Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayzone
In real life, teams trying to avoid arbitration is motivated by money saving incentive besides avoiding hassle. They want to get a contract with arbitration eligible players because 1) if they can get a long-term contract, then they can possibly buy out some of future arbitration/FA years and/or bind the player to a lower-than-market rate 2) if it's a short-term contract (1yr), it's just to gurrantee that the contract term is acceptable to both parties, which in OOTP sense is like arbitration estimate.
The issue here is that team are offering 1-year contracts (same duration as contracts awarded by arbitration) with much higher amount than they could've gotten via arbitration. And AI teams are doing this to probably 70%,80% or maybe higher of all arbitration eligible players. To me, AI teams are not make the right decisions for the best interests of teams, financially. And what would any sane human GM do in their stead? They go to arbitrations and get 'reasonable' valued contracts (if they can't get a nice longish term contracts signed). This gives human player an unfair advantage because the new contract AI is not making decision based on the best interests of the team. Personally, playing against such AI is just pointless.
|
While the arbitration process exists in MLB, the percentage of actual arbitration cases that are actually heard is very small. It is generally in the best interest of both parties (but moreso the team) to come to a resolution (whether it be multi-year or just a single season contract) before the arbitration process is heard, as it usually strains the relationship between the player and team.
OOTP's "arbitration estimate" number is kind of a "middle ground" which was used in earlier versions for the assigned salary for an arbitration-eligible player. While I don't know the exact formula that is used to determine the number, it should not be (at least in my opinion) used as a "midpoint" between what the player would demand and what a team would offer. Remember that some players are a lot more unrealistic with their contract demands than others. OOTP may use a formula to look at the player's statistics and their value compared to other players at the position to come up with their "arbitration estimate" number, but that may not stop a player with a high greed level for thinking that he's worth several million more.
It's a tough call where the "problem" lies or even if there is a problem. In this past offseason 46 players exchanged arbitration figures (meaning the official process began and a hearing date was set). Of those, three (6.5%) actually went before a judge. Recently that percentage has varied from as little as 5% to as much as almost 17%, but that falls in line with the 70-80% of players being signed by AI mentioned earlier, if not making it a little conservative.
I think the "problem" lies in with how strongly the AI wants to "fight" for a "reasonable" salary with the player. Ideally, if the AI is going to sign 8 out of 10 arby-eligible players to contracts before a hearing, you want those 8 to be the most reasonable offers from the best players. But what of the players who don't fit into both of those? Which is more worth it - dropping an extra $2 million on your #3 starting pitcher to keep him happy, or rolling the dice and hoping to get him at $2 million less and risking not being able to sign him long-term because you had a hearing in court where you ran down all the reasons he's not worth what he's asking for.
Just because the "estimate" sees him as $4 million doesn't mean the player won't ask for $8 million, or you won't win a case offering $1 million. If the AI is offering several million over the arby estimate for a player who had 100 AB the previous season or spent the year as a backup middle infielder, then there's an issue. But if the "overspend" is for a player who is listed as "Extremely Popular" and/or is one of the top 7 or so players on the roster, then I think it's right in line.