|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 12:01:43 GMT -5
And I am thrilled you have come to the 5/100 concept Anthony. Really!
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Mar 11, 2016 12:03:51 GMT -5
I was NEVER AGAINST THAT!!!!!! Ive never once argued against that so im not sure why that's even a part of this discussion with me. Im absolutely 100% against not allowing front loaded contracts.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 12:06:03 GMT -5
I was just thanking you.
Do you accept my point though that a hypothetical 35 year old, loved by the team, hitting .170 could be signed to a one-year extension of ANY amount (even a ridiculous amount) to spend your money and keep the fans and your owner happy?
Why the need to front-load a multi-year deal in that specific case is what I am missing??? Please explain?
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Mar 11, 2016 12:10:51 GMT -5
It was a god damn example. Just forget it.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 12:21:15 GMT -5
Not trying to upset you, sorry, just trying to show alternatives to front-loading in your example. But if you're 100% against not allowing front-loading to begin with, then I too will just leave this alone now.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 11, 2016 12:23:17 GMT -5
If I have x amount of money now to spend and 3 years down the road players start hitting arbitration, then why does it matter to you that I want to pay that player their money now instead of balanced every year?
I have budget room now that I cannot carry into future seasons.
In real life, any agent would tell their player to take a front loaded deal because the value of that money is worth more to the player immediately than waiting multiple years. Also, a back loaded contract would not be recommended due to that same reasoning.
I'm really having trouble understanding how you can be in support of back loading but not front loading.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 11, 2016 12:23:54 GMT -5
Not trying to upset you, sorry, just trying to show alternatives to front-loading in your example. But if you're 100% against not allowing front-loading to begin with, then I too will just leave this alone now. He's for allowing front loading and back loading...
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 14:26:40 GMT -5
If I have x amount of money now to spend and 3 years down the road players start hitting arbitration, then why does it matter to you that I want to pay that player their money now instead of balanced every year? I have budget room now that I cannot carry into future seasons. In real life, any agent would tell their player to take a front loaded deal because the value of that money is worth more to the player immediately than waiting multiple years. Also, a back loaded contract would not be recommended due to that same reasoning. I'm really having trouble understanding how you can be in support of back loading but not front loading. Hi Sean, As we three are the only ones discussing/debating this, I think Zevin will make a comeback before any of this sees the light of day in PBL. And that's fine, I enjoy the healthy debate and believe in my proposal. I hear what you, and Anthony, are saying about having the money now, I really do. In the case of a veteran player (to keep things general, say 30+ or 35+), I would totally bend to your way of thinking and believe an agent would absolutely do as you suggest and advise taking the money upfront. Skills may decline, injuries may happen, the player wants more term and money. Agreed! However, in the case of say a 26 or 27 year old, undoubtedly just off their last arb award or short-term contract, as provided for in my proposal, in their prime or approaching their prime (the type you desperately want to extend and lock up long term), I think an agent, if offered a front-loaded extension, would more likely recommend shorter term with more money or slightly longer term with flat or gently back-loaded money. Skills are increasing, injuries less likely and the player is obviously producing or we wouldn't be having this discussion, and much better bargaining power than a 35+ year old (in theory, not in OOTP of course as we all admit the game sucks at handling young player contracts). This of course does not benefit the team or GM, I concede that, it's something they have to manage very carefully and I think is the challenge of the game. But it does put the player in a better position to get a subsequent raise next extension or, always an option, just decline and test free agency. They are negotiating from a higher price if the contract is not front-loaded, especially an extension. And that, I sincerely believe, was the intent of implementing Zevin in the first place! Older - completely agree with your assessment. Younger - I respectfully disagree, from the player's perspective. Again, only we're debating this , so in light of that I would still choose my most recent compromise, which does allow front-loading of free agent offers (of any length, and really if they're a free agent, of any age) and back-loading anytime. I hear your money argument too on behalf of the team, I just truly do not believe that plays any factor in a player trying to maximize their salary long-term. Again, the intent of Zevin...keeping the player salaries up! Plus plenty of different approaches, with varying contract lengths, options, incentives, etc., exist with this proposal too, which I also consider a huge win and challenge under this proposal. Thanks again for the input and fostering the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 11, 2016 14:42:48 GMT -5
If I have x amount of money now to spend and 3 years down the road players start hitting arbitration, then why does it matter to you that I want to pay that player their money now instead of balanced every year? I have budget room now that I cannot carry into future seasons. In real life, any agent would tell their player to take a front loaded deal because the value of that money is worth more to the player immediately than waiting multiple years. Also, a back loaded contract would not be recommended due to that same reasoning. I'm really having trouble understanding how you can be in support of back loading but not front loading. Hi Sean, As we three are the only ones discussing/debating this, I think Zevin will make a comeback before any of this sees the light of day in PBL. And that's fine, I enjoy the healthy debate and believe in my proposal. I hear what you, and Anthony, are saying about having the money now, I really do. In the case of a veteran player (to keep things general, say 30+ or 35+), I would totally bend to your way of thinking and believe an agent would absolutely do as you suggest and advise taking the money upfront. Skills may decline, injuries may happen, the player wants more term and money. Agreed! However, in the case of say a 26 or 27 year old, undoubtedly just off their last arb award or short-term contract, as provided for in my proposal, in their prime or approaching their prime (the type you desperately want to extend and lock up long term), I think an agent, if offered a front-loaded extension, would more likely recommend shorter term with more money or slightly longer term with flat or gently back-loaded money. Skills are increasing, injuries less likely and the player is obviously producing or we wouldn't be having this discussion, and much better bargaining power than a 35+ year old (in theory, not in OOTP of course as we all admit the game sucks at handling young player contracts). This of course does not benefit the team or GM, I concede that, it's something they have to manage very carefully and I think is the challenge of the game. But it does put the player in a better position to get a subsequent raise next extension or, always an option, just decline and test free agency. They are negotiating from a higher price if the contract is not front-loaded, especially an extension. And that, I sincerely believe, was the intent of implementing Zevin in the first place! Older - completely agree with your assessment. Younger - I respectfully disagree, from the player's perspective. Again, only we're debating this , so in light of that I would still choose my most recent compromise, which does allow front-loading of free agent offers (of any length, and really if they're a free agent, of any age) and back-loading anytime. I hear your money argument too on behalf of the team, I just truly do not believe that plays any factor in a player trying to maximize their salary long-term. Again, the intent of Zevin...keeping the player salaries up! Plus plenty of different approaches, with varying contract lengths, options, incentives, etc., exist with this proposal too, which I also consider a huge win and challenge under this proposal. Thanks again for the input and fostering the discussion. If a total deal was 3 years 15 per year $45 mil total, you're telling me the player wouldn't want more money in the first year than the last? If you're going to get $45mil regardless, I'm taking as much money in the first year based on simple economics. It's a win/win for both the player and the team. Now, I'm not saying that $43 mil in one year and $1 mil per year for the final year is best for the league but in your examples $15 mil in the third year is not worth the same as $15 mil in year one.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Mar 11, 2016 15:09:31 GMT -5
From a pure accountancy perspective (having nothing to do with game mechanics or human nature) if you're receiving an equal amount of money front loading is almost always better. Money received immediately has a future value, in that it can be invested for interest. So if your contract is frontloaded, you actually have MORE money at the the end of the contract (than backloaded), assuming you're receiving a return on your invested salary in a bank or the stock market.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 15:24:09 GMT -5
Hi Sean, As we three are the only ones discussing/debating this, I think Zevin will make a comeback before any of this sees the light of day in PBL. And that's fine, I enjoy the healthy debate and believe in my proposal. I hear what you, and Anthony, are saying about having the money now, I really do. In the case of a veteran player (to keep things general, say 30+ or 35+), I would totally bend to your way of thinking and believe an agent would absolutely do as you suggest and advise taking the money upfront. Skills may decline, injuries may happen, the player wants more term and money. Agreed! However, in the case of say a 26 or 27 year old, undoubtedly just off their last arb award or short-term contract, as provided for in my proposal, in their prime or approaching their prime (the type you desperately want to extend and lock up long term), I think an agent, if offered a front-loaded extension, would more likely recommend shorter term with more money or slightly longer term with flat or gently back-loaded money. Skills are increasing, injuries less likely and the player is obviously producing or we wouldn't be having this discussion, and much better bargaining power than a 35+ year old (in theory, not in OOTP of course as we all admit the game sucks at handling young player contracts). This of course does not benefit the team or GM, I concede that, it's something they have to manage very carefully and I think is the challenge of the game. But it does put the player in a better position to get a subsequent raise next extension or, always an option, just decline and test free agency. They are negotiating from a higher price if the contract is not front-loaded, especially an extension. And that, I sincerely believe, was the intent of implementing Zevin in the first place! Older - completely agree with your assessment. Younger - I respectfully disagree, from the player's perspective. Again, only we're debating this , so in light of that I would still choose my most recent compromise, which does allow front-loading of free agent offers (of any length, and really if they're a free agent, of any age) and back-loading anytime. I hear your money argument too on behalf of the team, I just truly do not believe that plays any factor in a player trying to maximize their salary long-term. Again, the intent of Zevin...keeping the player salaries up! Plus plenty of different approaches, with varying contract lengths, options, incentives, etc., exist with this proposal too, which I also consider a huge win and challenge under this proposal. Thanks again for the input and fostering the discussion. If a total deal was 3 years 15 per year $45 mil total, you're telling me the player wouldn't want more money in the first year than the last? If you're going to get $45mil regardless, I'm taking as much money in the first year based on simple economics. It's a win/win for both the player and the team. Now, I'm not saying that $43 mil in one year and $1 mil per year for the final year is best for the league but in your examples $15 mil in the third year is not worth the same as $15 mil in year one. We can debate specifics of course, any number of ways. We do agree $43+1+1M is ultimate cheese!!!!! You do make a compelling argument, over three years. I am trying to craft a proposal that is both simple, hands off and keeps player salaries up. Like OOTP it's not built to handle everything, but a great and workable compromise (to me). Honestly if it's PBL Harper Clone, say 26 and just off arb, ready to hit .350 for the next five plus years, then you would not be offering a three year deal, you would go TEN...maybe... so the point is moot. But let's say it's three. Discounting cheese, and IF I bent a little (which I will not at this time) to allow 20% front or back year to year, could you live with every other PBL GM signing potentially the best hitter in the league at: $18M - $14.4M - $11.52M for three years * (not truly $45M, but back-loaded 20% from a start of $18M - you get the idea - plus math is now involved - flat is simpler)I wouldn't feel 100% happy if it's Harper Clone, but could maybe live with it. For most ordinary players OK. The number would likely be higher on Harper clone anyway? I still would feel more comfortable with $15M each year because, under my scenario, he is worth that and more in the third year and should be negotiating from $15 or even the $18, if you back-load the $45M, than negotiating from $12M. But that's a small difference of opinion. And flat is undeniably simpler to calculate.What would make me cringe however is Harper Clone being signed for: $18M - $14.4M - $11.52M - $9.216M - $7.3728M - $5.89824M - $4.718592M over say seven years IF the game actually bit on that contract of course. But someone would try it! IF Harper Clone was still producing at .300 or better at age 33 and making $4.7M? Ugh! IF the team can then extend him further at an even lower value after this deal. That's where I am coming from. Protecting the young, producing, stud players from being taken to the cleaners. You KNOW 31 other GM's will quite likely try and extend him over seven, or max ten years, if the back-loading, even at 20% year over year was allowed (maybe especially if it's allowed)! That's what Zevin would prevent and what I am trying to as well. I doubt you offer, for the VERY reason you cite above, Harper Clone an $18M x 7yrs or $18M x 10yrs flat extension. That's where the other decisions come into play. $18M x 5yrs, anticipating some decline after that? $18M x 4yrs + Player Opt $18M $18M x 3yrs and two option years of $18M $18M x 2yrs (if he'd bite) and then extend him again for two or whatever? Qualify him. Take a draft pick and he walks to FA? Flexibility, purely for argument sake. Honestly, trying to think like a Zevin. I still would hold on my last proposal, with respect, as it absolutely offers protection from cheese, without being totally perfect of course. Not even Zevin is/was perfect! Thanks Sean! Great chat.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 11, 2016 15:24:51 GMT -5
Not to pile on David. I have not contributed but I have been watching the debate closely. I held off because, as I have noted before, I am still a relative OOTP noob and generally defer to the wisdom of you all hard core players when it comes to this hard core analysis and what is best for the league.
Also, I do not presume to speak for Zevin. What I will share though is my experiences with him. My negotiations with Zevin really centered around the number of years and total contract amount. Once those were agreed upon he was consistently lenient with how I wanted to structure that contract. I can site a couple examples off the top (Arturo Rivera, Walt Bass) where taking that total amount and structuring the contract to be somewhat front loaded was a non issue at the end of the negotiations.
+1 on the Rockies comment above.
And to reiterate. No one is talking about 43/1/1. The same 20% number that applies to back loaded should hold true for front loaded. IMHO
Final thought, props David for fostering great debates on the boards.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 11, 2016 15:28:39 GMT -5
We posted at the same time. My response to your last comment is I really think that 20% guideline takes care of the issues you are concerned about. In your example, if your biggest salary year 1 is 18 million, you could not drop the final year any lower than 14.4 right?
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 15:40:48 GMT -5
From a pure accountancy perspective (having nothing to do with game mechanics or human nature) if you're receiving an equal amount of money front loading is almost always better. Money received immediately has a future value, in that it can be invested for interest. So if your contract is frontloaded, you actually have MORE money at the the end of the contract (than backloaded), assuming you're receiving a return on your invested salary in a bank or the stock market. Agreed. I still maintain that an agent/player would then generally suggest just a one year or two year high value contract, then take their chances with a new negotiation, than a long, back-loaded scenario. Unless generally a much older player. Yeah, more input!!!! Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 11, 2016 15:43:30 GMT -5
From a pure accountancy perspective (having nothing to do with game mechanics or human nature) if you're receiving an equal amount of money front loading is almost always better. Money received immediately has a future value, in that it can be invested for interest. So if your contract is frontloaded, you actually have MORE money at the the end of the contract (than backloaded), assuming you're receiving a return on your invested salary in a bank or the stock market. Thank you for reiterating my point.
|
|