Quote:
Originally Posted by swensobp
Tysok:
While I appreciate your attempt to make a logical argument, you’re talking nonsense. I’m guessing you work in the public sector where that type of backwards logic is prevalent due to a lack of a single power source. Modeling finances this way would make sense for some sort of government sim, where partisan politics makes it nearly impossible to modify a budget, or in some enormous company suffering from excess bureaucracy. However in this game you’re a General Manager of a baseball team who has direct access to the owner, IE the guy with the cash. Now you show me a company owner who would be willing to spend $100,000,000 for an asset that will last 1 year versus $8,000,000 for an asset that will last 2 years and I’ll point out to you a guy who isn’t going to have a business much longer.
A better situation would be to handle it like Football Manager. Where contacts are limited based on the projected role of the player. The fact that the owners in the game allow contracts like that is a joke and completely unrealistic.
|
I work in the public sector (though for a private company) and I for one think baseball contracts, are completely ridiculous. A-Rod, $275 million total contract value for 10 years ($27.5 million per year)? With a contract like that (along with Jeter, $18.9 million per year, and Rivera ($15 million,he doesn't even play much!), and Giambi ($21 million DH!!!) and the Yankees probably won't be in business much longer.....(I wish!)
Or how about paying almost $52 million just to have the exclusive negotiating rights with someone for 30 days (and then signing them to a 6 year $52 million contract?). And if you could not come to an agreement.....no, sorry, you can't have your $52 million back.
I understand your point. The problem is that not everything can be modeled with complete accuracy. Some design decisions have to be made. This is, after all, a baseball sim, not financial modeling software.
This is also not Football (Soccer). If contracts were limited by the role of the player, then OOTP most likely wouldn't model things like A-Rod's contract, or Giambi's contract. So to keep contracts somewhat realistic in the realm of baseball this probably would not work, as most OOTPers would be upset that the financial model did not reflect the real world. Now a $100 million 1 year deal doesn't either, but that's an unanticipated (as in, why would you sign someone for more then they are asking for) consequence of the design decision. I think player's already look at the current market and themselves and make relatively reasonable demands.
The problem you have isn't with the players, its with the Owners (and GM's). After all, what player wouldn't sign that deal (it is in their favor). OOTP gives you money for extensions and money for free agents, based on some budget calculations. These aren't that complex. Real baseball finances are extremely complex. The problem you have is that the owner allows you to do something that clearly is a bad idea (but hey, so is A-Rods contract, IMHO). So maybe an option to allow owner to void contract negotiations if they feel you are paying a certain amount over market (10%, 20%)? But what is market? Does this model real baseball? Those are more difficult answers.
That being said, I don't think anyone in their right mind would sign someone to a $100 million 1 year deal (at least until A-Rods next contract negotiation). But the team probably never anticipated a user trying to do something like that (I doubt the AI would ever try it).
So post in the tech support forum. See if you can get it logged as a bug. Markus and the OOTP team have been extremely willing to fix things in the past. But if it was a concious design decision to make the financial modeling simpler, they may not see it your way.