OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

Winnipeg59 · 05-29-2013, 10:06 AM

Whether part of the on-going updates of OOTP14 (which btw is the best version yet) or as part of the work being done to 15, I would like to propose more attention to contract negotiations.

There are three scenarios that I tend to find unrealistic and, imho, need to be tightened up so the “AI Agent” is more realistic.

1) Team Options – Offering a huge team option year (or team, then player option years), with a $0 buyout seems to dupe the AI Agent into taking a contract. In most cases (solo or online) the intent is to never pick it up, but simply to secure the player. Not only is the huge team option amount an issue, but also the $0 buyout. I would turf my agent (or at least counter with simply changing it to a huge player option instead).

2) Decreasing Contracts – I expect to see multi-year contracts offered from the AI Agent as generally a consistent amount year-over-year (say $10m-$10m-$10m-$10m) or increasing amounts (say $7m-$9m-$11m-$13m) but contracts seem to easily be structured as decreasing, in some cases radically decreasing, to again secure a player in an unrealistically team-friendly way (again imho). Examples being ($15m-$12m-$8m-$5m) or, when combined with the first point ($8m-$4m-$4m-$4m-team opt $20m). Once again my agent would be seeking a new client.

3) Pre-Arb Long-Term Contracts – Stud players seem to be able to be locked up in their initial year(s) to long-term contracts that take them from pre-arb, through arb and into their FA years for unrealistically low dollars. No agent worth his-her salt would agree to something like that, even with a modestly talented player.

I know there are likely billions of factors to consider if you try to tighten this up. And I would imagine there are that many or more opinions on how it should be tackled. But respectfully, I do think it’s an area that could use a little more tuning to make it more of a challenge (in either solo games or in online games against other human GM’s) when negotiating and to improve the game. Otherwise, again in my humble opinion, you leave it open to being gamed.

05-29-2013, 10:06 AM	#1
Winnipeg59 All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Canada Posts: 1,983	Player Contract Negotiations Whether part of the on-going updates of OOTP14 (which btw is the best version yet) or as part of the work being done to 15, I would like to propose more attention to contract negotiations. There are three scenarios that I tend to find unrealistic and, imho, need to be tightened up so the “AI Agent” is more realistic. 1) Team Options – Offering a huge team option year (or team, then player option years), with a $0 buyout seems to dupe the AI Agent into taking a contract. In most cases (solo or online) the intent is to never pick it up, but simply to secure the player. Not only is the huge team option amount an issue, but also the $0 buyout. I would turf my agent (or at least counter with simply changing it to a huge player option instead). 2) Decreasing Contracts – I expect to see multi-year contracts offered from the AI Agent as generally a consistent amount year-over-year (say $10m-$10m-$10m-$10m) or increasing amounts (say $7m-$9m-$11m-$13m) but contracts seem to easily be structured as decreasing, in some cases radically decreasing, to again secure a player in an unrealistically team-friendly way (again imho). Examples being ($15m-$12m-$8m-$5m) or, when combined with the first point ($8m-$4m-$4m-$4m-team opt $20m). Once again my agent would be seeking a new client. 3) Pre-Arb Long-Term Contracts – Stud players seem to be able to be locked up in their initial year(s) to long-term contracts that take them from pre-arb, through arb and into their FA years for unrealistically low dollars. No agent worth his-her salt would agree to something like that, even with a modestly talented player. I know there are likely billions of factors to consider if you try to tighten this up. And I would imagine there are that many or more opinions on how it should be tackled. But respectfully, I do think it’s an area that could use a little more tuning to make it more of a challenge (in either solo games or in online games against other human GM’s) when negotiating and to improve the game. Otherwise, again in my humble opinion, you leave it open to being gamed.