tom Chaulks contract is "point proven" and how that instantly makes me wrong for having my opinion. When I stepped away from the forums, you emailed me and in my response I mentioned that this was becoming too much like a job and it was becoming un-fun. I'm beginning to get that feeling again. I don't understand why we are so worried about these team options when it hasn't been a problem yet. No one has offered a 10-10-10-30 million dollar contract. No one has tried to skirt the system. There are other issues to fix before worrying about this.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Apr 24, 2014 6:26:20 GMT -5
All opinions so far have reasons for the stance taken and I've really enjoyed reading this thread, actually.
I will offer maybe we should stick to OOTP references only because in real life, both sides (player/agent and team) have their own interest at heart while using comps within the MLB industry to establish a fair price. In addition, players consult and pay an agent to be very knowledgeable and thorough when researching comps and establishing the player initial offer/counter offer and subsequent negotiations.
In my mind, what differs from this in OOTP is we deal directly with a player when negotiating a contract. The "agent" is in the background. Does anyone really know the nuts and bolts of why a player will or will not accept an offer to sign? I remember reading a recent OOTP forum post that tested contract offers, what team/player offers would entice players to sign. Do we even know if the game engine will use comparable player ratings/statistical output from other players when deciding to sign ? I am only asking these questions because to be honest I don't know.
But I think commish has raised a good point that if a team really wants a player and is willing to offer a team option, why not attach real accountability to that option. Otherwise it has an ability to game the system. And isn't that what we are trying to prevent here?
Anyways. Good discussion and points all around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 6:46:10 GMT -5
Vesting options (as currently used in PBL) are a much bigger problem than team options.
Personally, I don't much care if options are bought out at 25, 33 or 50%, although I don't see a reason to change it as we don't have a problem with them in the league, but teams giving out vesting options they know (and can control) to be unreachable, with much higher years to follow they know will be voided - now that is something that is going on.
As I said, I'm not actually against changing team option rules, I don't personally see a need to or know why it has cropped up, but the focus on them when it could be on other things is something I think is fair for people to bring up as it has been here.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Apr 24, 2014 10:31:17 GMT -5
It feels to me like the varying points of view have been pretty well represented in this thread. I move that we put it to a vote. Anyone second the motion?
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Apr 24, 2014 10:33:45 GMT -5
Vesting options (as currently used in PBL) are a much bigger problem than team options. Personally, I don't much care if options are bought out at 25, 33 or 50%, although I don't see a reason to change it as we don't have a problem with them in the league, but teams giving out vesting options they know (and can control) to be unreachable, with much higher years to follow they know will be voided - now that is something that is going on. As I said, I'm not actually against changing team option rules, I don't personally see a need to or know why it has cropped up, but the focus on them when it could be on other things is something I think is fair for people to bring up as it has been here. Great point about the vesting options.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 24, 2014 10:34:44 GMT -5
I agree. I think any more on this will just lead to unnecessary banter and argument. Point is my point of view is right and those who agree with me. Those who don't are wrong and condone cheating!! Very simple!
|
|
|
Post by Nick_BrewersGM on Apr 24, 2014 10:36:43 GMT -5
It feels to me like the varying points of view have been pretty well represented in this thread. I move that we put it to a vote. Anyone second the motion? i second the motion lol
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Apr 24, 2014 10:49:51 GMT -5
And for those who don't remember the commish has a strong sense of humor!!
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Apr 24, 2014 11:56:14 GMT -5
Pats suck!
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Apr 24, 2014 12:12:40 GMT -5
Pats suck! Yes!
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 24, 2014 13:22:55 GMT -5
Says the guys who rooted for teams who finished 7-9 and 8-8 last year....
But that's okay keep looking back at 2008 and how special it was for your G-Men. What do you think they will do with their 12th pick in this years draft?
Draft a left tackle? Maybe a new defensive end? Improve outside linebackers? look for another RB to complement Rashad Jennings? fill the void at defensive tackle? find a coverage middle linebacker since Beason is a bit weak there? find a reliable center who can develop chemistry with Eli? Tight end is a big void....
Jesus christ with so many needs I can see how they went 7-9 and are still living in the past.....
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 24, 2014 13:24:21 GMT -5
AND NOW STOP IT..... ITS NOT TIME FOR FOOTBALL.... I BEEN FIGHTING THE URGE TO STOP LOOKING AT ALL THE DRAFT INFO. I'VE DONE TOO MUCH ALREADY!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 13:27:08 GMT -5
I'd like to make the important point that I do not have an opinion Although I get where the commish is coming from, options are generally used to make offers more attractive to the AI but we rarely have any intention of honoring them - so it's kind of working the system to even include them. As long as it's one rule for everyone and we don't go back and change anything from the past I personally don't mind what we decide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 13:40:37 GMT -5
Agree with Sam. If its not obvious abuse, which is already covered in the rules, why raise the %. I also agree with other GMs that vesting options look to be being abused more often than team options.
|
|