|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 15:45:12 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? Not really, my proposal is flat for extensions (simple) and 20% year over year front-loading for free agents. Back-loaded can be 20% year over year anytime. Your suggesting something in between? It's virtually flat over the longer term? Less math if simply flat, given this alternative. Over seven to ten years. No? And thanks for joining in Ron!!!
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 15:48:22 GMT -5
OK, question... For the purposes of creating a simple, easily-applied formula for front-loading, be it short-term (unlikely) or long-term (virtually every contract), focused more on protecting players hitting or in their prime (where that protection is needed in OOTP as the game is bad) what would you suggest that might be? Just curious how it would differ from the stuff in this thread already? THINK ZEVIN, but unable to negotiate like a human!
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Mar 11, 2016 16:22:08 GMT -5
I, too, have been watching the debate closely. My thoughts are...
I don't see an issue with either front-loaded or back-loaded contracts as long as we establish constraints that result in reasonable contracts. What is reasonable is subjective, but I believe we can reach agreement on what constitutes reasonable.
I favor the 20% limitation on year to year increases or decreases. The percentage could be a bit more or less than 20%, but this seems reasonable to me.
In addition, to mitigate the risk of an extreme variance from the first year to the final year of a contract, especially a long-term contract, perhaps we should include a clause that states that the salary for the year with the greatest amount may not be more than double the salary for the year with the lowest amount. Without this restriction, a front-loaded, six year contract that begins with a $20m salary could be reduced via 20% reductions to $6.5m in the sixth year. With the restriction, the $20m salary could only be reduced to $10m.
And vice versa. A back-loaded contract that begins with a $10m salary in year one would be restricted to a maximum of $20m in any year.
The max-min variance limitation of 100% greater than the minimum, or 50% of the maximum, seems both reasonable and easy to remember and compute. We could decide that a range of either more or less than 100% is reasonable. More importantly, a max-min variance limitation would mitigate the risk of contracts that could be front-loaded or back-loaded to the extreme.
In general, I believe we should strive to adopt guidelines that are straight-forward, easy to remember, and easy to administer/oversee. A maximum limitation (e.g., 20%) on the increase or decrease from one year to the next plus a max-min variance limitation (e.g., maximum salary 100% greater than the minimum salary) that applies to all years of a contract seems to me to support that objective. A GM would have flexibility to front-load, back-load, or otherwise vary the year to year salary amounts associated with a contract to suit a specific player and team financial circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 11, 2016 16:31:07 GMT -5
Yeah, just went back and reread. I missed the year to year aspect on the back loading. Yes, something in the middle was what I was proposing.
43/1/1 can't be allowed. I think the game may already have us covered to an extent. In years past I have had my owner step in and deny any contract proposal (FA or extension) if there was a year more than 2X the number of any other year. Not sure if that was an owner personality trait or an OOTP constant.
I think it would take care of it if we set a percentage on how far the lowest year and highest year could be apart. In my experience OOTP set that percentage at 50%. If not or if this is too much variance we could set a number. Maybe 25% ?
On the other hand we don't want to have to publish a manifest for the rules on structuring contracts. It needs to stay simple.
But is shutting down front loading to high a price to pay?
Tough questions.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 11, 2016 16:32:55 GMT -5
I, too, have been watching the debate closely. My thoughts are... I don't see an issue with either front-loaded or back-loaded contracts as long as we establish constraints that result in reasonable contracts. What is reasonable is subjective, but I believe we can reach agreement on what constitutes reasonable. I favor the 20% limitation on year to year increases or decreases. The percentage could be a bit more or less than 20%, but this seems reasonable to me. In addition, to mitigate the risk of an extreme variance from the first year to the final year of a contract, especially a long-term contract, perhaps we should include a clause that states that the salary for the year with the greatest amount may not be more than double the salary for the year with the lowest amount. Without this restriction, a front-loaded, six year contract that begins with a $20m salary could be reduced via 20% reductions to $6.5m in the sixth year. With the restriction, the $20m salary could only be reduced to $10m. And vice versa. A back-loaded contract that begins with a $10m salary in year one would be restricted to a maximum of $20m in any year. The max-min variance limitation of 100% greater than the minimum, or 50% of the maximum, seems both reasonable and easy to remember and compute. We could decide that a range of either more or less than 100% is reasonable. More importantly, a max-min variance limitation would mitigate the risk of contracts that could be front-loaded or back-loaded to the extreme. In general, I believe we should strive to adopt guidelines that are straight-forward, easy to remember, and easy to administer/oversee. A maximum limitation (e.g., 20%) on the increase or decrease from one year to the next plus a max-min variance limitation (e.g., maximum salary 100% greater than the minimum salary) that applies to all years of a contract seems to me to support that objective. A GM would have flexibility to front-load, back-load, or otherwise vary the year to year salary amounts associated with a contract to suit a specific player and team financial circumstances. I like this!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2016 18:09:21 GMT -5
I like rons view
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 19:19:37 GMT -5
I shall end the debate right here. First I would like to publicly apologize to Anthony and Sean for making them miserable with the back-and-forth debate over the past few days (just start at the beginning of this thread). I had a lot of fun with our stimulating debates... Both of them, not so much! But thank you!!! And thank you to Shane, because the essence of this newest version was what he proposed several days ago, with the addition of my 5/100 concept. Thank you too! And thanks to the input of everyone else in this debate! I am quite confident now that walking players through arbitration in the online leagues is the most important part of sustaining the MLB financial structure and establishing player value, here's my final proposal on this matter: The 5/100 Rule
Until a player, under team control, has reached 5 years & 100 days of ML Service Time, no multi-year contracts may be negotiated.
Free agent contracts may be negotiated at any time.
All contracts will have the following stipulations: 1. All team option years offered must include a 20% buyout. 2. Team, Vesting or Player option years must not be higher than the highest guaranteed year. 3. A player option year may not follow any other type of option year.
Any illegally negotiated contracts will be immediately voided by the Commissioner.
Abuse of the option year money will likely call for further rules, so negotiate wisely! Vesting years May be offered, with the following maximum stipulations:
1. Starting Pitchers a. Games Started – 30 games b. Innings Pitched – 180 innings c. Games Finished – 10 (complete) games
2. Relief Pitchers a. Games Started – 10 (spot start) games b. Innings Pitched – 75 innings c. Games finished – 30 games
3. Batters a. Plate Appearances: 500 plate appearances b. Games Played: 140 games
Incentive Clauses May be offered, and must be based on the vesting goals above, with the additional stipulation that the maximum of any incentive bonus is limited to $250,000.
Any illegally negotiated vesting option year contracts, or incentive clauses, will be changed to a number that guarantees the bonus will be obtained in every year of the contract, by the Commissioner.The vesting and incentive stuff is pretty standard right now, so do not focus on that. SIMPLEST ZEVIN ALTERNATIVE YET!
I feel confident that the game can handle negotiations provided the value has been established through the arbitration years. IF, of course, we find that someone can dupe the AI after 5 years and 100 days, then we can re-open debate on the need for further contract stipulations. Everyone can easily view these numbers to maintain watch on contract extensions, so it's easy to track. And this eliminates any debate or math involved with front and back loading of contracts and the values after 5 years and 100 days will dictate where that goes in negotiations. I've also linked to this in the first post too!
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 13, 2016 21:03:23 GMT -5
I could not leave well enough alone.And yes, I fully accept that I may be just talking with myself at this point in this thread! "No you aren't..." "Yes, Yes you are!"
I did not like the addition of the option year line under stipulations above and I would like to use 25% in a couple of different ways now just to be consistent and keep things simple. Plus, I have doubled the maximum incentive amount that can be offered to $500k. Why Not! So, the newly revised Zevin alternative. I like every new version, but this really may be the keeper, in my opinion! The 5/100 Rule
Until a player under team control has reached 5 years & 100 days of ML Service Time, no multi-year contracts may be negotiated. They may be signed to a one-year deal in order to avoid an arbitration hearing, but only in the off-season immediately prior to their scheduled hearing date.
Free agent contracts may be negotiated at any time.
All contracts will have the following stipulations: 1. All team option years offered must include a 25% buyout. 2. No contract year, guaranteed or option, may be 25% higher of lower than the first year. 3. A player option year may not follow any other type of option year.
Any illegally negotiated contracts will be immediately voided by the Commissioner.
Vesting years May be offered, with the following maximum stipulations:
Starting Pitchers a. Games Started – 30 games b. Innings Pitched – 180 innings c. Games Finished – 10 (complete) games
Relief Pitchers a. Games Started – 10 (spot start) games b. Innings Pitched – 75 innings c. Games finished – 30 games
Batters a. Plate Appearances: 500 plate appearances b. Games Played: 140 games
Incentive Clauses May be offered, and must be based on the vesting goals above, with the additional stipulation that the maximum of any incentive bonus is limited to $500,000.Any illegally negotiated vesting option year contracts, or incentive clauses, will be changed to a number that guarantees the bonus will be obtained in every year of the contract, by the Commissioner.I really am done now! Possibly...
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on May 1, 2016 12:17:31 GMT -5
Understanding this discussion was not persuasive enough to prompt change in PBL, I didn't want to let it simply wither and have been thinking about an alternative that presents pretty much the same thing in a slightly different way. Maybe this slightly different way of positioning this might resonate.
Obviously, after this, I leave this alone for the coming season (except answering any questions or responding to any posts below this of course). But I would like to raise this again at the end of 2038 to gauge any interest at that time.
Here's alternate "Post-Zevin" language to the original. Only the first part is altered, but I did keep the additional points for reference:
Players under team control may not be signed to a multi-year contract until July 1st of the season following the date of their final arbitration hearing. They may be signed to a one-year deal in order to avoid an arbitration hearing, but only in the off-season immediately prior to their scheduled hearing date.
Upon further review and on-going research in a test game, I am reversing my thought on the proposal above.
In an attempt to make this more palatable and familiar (a calendar-based proposal instead of trying to sway people to a service time proposal) I was a little too hasty. The issue with this new proposal is that ALL of the players in a given "year" would vest on the same date of July 1st. While convenient, I believe this to now be a negative.
Under the service time proposal, there are a number of factors that come into play which would make service time "counters" run at various times for most players. This would mean that players may actually, in some situations, be eligible for a multi-year extension sooner than the calendar proposal put forward above. And there would be far, far more randomness in when players reach 5 years and 100 days. That I would view as far better than a date on the calendar.
Therefore I am returning to my original proposal and stance on this concept - 5 years and 100 days!
Free agent contracts may be negotiated at any time.
All contracts will have the following stipulations: 1. All team option years offered must include a 25% buyout. 2. No contract year, guaranteed or option, may be 25% higher of lower than the first year. 3. A player option year may not follow any other type of option year.
Any illegally negotiated contracts will be immediately voided by the Commissioner.
Without going into detail, because this is an old discussion, I still maintain it's important to get players through ARB so the game can properly value them. The July 1st date (an alternate to the extra 100 days of service time) is purely arbitrary but it does get the player through half of the next season, allowing the game to further value the player while on his final arbitration contract or one-year deal to avoid that.
The July 1st date, in my opinion, also has the added bonus of focusing attention on what to do with not only players needing a contract out of arb, but it also adds challenge in that you might have to make decisions about what to do with money already on your payroll that may hinder the signing of the young elite talent. July 1st again focuses things for a month before the trade deadline for you to make changes to line up your future - trade a vet - non-tender players - etc.
It will also provide the game with the options it usually has when negotiating a contract, but further along than we provide for in the rules right now. I believe this will keep the value of multi-year negotiations higher than now. I also believe this provides more of a challenge to GM's because the elite players coming through arb will generally be a year older than they are presently, forcing you to evaluate when their peak (if it hasn't come already) will hit and then drop off. That, in turn, will cause one to think about the length of a deal for a youngster much like negotiating with a free agent of the same age or older (except he's still under your control of course).
Just another way to get to the same basic place.
I will leave this alone now and get ready for another PBL season in LA. Thanks for reading!!
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on May 6, 2016 21:56:30 GMT -5
I like the ideas in here. David, I think you're on to something
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on May 23, 2016 9:15:47 GMT -5
I'm still doing some work on my little project and have revised my rule slightly to, in my mind, bring a little more strategy into play and give the game even more of a chance to properly value young, and generally very good to superstar, talent under team control. My work has involved running an MLB-type league and following the careers of several young players through their arbitration years. I have run them through OOTP16 and then imported a backup of the original 16 file into OOTP17 and repeated the process. The results were not identical, but quite similar, which makes me even more passionate about my project. Just to clarify, the intent is not to see if the AI logic is better at negotiating contracts while players are still young (pre-arbitration and during arbitration years) BUT to simply give the game the proper opportunity to value the young players instead. Once fully valued and into their prime years I would have no problem living with most of the contracts the AI would negotiate.
Personally I think contract negotiation will never be fully developed as the variables and permutations are so great, especially when the players are young. Humans can better project/guesstimate player projections at this point. I just don't think the game can be coded to think like a human (no game can). I firmly believe the game only works with the numbers it has in front of it at any given time and has been coded to react to offer based on those numbers. When it only has a minimum salary and a "first year" arbitration (as evidenced by that same number carried through three years), I think it fails to properly factor in future success. AND, even if it did, I firmly believe that would just signal a human even MORE to do an early contract. Will it get better, certainly, but it will take a lot of work. I do hope they put max effort into this part of the game! Without getting off track, I think removing the arb estimates from the salary page would go a long way in curbing the premature, long-term contract. AND (not that I am recommending this) if you were to also turn off the OVR and POT numbers, that too would make GM's think long and hard before doing a long-term contract. But in the meantime... This rule will supersede all of my other suggestions. The Modified 5/50 Rule
Players under team control may not be signed to any contract until they have reached a minimum of 5 YEARS & 50 DAYS of major league service time. The intent is to offer them arbitration in each of their three years.
A "third year arbitration buy-out exception" can be offered after 4 YEARS & 50 DAYS (at which time the final arbitration estimate is visible). This can be done in one of the two following ways:
1) Offer the player a TWO year "bridge" contract (buying out the final year of arbitration and first of free agency) where YEAR ONE is a minimum of 133% of the second arbitration award and YEAR TWO is a minimum of 166% of the "bridge" YEAR ONE.
2) Offer the player a THREE year "bridge" contract (buying out the final year of arbitration and the first two of free agency) where YEAR ONE is a minimum 133% of the second arbitration award, YEAR TWO is a minimum 166% of the "bridge" YEAR ONE and YEAR THREE is a minimum of 166% of YEAR TWO of the "bridge".
These "bridge" contracts will be guaranteed and no option or vesting years and/or Opt-outs may be offered.
And naturally, the player must agree to whatever terms are offered. These are minimums and the player may counter or break off negotiations too.
Once the player reaches 5/50 without being offered a contract of any kind OR once a player reaches the final year of their bridge contract then only the stipulations below will apply to negotiating a new contract.
For the purposes of this rule a player under team control or a player traded while under team control will have to abide by the 5/50 rule. If a player is released or non-tendered and becomes a free agent, then the 5/50 rule no longer applies to them. The release must/will be shown in the player history.Free agent contracts may be negotiated at any time between the free agency filing date and the end of the regular season. Free agents may not be signed between the end of the regular season and the filing date.
All contracts will also have the following stipulations: 1. All team option years offered must include a 25% buyout. 2. No contract year, guaranteed or option, may be 25% higher or lower than the first year. 3. A player option year may not follow any other type of option year.
Any illegally negotiated contracts will be immediately voided by the Commissioner. And further sanctions may be imposed at his discretion.Vesting Options
May only be offered to SP, CL and starting lineup players. They must be promised one of those roles on the team and the following maximum stipulations will apply:Starting Pitchers** Promised role must be changed to Starting Rotationa. Games Started – 30 games b. Innings Pitched – 180 innings Relief Pitchers** Promised role must be changed to Closerb. Innings Pitched – 75 innings c. Games finished – 30 games Batters** Promised role must be changed to Starting Lineupa. Plate Appearances: 500 plate appearances b. Games Played: 140 games Incentive Clauses
May be offered to SP, CL and starting lineup players and their promised role must be changed accordingly. No other players may be offered incentives (strictly relievers and bench players). Incentives must not exceed the maximum vesting goals above. And the total of all incentive bonuses must not exceed $1-Million dollars.The intention of this new "5/50 Rule" is to have players travel through arbitration in order to allow OOTP to properly value them, then get into the next season after arbitration has concluded. This will allow superstar players to maximize their financial potential, prevent GM’s from taking advantage of the AI by undervaluing young superstars with long-term contracts and will, in turn, keep the value of all contracts high. I think this will also bring an often overlooked part of OOTP back into play annually, the arbitration process. GM’s will now be forced to estimate their arbitration offer. Most often the estimate seen on the players contract page will be accepted, but in some cases a decision in favour of the “player” instead of the “team” will further increase the value of a young superstar, increasing their value before any sort of contract can be signed. For example, winning an award, producing at a high level, maybe their personality will all factor into their award. I believe this re-introduces another form of strategy. GM’s will still have the flexibility to non-tender players instead of offering arbitration annually, in which case they would become free agents (usually this would be lower tier players and certainly not superstars, but again it adds a level of strategy). I feel this will also promote even more strategy when managing your team as you will have to balance the arbitration decisions of young superstars with veteran free agent contract signings, international free agent contract signings and contracts for other role players on your team. You will still be very active signing players, just not so much with young, controllable talent, until they reach 5/50. I again realize this would be monumental change for ANY league. BUT, the PBL adopted "Zevin" and that, in my mind, was an even larger change to wrap your heads around.
I have also considered simply striking out with a new league and starting with this rule from Day One, so everyone bases their decision on joining with eyes wide open and nobody feels something onerous has been pushed on them, changing the dynamic of their current league.
Just thought I would keep this thread and concept alive and share some of my ideas. It does not take a lot of research to see the big picture in all of this, simply watch the salaries page of your team annually. If you choose NOT to sign a young stud, then it's easy to track his arbitration "value" rising each season. I think it would be so cool to develop your own superstar and have his contract truly rival that of the best free agents in the league. And, dare I say, this would be a suitable Zevin replacement to keep the values of young players high AND those of the entire league also high. A good thing! Our current rule... Any player that has 2 arbitration hearings completed prior to free-agency along with 4 years+ or 5 years+ of ML service (Arbitration results must be displayed on the BNN player page for all to see) is eligible for PBL contract extensions. Any player with one or less Arbitration hearings is not eligible for a contract extension....is better than MANY of the online leagues (in my opinion). I just think it can be beefed up further to protect the young stud players and maximize their value. But that's just me... Here's an example of what some contracts may look like (these awards taken from a test game)...
Player A has arbitration awards of 3.48 - 4.6 and an estimate of 6.325 in their final year. After 4/50 you could offer one of the following "bridge" contracts:
Two years @ $6.12M & $10.16M * First is 4.6*1.33 (6.118) rounded up and note that it is LESS than the final arb estimate * Second is 6.12*1.66 (10.16) again rounded up as needed
Three years @ $6.12M - $10.16M - $16.86M * Third year is 10.16*1.66 (16.86) again rounded up as needed
In the case of the player above, a five-star, all-star shortstop, after all three years of arbitration awards he was asking SIX YEARS @ $15.1M in-game.
THEREFORE THE BRIDGE CONTRACTS ADD: A) FLEXIBILITY TO SIGN PLAYERS PRIOR TO THEIR THIRD ARB YEAR AND BUT-OUT ONE OR TWO OF THEIR FREE AGENT YEARS B) STRATEGIC CHALLENGE OF WHETHER THE PLAYER WILL IMPROVE AND BY HOW MUCH OVER THAT TIME C) FURTHER STRATEGIC CHALLENGE ABOUT WHETHER TO BUY-OUT OR GO TO THE FINAL ARB HEARING D) IN EACH CASE THE PLAYER IS TOTALLY VALUED AND THE "NEXT" CONTRACT WILL MOST LIKELY BE APPROPRIATE AND NOT A CHEESY ONE IN ANY WAY. AND AT THAT POINT, YOU HAVE TO EVALUATE HOW MANY YEARS YOU WILL CHOOSE TO SIGN THE PLAYER AS THEY ARE NOW IN THEIR PRIME!
Thoughts???
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on May 26, 2016 21:21:19 GMT -5
Upon reflection, the previous suggestion is FAR too complicated. In an attempt to try and draft a way to buy-out the final year of arbitration (I'm calling this the "Shane Clause" by the way, as he generally follows a similar structure with his young players - AND does not front-load - AND WINS OFTEN - AND I applaud him for it), I put together a formula, but let's face it...it would be a HUGE pain! So, this will be my FINAL say on this matter (I think)... Please NOTE the new use of the "Opt-Out Rule" below. And I would suggest reserving judgement of use of the Opt-Out in other capacities until we know more. The Final 5/50 Rule Modification
Players under team control may not be signed to any contract until they have reached a minimum of 5 YEARS & 50 DAYS of major league service time. The intent is to offer them arbitration in each of their three years and live with the team or player award.
Once a player reaches 5/50, the contract stipulations below must be observed.For the purposes of this rule a player under team control or a player traded while under team control will have to abide by the 5/50 rule. If a player is released or non-tendered and becomes a free agent, then the 5/50 rule no longer applies to them. The release must/will be shown in the player history.
Free agent contracts may be negotiated at any time between the free agency filing date and the end of the regular season. Free agents may not be signed between the end of the regular season and the filing date. All contracts must adhere to the following stipulations: 1. Annual contract amounts, guaranteed or option, may not be lower than the first year. 2. Annual contract amounts, guaranteed or option, may only be 25% higher than the first. 3. Only one “type” of option may be offered in any contract (Team, Player or Vesting). 4. All team option years offered must include a 25% buyout. 5. If the new Opt-Out is offered at any point, no other option years may be included.
Any illegally negotiated contracts will be immediately voided by the Commissioner. And further sanctions may be imposed at his discretion.
The intent of the first two rules above is to prevent front-loading of any kind! And, at the same time, to prevent grossly back-loading option years. If you are not comfortable negotiating a longer-term deal under these two rules, then adjust your offer to a shorter contract term.
Vesting OptionsMay only be offered to SP, CL and starting lineup players. They must be promised one of those roles on the team and the following maximum stipulations will apply:
Starting Pitchers ** Promised role must be changed to Starting Rotation a. Games Started – 30 games b. Innings Pitched – 180 innings
Relief Pitchers ** Promised role must be changed to Closer b. Innings Pitched – 75 innings c. Games finished – 30 games
Batters ** Promised role must be changed to Starting Lineup a. Plate Appearances: 500 plate appearances b. Games Played: 140 games
Incentive Clauses May only be offered to SP, CL and starting lineup players and their promised role must be changed accordingly. No other players may be offered incentives (example - relievers and bench players). Incentives must not exceed the maximum vesting goals above. And the total of all incentive bonuses must not exceed $1-Million dollars.
Any contracts found to be in violation of the Vesting or Incentive rules will be changed so that the bonus/incentive will be reached in each year of the contract.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on May 31, 2016 19:06:52 GMT -5
A little bit more research on this, probably just for my own benefit, but thought I would include this in the thread to reinforce what I am proposing and back up some of the language involved. I am NOT trying to force this on the league, but if there is any league (with the Zevin history) that might be acceptable of this "change", PBL could indeed be it. Still just a suggestion. My latest research includes tracking of several top notch MLB players (young and old) and their contract structure. - I used baseball reference
- I used the current top lists for many of these players (I am trying to protect their value more than anything, the rest will follow suit)
- I noted roughly when they would hit 5/50 (or 100) in their contract history (greyed)
- I also noted their current contract (bold outline)
- Option years on the end are exclusive to the current contract, but noted
- I did Big Papi, just for fun (and have a theory) but had to cut off his first years - dude is old!
- I included both Longoria (whose name always seems to come up when you take about not allowing signings before or during arbitration (and at least part of his is very significant for my purposes)
- I also included Rizzo from the Cubs as he too was signed way early (also very significant in certainly one aspect)
- Not sure why I left Syndergaard (and maybe a few others) in as they are way ahead of the curve of this suggestion
Enjoy the spreadsheet attached! Here's a relatively brief, but thorough, summary... Contrary to the argument posed earlier in this thread to counter my suggestion, as you can see, for great players, salaries very rarely, if ever, go down. They escalate. And about the only time there is a dip is most likely as the start of a new contract that also escalates, usually dramatically, sometimes just a little but over many, many years. To propose a rule where contracts can never be front-loaded (which I am no longer) is definitely not far-fetched. Longoria, again always raised when you speak of not allowing early signings, still increases, albeit moderately, over fifteen years until his team option, at age 37. (Not going to editorialize a lot, but this contract cannot be done in OOTP because of it's length and likely would never actually be done anyway as you could probably sign him for a flat or front loaded number - maybe even reservse his contract entirely over the ful ten years. In my mind, backed by some hard data, that's unreaslistic). Big Papi, an international signing, puttering around early and even released before becoming Papi, still increases, again moderately, every year but one (probably a new contract signing), until a team option, at age 41 - that's over 20 years in a row. And it's significant that when his contract does dip, with the team option, he is threatening retirement :-) Maybe they will tear it up and renegotiate a higher amount, to maintain the escalation! That's leverage. (Again a contract that likely never would be done in OOTP. Long before now, Papi would be on the trailing end of a front-loaded deal, regardless of his production). :-) Even the Rizzo deal, signed while on his minimum contract, escalates significantly to $11M before two even higher team options, which may be a deal when he gets there. (I would bet a buck that he would have been severely undervalued in OOTP if signed prior to arbitration. And for the full 10 years. Conceivably making a single digit annually over his entire contract. Unrealistic, as shown).
Here's the significant part of my suggestion. While it contemplates not being able to sign a contract, instead going to arb each season with controlled players, it's not an effort to prevent you from signing players (well, technically it is) but it's simply using an in-game mechanism to increase the value of player contracts through their first six years. That allows them to get to "value," after which the game can better handle contracts (not perfectly, as we can sometimes see in free agency, which is why the other rules are there, but the value will be there under my suggestion).
And, if you really take a look, walking through the grey areas (hard to see, but simply the first six years) or going through arb in OOTP looks somewhat the same. That is my intent, not trying to restrict contract signings of young, stud, players (even though that's technically what I am suggesting).
I hope that's really clear?
I honestly feel you: SHOULD see young players demand more and more money through their first years, just like IRL (thanks to an agent). SHOULD be challenged with deciding what to do with that talent, versus FA's, etc. (again, as IRL). It's not so much restricting the ability to sign players to buy-out arb years but more EMULATING real life in a way the game can more easily handle when the AI is up against much smarter human beings. 5/50 (or 100) accomplishes that by walking them through essentially their first six years, hence my use of that concept. And, don't get hung up on "every" player walking through arb an making mega-dollars. The major talent will be properly valued, but for every one of them I am sure dozens of players will simply drift through at 1.2 - 1.5 - 1.9 until they can be extended multi-year. Plus remember that I contend free agents of all types can sign at any time and for any length (the basic structure based on the rest of the rules). And remember that I am proposing "some" front (or back) loading can be entertained, but only 25% higher or lower than year one is my suggestion. Research is on my side in even suggesting that small amount, it could easy not be allowed at all and still look legitimate.Also notable is that few of these players had a combination of options and/or the new opt-out, hence my inclusion of using only one type in any agreement. I think that's a fair and, more importantly, simply suggestion to help administer new deals. I have approached this from the PLAYER (more AGENT) standpoint, of how to get the most value for the player, which plays out in the research quite obviously. You can still sign the big deals, just with international players and free agents, not the young controllable talent. This proposal will allow the game to value them, based the structure shown in my research. The only difference is that humans will not be trying to under-value them with long, cheap deals. Not sure if there is much more to add, but if I find anything, I will be back. And should this still get no traction whatever in PBL (and I respect that), maybe an entire new league with this concept going in, might be the better way to test this out! * I'll let you know when I start one.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jun 1, 2016 8:46:28 GMT -5
I'm 100% on board with the 5/50. I hope this receives serious consideration in the off season. I might nit pick a little bit and how to handle incentive clauses, option years etc. (mostly just from a lets make it less complicated perspective) but the 5/50 aspect I really like.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Jun 4, 2016 12:53:33 GMT -5
Upon further review - I reread the proposal and supporting rationale plus I reviewed the spreadsheet - I even more strongly support the proposal. Not only should it promote realistic contracts over time, the option and incentive restrictions make sense to me. Also, the rule is clearly written and straightforward with requirements clearly defined. It should be easy for new GMs to learn and for all GMs to adhere to. I, like Ron, "hope this receives serious consideration in the off season."
Thanks, David, for your outstanding work on this!
|
|