Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG17EASY
With respect to the bold part above, are the players who are making the "outrageous" demands all eventually signing, or are some of them going unsigned and essentially sitting out a year? I'm guessing no, based on what I remember reading. Assuming that's correct, do you really need to edit the original demands, or would it solve your problem to have all offers remain on the table so they're still valid when the players lower their demands?
|
It depends.
Sometimes the player eventually signs for, say, $5 million, which then frustrates the GM or GMs of different teams who had spent a previous part of Free Agency trying to pay the player $8 million but couldn't get him to listen.
Some players used to sit out for an entire season. Even once their demands had dropped to an acceptable range, the teams that had begun Free Agency as interested parties had already filled the hole in their roster with another player. To fix the "storyline" aspect of this problem we added foreign leagues so that these players that were now without suitors at least had a place to go play baseball. This also fixed the issue where players would just retire after not playing anywhere for an entire year. (this was OOTP9 I guess?)
Other times, the GMs would have to step up and meet the player's minimum demand. This led to plenty of instances where the team who signed the player had to pay him, say, $18 million even though there was no other GM in the league willing to pay more than $10 million. Not exactly a free market system.
To answer the second part of your question, no, the ability to edit player demands was just a suggestion in case actually making development changes to the free agent demand system was too difficult. Knowing nothing about what suggestions are feasible or not, I came prepared with as many solutions as I could.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BIG17EASY
Also, not to flame the fires here, but regardless of his tone and choice of words, Wolf does have a point. Some of the posts being made do sound like some people are asking for the ability to collude against the players. I have a strong sense that that's not really what you're asking for, but some of the posts over the past eight pages do read that way.
|
I guess the problem I have with calling it "collusion" is accepting the negative connotations that come along with the word. We want the option to pay Free Agents what the
market thinks they are worth instead of blindly accepting what the
game sets their worth at. In a world without a players union and where the GMs/Owners of teams make no real money profits, labeling this as "collusion" is tantamount to libel.
To me this would be the same as calling a GM a "dirty tanker" because he refused to start a player that the game's scouting reports called "a superstar who could anchor any lineup" despite that player hitting .273/.313/.457 over the last two seasons.
The game is certainly not infallible when it comes to its evaluations.