Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wolf
Some players do have minimum requirements, and I disagree with any free agency system that does not account for that fact and therefore allows for the lowballing of offers. If OOTP Player Awesome J. Slugger gets an offer from a team for a fraction of his value and it's the best offer that he gets and the free agency model requires that he accept it, that's unreasonable when in reality MLB player Awesome J. Slugger would tell the offering team to take their insulting offer and put it where the sun doesn't shine.
|
I tend to agree with this and wouldn't want it either. I prefer OOTPs wholistic approach to finances. On the other hand, I don't see a problem with choice in the matter. Interesting, though, it led me to another thought which is that of extensions (and get ready -- this goes back to available budget).
How would a player, in a market determined by the GMs, have any idea what he should ask for when negotiating an extension? If the GMs are depressing the market by not using massive amounts of money, what formula or calculations would a player use to determine negotiating points for extensions. If a change, like the one they want is enabled for just free agency, couldn't it mean very few players would be able to be signed to extensions, or every player would sign because they would take his only and lowest offer.