|
Post by David_ExposGM on Feb 8, 2015 9:57:06 GMT -5
I was going to include this in the World Series thread, but decided to place it here instead. I'm not sure if it has been offered as a solution before, so forgive me if it has. I would like to offer an extremely simple suggestion for the negotiation of extensions.I think we can all agree that the humans can baffle the AI 99.999% of the time when negotiating with the game, especially when the negotiations are effectively "closed", as in you against the AI, in an extension situation. And I also think that there is a little more leeway when that negotiation takes place in free agency because the AI has the ability to at least "choose" from several contract offers and then make it's decision. I am a newbie to PBL. I do support the inclusion of Zevin as a "house rule" unique to PBL and certainly have had some engaging conversations with him during my negotiations for a couple of Angels this past (my first partial) season. But I also think that having Zevin effectively negotiating with himself. Not to single out Derek, but the optics are magnified (in my opinion) when he also manages the second largest payroll and seventh largest budget team in the Red Sox. If he were GM of the Milwaukee Brewers (not to single out their GM either) but he would have one hand tied behind his back in negotiating extensions with himself - at least at this point in the history of the PBL (and it is a fluid thing of course). And it could be worse, he could be GM of the bloated Yankees, so there's that!! I have suggested elsewhere, and others have too, that we use comparable salaries and players, have others stand in for Zevin when negotiating with Derek, try to develop some kind of formula and other seemingly complicated scenarios to get around the "extension" issue. I would like to suggest, for debate, that extensions merely be a take it or leave it proposition in-game! When you seek an extension you "take or leave" the player offer extended in-game at that point in time, or try again at another time, WITHOUT any negotiation at all!It's simple. It's EASILY verifiable by Derek/Zevin as Commissioner. - You ask your player for an extension - You like what you see and can live with the extension (and if not, nothing at that point happens and you try again later) - You ask the Commissioner to CONFIRM the extension offered in-game (he should see the same thing and easily/quickly agree) - You then, after you both see the same thing in-game, SUBMIT that extension in-game! And it also utilizes the game as coded so there would be variability built-in. - Like the timing of when you ask for the extension - it does change from time to time - Like the mood of the player refusing to negotiate, they can also evaluate what number they will sign with your team - Like the quality of your roster, market, fans and team in general *** I DO NOT know how the online game operates from the standpoint of Commissioner BUT if Derek currently has or can appoint an Assistant Commissioner, with all of the same rights to the back end of the game he enjoys, that Asst Comm could confirm Derek's players extension offers in-game. While that would be simplest and preferable, failing that Derek's could simply post a screenshot of his player's extension offer for the rest of us to see (to remain transparent) whenever he is seeking a player extension and then just submit that offer-in-game. Again it is a SIMPLE solution, if imperfect, for extensions ONLY in this case. I think it might put poor Zevin's firm out of business, but if it simplifies, makes process as impartial and transparent as possible and levels the playing field at least from a "use of the game mechanism itself" standpoint, then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Feb 8, 2015 12:40:28 GMT -5
We have had conversations in the past in which I led for some different options and ways to handle contract extensions. The 'take it or leave it' method was one I never considered and I'm not against it but I also need to process the idea of it and see how I really feel. I'm looking forward to more replies as most in the league are smarter at this than I am so different view points are going to be helpful.
One idea that I suggested was holding off until the final month of the regular season because extensions become more realistic from players. They know how the team is performing and they ask for more money at this point than they do any other time of the year.
I will say its a unique idea but one I think some might deem unfair to the team. There is no perfect solution and one of the issues that could come up here is one of the reasons we started Zevin in the first place. I'll use two players that I think were part of the debate before. Steve Walton a shortstop who had very good ratings, was sharp defensively and posted good numbers. He signed a 5 year extension for $68 million ($13.6 AAV). Allen Bell on the Expos at the time was in the final year of his contract and could of been locked up for about $10 million over 3 years ($3.3AAV). The difference in these guys performance, age, intangibles were comparable across the board. I don't think a low greed rating compared to normal would make a player accept $10m per season less.
The issue wasn't just how easy it was to manipulate the AI. Look at what past Red Sox GM did with Will Taylor and Bob Phillips. That should of been illegal and it happened across the board. When I took over Boston I almost traded them away because I didn't like it. The problem is that the AI in OOTP isn't consistent.
I do use a formula for extensions. I look at how a player stacks up against his peers at his position. I also find the most comparable and look at their salary and how they got it (free agency, arbitration, extension) and then determine in what range should they be in. I use age as another parameter. 35 is the prime number I found for the league. If a player is in free agency around the age of 30-32 I try to lock player up in a 3-5 year extension to bring him to 35 which I think with the aging factor in the PBL, allows the player to get one more good contract. We have 8 players in the PBL over 40 who are signed to ML contracts, 16 players ages 38 or 39 as well. The amount of players 35-37 is very large so those 35 year old free agents can seek out a 2,3,4 year deal with teams comfortable knowing they will be talented enough to honor the contract.
In the case of Alex Becerra, I would prefer not to deal with it myself because it doesn't make me comfortable, hell part of me hates winning games in the playoffs but at same time I think I could of gotten a better deal. Becerra signed for 3 years to bring him to 35 (in line for one more contract). The next 3 years he is going to make $17.9m each year. There are only three first basemen in the league signed to an extension making more money: Kwan-Cheol Nang (4 yrs @ $64m which is an AAV of $16m per season.) expiring at age 33 Kevin Sparks (6 yrs @ $108m which is an AAV of $18m per season.) guaranteed salary through age 35, 2 team options @ highest amount on contract Francisco Gonzalez (5 yrs @ $85m which is an AAV of $17m per season) - expiring at age 35, will be getting one more deal.
I don't think Becerra is better than any one of those guys but an argument can be made he isn't worse and he's now the second highest paid AAV 1B by $100k. This isn't a defense of the Becerra deal as its more showing that I did follow a formula in these extensions to make it fair to all the guys and show the system we have in place does have flaws (timely responses probably the biggest) but our system has provided a much bigger benefit to the PBL so far.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Feb 8, 2015 12:41:21 GMT -5
BTW, I love the initiative to come up with ideas on making the PBL better and more fluid especially the new guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 17:18:08 GMT -5
I was reading the features for OOTP16 and it sounds like they've made an effort to address this issue, so it may end up being fixed for us. That said, I just offered two extensions where I offered more than the player actually wanted so that I could bet them past Zevin, so from a personal standpoint, I like this idea.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Feb 8, 2015 17:34:53 GMT -5
I'm fine with the solution posted here. However. .. Not sure if that accomplishes much. You can get a pretty team friendly deal by just taking what they offer.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Feb 8, 2015 19:16:44 GMT -5
I think the idea presented here is important for our league growth. Keep the ideas coming! That said, I do not think the idea's application will work in OOTP. And that is not to suggest in any way I do not like the idea. The game isn't consistent enough to get it right as a Zevin will. To be expected of course. AI vs. human intelligence in what we want to accomplish league-wide just won't win. We should have a Zevin for the NL and a Zevin for the AL. Derek handles any NL extensions. And someone volunteers/is appointed by commish to handle the AL extensions. The criteria is Derek's formula above. I would absolutely volunteer to help in this capacity to keep the human element in there. Just a thought and sorry to hi-jack David.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Feb 10, 2015 10:37:49 GMT -5
I think the idea presented here is important for our league growth. Keep the ideas coming! That said, I do not think the idea's application will work in OOTP. And that is not to suggest in any way I do not like the idea. The game isn't consistent enough to get it right as a Zevin will. To be expected of course. AI vs. human intelligence in what we want to accomplish league-wide just won't win. We should have a Zevin for the NL and a Zevin for the AL. Derek handles any NL extensions. And someone volunteers/is appointed by commish to handle the AL extensions. The criteria is Derek's formula above. I would absolutely volunteer to help in this capacity to keep the human element in there. Just a thought and sorry to hi-jack David. I love a volunteer! And I would welcome the idea of having a second Zevin (let's poll for agent names if we go that route). Not to beat it into the ground, my original suggestion of "take it or leave it" was merely to: a) "simplify" the process b) leave it in-game c) probably speed up the process as well because it's simply a double-check on the part of Zevin (and/or new guy) to confirm the offer in-game and then give a go ahead! This does not reflect on free agent offers at all. And while I do agree that the game is not consistent enough in this area, I think that it's because the game is accounting for a lot of variables when a possible extension candidate submits his contract proposal. a) Team record - Extensions are easier imho when you aRE THE GM of a WINNER (which is in your hands of course) b) Position strength - I truly believe if you are stacked at a position a player may think twice about re-signing c) Player mood - If the moos is not good, then the likelihood of an extension drops d) Player personality - Some may just say no thanks and go to free agency! That can be a combination of 1,2, 3 & 4. e) ...and more We currently go with the "I'm going to test FA" as a reason you cannot sign an extension in-game with a player and I would suggest that is the "most drastic" game mechanic outcome. I am merely saying that using the in-game extension proposal as "take it or leave it" is just an extension of that and would still maintain the integrity of the game. Plus if OOTP does make great strides in the version 16 in this area, we're already a step closer to simply using in-game anyway (without the "house rules" Zevin). Just offering as a suggestion. I am fine with any outcome. And it appears we now have THREE to evaluate: 1) Status Quo - Commish = Zevin 2) Two player agents for AL and NL (working together obviously) 3) My "take it or leave it" with just a double-check from Zevin and/or second agent How do we determine a solution/outcome??
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Feb 10, 2015 11:14:21 GMT -5
David. ... as someone else mentioned, I love that you are thinking outside the box and working to solve an issue.
But I just still don't think it solves the issue. I am just fine returning extensions to AI. But the majority are not because they are too team friendly. In your plan. ..they will still be too team friendly, so it would fail to accomplish the primary goal.
Let's look at my 2B as an example:
I signed Jesus Vasquez as a FA for 1.5 mil before last year, and it proved to be quite a steal. I won't bore with too many stats, but he hit about 300 for me, with like 44 doubles, rarely K's and plays super D. Derek (Zevin) and I had LONG negotiations... Derek wanting about 7 mil per for his client. I felt that was too steep because, Afterall, I did just pull him off the FA heap for spare change the year prior. Back and forth we went for a jillion offers and counter offers. .. and it was only after the CEI to Julius Turner that I decided to act on Zevin most recent offer. ..as turner's injury cleared money.
But here is the kicker. .. at ANY time, I could have accepted the player offer in game for 2 or 3 years at 1.5 mil. ..the same amount I got him for in FA. Now. ..Zevin and I may not agree on fair value for this player, but 1.5 mil per year is STEALING, particularly after the year he just posted for me. But that's what I could have had. I ALWAYS check on what a player wants for extension regularly and then wait to knock on Zevin door when the price is lower, lol.
So. .. we can argue how big of a problem the in game extensions are, sure. Personally. ..I think Zevin has really added something good to the league, and I am fine with it as long as we finally get serious about a gm from the NL doing the AL extensions. If we do that. .. I like the concept of Zevin for what it adds.
Your plan is more simple, and I love simple. I love simple so much that I am personally fine if we go back to letting the game do extensions. That being said. .. Being required to take our leave the first offer will NOT prevent the team UBER FRIENDLY contact extensions that Zevin was designed to stop.
My 2B is proof of that, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Feb 10, 2015 11:36:05 GMT -5
I agree with David. .. let's not leave this hanging into the new season again.
Fin offered to do AL extensions. I propose we allow a week or so for other NL members to volunteer, and then Derek should pick one and they can then calibrate together for consistency.
As we now have at least one volunteer. .. let's please make a decision here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 14:02:12 GMT -5
I would much prefer Derek doing the AL, consistency is key and having two different Zevin's is crazy to me.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Feb 10, 2015 14:14:51 GMT -5
I agree with Rob. Maybe one person who Derek agrees with his extensions on is fair. That means hes not agreeing to his own. I really like the idea of consistency and not having a specific agent for each league.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Feb 10, 2015 14:51:52 GMT -5
David. ... as someone else mentioned, I love that you are thinking outside the box and working to solve an issue. But I just still don't think it solves the issue. I am just fine returning extensions to AI. But the majority are not because they are too team friendly. In your plan. ..they will still be too team friendly, so it would fail to accomplish the primary goal. Let's look at my 2B as an example: I signed Jesus Vasquez as a FA for 1.5 mil before last year, and it proved to be quite a steal. I won't bore with too many stats, but he hit about 300 for me, with like 44 doubles, rarely K's and plays super D. Derek (Zevin) and I had LONG negotiations... Derek wanting about 7 mil per for his client. I felt that was too steep because, Afterall, I did just pull him off the FA heap for spare change the year prior. Back and forth we went for a jillion offers and counter offers. .. and it was only after the CEI to Julius Turner that I decided to act on Zevin most recent offer. ..as turner's injury cleared money. But here is the kicker. .. at ANY time, I could have accepted the player offer in game for 2 or 3 years at 1.5 mil. ..the same amount I got him for in FA. Now. ..Zevin and I may not agree on fair value for this player, but 1.5 mil per year is STEALING, particularly after the year he just posted for me. But that's what I could have had. I ALWAYS check on what a player wants for extension regularly and then wait to knock on Zevin door when the price is lower, lol. So. .. we can argue how big of a problem the in game extensions are, sure. Personally. ..I think Zevin has really added something good to the league, and I am fine with it as long as we finally get serious about a gm from the NL doing the AL extensions. If we do that. .. I like the concept of Zevin for what it adds. Your plan is more simple, and I love simple. I love simple so much that I am personally fine if we go back to letting the game do extensions. That being said. .. Being required to take our leave the first offer will NOT prevent the team UBER FRIENDLY contact extensions that Zevin was designed to stop. My 2B is proof of that, I think. Yours is certainly a good argument and example of one scenario of accepting what the AI offers being a bit too low. As I mentioned, you have a great team (division title) and I have found that players generally ask for slightly less to stay with a winner (which I would argue would be expected at times from some players - home town discount, want to win, etc.) depending again on their personality. In your case a player that has NORM greed (V.LOW Loyalty too, which is kind of odd, but...). I can offer another scenario. I have ZIP on the Angels right now, worst team in the league, let alone division, and just to have some infield I tried to extend 2B/3B Mathis Maillot this past season after a trade with Montreal (to capitalize on obtaining the, admittedly old for a re-build, asset). He initially asked for 4yrs@7-mil (which I did try to do but the Zevin negotiation got a little screwed up at the time). When Zevin did check in-game, AND after I had traded away a few more semi-decent pieces, he had reverted to NO, going to try FA! Sorry! Yikes! He did come around however and then asked for (I recall) 5@9-mil. I waited. Then it went to 7 or 8@10mil. So, rightly or wrongly - time will tell - I eventually negotiated a 2@9-mil (plus a PLAYER option of 9-mil - so he can leave if he wants to, on his terms). That gives me a player and/or asset for trade moving forward and gives him one more shot at a payoff in FA later. He too would probably have gone for 4@1.5 too for a division champ and potential ring in the next couple of years!!! Having said that - THAT is the price you pay having those two types of teams (Good vs Brutal). And the strategy to get to where you want to go is certainly different in those team cases and even more with individual player cases. I'm sure 10 out of 10 could argue one way or the other being right...and actually be pretty much right! Just was trying to make things simpler, use the game mechanism and remove any of the human debate on whether Zevin is being to tough on some and not enough on others (particularly with himself, which will always be up for debate I'm sure). Great discussion! And I'm good with any of the three options. Just thought I would raise this one. And certainly will again IF OOTP16 comes through with positive advances in this area!!! And yes, just want to nail down a decision (however that is accomplished) too because I hate hearing that we talked about it, but nothing was ever decided, when Zevin's name next comes up in vain (if it ever does - I think it truly is a unique way of handling things)!
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Feb 10, 2015 17:52:15 GMT -5
David. ... as someone else mentioned, I love that you are thinking outside the box and working to solve an issue. But I just still don't think it solves the issue. I am just fine returning extensions to AI. But the majority are not because they are too team friendly. In your plan. ..they will still be too team friendly, so it would fail to accomplish the primary goal. Let's look at my 2B as an example: I signed Jesus Vasquez as a FA for 1.5 mil before last year, and it proved to be quite a steal. I won't bore with too many stats, but he hit about 300 for me, with like 44 doubles, rarely K's and plays super D. Derek (Zevin) and I had LONG negotiations... Derek wanting about 7 mil per for his client. I felt that was too steep because, Afterall, I did just pull him off the FA heap for spare change the year prior. Back and forth we went for a jillion offers and counter offers. .. and it was only after the CEI to Julius Turner that I decided to act on Zevin most recent offer. ..as turner's injury cleared money. But here is the kicker. .. at ANY time, I could have accepted the player offer in game for 2 or 3 years at 1.5 mil. ..the same amount I got him for in FA. Now. ..Zevin and I may not agree on fair value for this player, but 1.5 mil per year is STEALING, particularly after the year he just posted for me. But that's what I could have had. I ALWAYS check on what a player wants for extension regularly and then wait to knock on Zevin door when the price is lower, lol. So. .. we can argue how big of a problem the in game extensions are, sure. Personally. ..I think Zevin has really added something good to the league, and I am fine with it as long as we finally get serious about a gm from the NL doing the AL extensions. If we do that. .. I like the concept of Zevin for what it adds. Your plan is more simple, and I love simple. I love simple so much that I am personally fine if we go back to letting the game do extensions. That being said. .. Being required to take our leave the first offer will NOT prevent the team UBER FRIENDLY contact extensions that Zevin was designed to stop. My 2B is proof of that, I think. Yours is certainly a good argument and example of one scenario of accepting what the AI offers being a bit too low. As I mentioned, you have a great team (division title) and I have found that players generally ask for slightly less to stay with a winner (which I would argue would be expected at times from some players - home town discount, want to win, etc.) depending again on their personality. In your case a player that has NORM greed (V.LOW Loyalty too, which is kind of odd, but...). I can offer another scenario. I have ZIP on the Angels right now, worst team in the league, let alone division, and just to have some infield I tried to extend 2B/3B Mathis Maillot this past season after a trade with Montreal (to capitalize on obtaining the, admittedly old for a re-build, asset). He initially asked for 4yrs@7-mil (which I did try to do but the Zevin negotiation got a little screwed up at the time). When Zevin did check in-game, AND after I had traded away a few more semi-decent pieces, he had reverted to NO, going to try FA! Sorry! Yikes! He did come around however and then asked for (I recall) 5@9-mil. I waited. Then it went to 7 or 8@10mil. So, rightly or wrongly - time will tell - I eventually negotiated a 2@9-mil (plus a PLAYER option of 9-mil - so he can leave if he wants to, on his terms). That gives me a player and/or asset for trade moving forward and gives him one more shot at a payoff in FA later. He too would probably have gone for 4@1.5 too for a division champ and potential ring in the next couple of years!!! Having said that - THAT is the price you pay having those two types of teams (Good vs Brutal). And the strategy to get to where you want to go is certainly different in those team cases and even more with individual player cases. I'm sure 10 out of 10 could argue one way or the other being right...and actually be pretty much right! Just was trying to make things simpler, use the game mechanism and remove any of the human debate on whether Zevin is being to tough on some and not enough on others (particularly with himself, which will always be up for debate I'm sure). Great discussion! And I'm good with any of the three options. Just thought I would raise this one. And certainly will again IF OOTP16 comes through with positive advances in this area!!! And yes, just want to nail down a decision (however that is accomplished) too because I hate hearing that we talked about it, but nothing was ever decided, when Zevin's name next comes up in vain (if it ever does - I think it truly is a unique way of handling things)! You have valid points David, however, being in the league for a number of years (10 or 11) i can attest that it is an issue doing extensions through OOTP alone. Believe me, it was hotly contested and much debate about what to do, the fact that (rough estimate) 80% of the league is content with Zevin should speak volumes on how important he is to keeping the league realistic. I mean we were having straight studs at age 23 and 24 on Mike Trout levels taking 5 and 6 year deals for 15 to 20 mil. It was absurd. You may not know the extent of it, but just trust that while you think it is a bit odd the rest of us are in compliance because we know the alternative. I was a proponent of the septemeber window of doing extensions because that's where OOTP seems to take negotiations seriously. It is a hassle, primarily for Zevin (Derek) but as long as he's willing to do it it is for the betterment of the league
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Feb 10, 2015 17:54:53 GMT -5
also find these real life players who will take really cheap extensions because they like playing for division winners, i know most real life guys will go wherever the money takes them regardless of team prestige. It is usually the veteran guys on their last leg staying with a team for less than market value rather than guys bypassing arbitration to miss a massive payday of a lifetime because their team won the division and was knocked out in the 1st round
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Feb 10, 2015 17:55:05 GMT -5
Just a few quick notes:
Maillot would never of signed for 4-years @ $1.5m no matter what team he was on and if he did then it shows the system is truly busted.
This is still a game so I always want to do whatever is the easiest thing for the league because I work 70 hours a week, got a wife and 3 kids. I need no more work in my life but this league is something I been taking pride in for almost 5 years now and I'll do what's necessary to keep it going.
The true impact of Zevin hasn't been felt yet. The only thing he has accomplished so far was getting teams to give players more money. The impact is going to come in 2-3-4 seasons from now when because of all these extensions teams will need to decide okay I can't offer this one a big extension or that guy one because if I do I am losing a lot of core players and will have an incomplete roster. Free agency will begin to be worthwhile and not just when GMs quit and those teams lose players for lack of management.
Here is an example from my Red Sox. In about 2-3 years Will Taylor, Bob Phillips and Jose Guerrero are going to be up for extensions. Will Alex Becerra and Wang Liu locked in and guys coming up before them like Chris Bryant looking for big money it won't be possible or smart to keep all these guys so they are either going to be traded and some team has a chance to lock them up for big money OR they are going to free agency. Without Zevin and even with the new take it or leave it proposal, these guys will be Red Sox for a long long time.
If there is no elite free agents then nobody has an off-season to look forward to. I know I'm not excited looking at a bunch of depth guys.
Zevin (the name is becoming as common for me as Siri) was a trial when brought into the league this season. Some doubted the idea but have grown to like it. There are things I love about it, things I don't so much. Being a trial though means its a work in progress and I plan on tweaking some things as we head into year 2 of the Zevin experiment. I do know now we are taking more money from owners for them to buy bigger homes and yachts and putting it into the players pockets. Its working, just need to be defined a bit more and we can keep our fingers crossed OOTP eventually gets this shit right!!
|
|