[Anyone]

I've noticed that when doing contract negotiations, players give the number of years they want. Fine, so far. I'd also expect that I'd get the most flexibility on other things (such as salary, option years, and the like) if I give the player the length he wants. If I compromise on the length, he's more likely to compromise on something else.

Thus, I'd expect contracts to cost comparatively more relative to what the player thinks he's worth if I try to give a player a longer or shorter contract than he wants, and/or make concessions such as player options or opt-outs. All that is fine.

However, what I find is that instead of having to make concessions if the player wanted a 2 year contract and I offer 5 or vice versa, he often won't even discuss it. I can usually get the player to go for one year greater or less than he requested, but that's about it.

I set the rules to try to keep a little more team stability than in real life, so players need only 2 years of service for arbitration instead of 3, but it takes 8 years of service, rather than 6, to get to free agency. I (and AI teams) can't get away with paying the minimum for long at all, but I can keep a player longer just from the system, as long as, if I can't come to an agreement, I'm willing to pay what the arbitrator decides is fair. Generally, I'm guaranteed the meat of a player's prime if he comes up with me, as long as I put out the money.

But given that in my baseball universe that's the system, a player about to go through arbitration his first time should know he's going to be with my team, if I want him, for those 8 years (6 once I start offering contracts because I can't renew him for the minimum anymore, sometimes 7 from offering a year early to get the arbitration years cheaper in the same contract-- but let's say 6).

So I click "negotiate extension" with someone with 6 years to go that I can keep him even if he wants to leave and sometimes the player only wants to renew for one year. Okay, fine. He thinks his value will increase, so he prefers not to sign longer term.

If I counter with a 4 year contract (years he can't leave anyway), paying extra because I think his value might rise also, I'll get, if the playter asked for one year, "Thanks for considering me for a long term contract, but I want to sign something shorter." I can usually get a 2 year contract in that spot, but no longer.

I should copy my game and, just as an experiment, offer a mediocre player in that spot 6 years at $20 million a year (my game's finances are a little deflated compared to real modern day, so that's a superstar salary) and see if I still get that response. He can't leave during that period anyway, and I'd be offering a to pay a mediocre player like a superstar. My guess is he'll still insist on a shorter contract-- and probably would do so even if I included an opt out after the first year such that if I were dumb enough to do that in a non-test game would let him take the huge payday and then if he wanted it to be only a one year contract, opt out after the first year and accomplish the same he asked for but with much more money.

I haven't done that experiment, but it should be possible to get a player to radically change the length of contract he wants, with enough cash/other terms offered. An exception would be if I'm signing him into his free agent years and he doesn't want to sign for those because he wants to leave (or at least test free agency) at that point. That's in the game and makes sense.

But getting back to things that don't make sense, old players (say, 39) often ask for one year contracts. Sometimes I'll offer them 3 years at a bit lower salary, given the decline risk I'm taking. I'd understand if the player responded by saying, essentially, that he won't lower his price for that security. If he wanted $5 million for 1 year he'd want $5 million a year for 3 years. I'd turn that down (unless he'd let the 3rd year be a team option), but that's a rational response from the player. But again, players decide the length and if this old player says 1 year I could probably offer him 3 years at double the salary per year he asked for, no option or even player option, and he'd turn me down.

This is long, and I may sound really angry (I'm not) or like I'm putting the game down (I'm definitely not). I do think it's a flaw in the game, one of a few flaws in an overall excellent game, when a player won't accept a significantly different contract length even when it's in his best interest, and deciding lengths of contracts is something I'd love to be able to do (without cheating, of course). I'd love for a player who asked for a 1 year contract and was offered 4 to usually come back with, "Well, if you want me for four years, this is what it will take," which will usually be a deal the player sees as more generous to him than his proposal, since it isn't his preferred length, but if there's no way a longer contract is bad for him (such as locking him up in his free agent years when he wants to leave when he can), he should be willing to accept at some price, and more often than not, for a player without really high Greed, it should be at least semi-reasonable.

Edit: Okay, I did the experiment, and at least within extreme cases there's flexibility. I did "offer extension" to a scrub who hadn't even reached arbitration yet (actually is mostly a minor league player, stashed there for when I have an IF injury). He asked for 1 year, and then I offered him 10 years/$30 million a year, and he at least said "Okay, that's a reasonable offer" and that he'd get back to me.

I'm surprised it wasn't one of those "I really doubt I'll change my mind" cases, but at least the program isn't as "stubborn" as I thought. If one offers enough extra, players will accept. This was a case where it would have been reasonable for it to take a ridiculous amount, as this would be encroaching on his free agency years. I'd obviously have to keep re-copying and everything to find out how much extra it would take just to buy him through arbitration and all (it shouldn't be that much more than one year, mostly based on how much the player thinks he'll improve), but it works better than I thought anyway.

However, I think a big thing is that in the back and forth negotiations there should be the tendency to compromise. He asks for 1 year, you offer 4, he should respond with, "If you want a 4 year contract, here's what it would cost" or whatever (and it should be more relative to the player's belief of his worth but not all that much more unless it's both buying out free agent years and the player doesn't want to stay).