Free Agent Logic

[dunningrb]

Not sure if this is some kind of bug or just an accurate model of a dumb player. Or, a really crafty player. Or something else.

Situation: 1911 of a historical "universe" with all fictional players. I run the Highlanders. I offer a free agent shortstop $4660 for four years with a club option and a $1600 bonus for 600 PA. I was countering a three-year offer from the Senators for $5300/year. Then, dude signs a three-year deal with Cleveland for $4570.

I don't get it. Was he scamming me on the Washington offer, or did they withdraw? (I.e., does OOTP code players to lie during negotiations?)

As for the deal he signed, the only advantage I see is that it's three years instead of four (at my option), putting him back in the FA pool a year early.

Any insights? Thanks.

[BusterKing]

I find the free agents like to stick by how many years of contract they are requesting. Seems to mean a lot in negotiations in my experience.

[gentlemanofleisure]

Originally Posted by dunningrb

Not sure if this is some kind of bug or just an accurate model of a dumb player. Or, a really crafty player. Or something else.

Situation: 1911 of a historical "universe" with all fictional players. I run the Highlanders. I offer a free agent shortstop $4660 for four years with a club option and a $1600 bonus for 600 PA. I was countering a three-year offer from the Senators for $5300/year. Then, dude signs a three-year deal with Cleveland for $4570.

I don't get it. Was he scamming me on the Washington offer, or did they withdraw? (I.e., does OOTP code players to lie during negotiations?)

As for the deal he signed, the only advantage I see is that it's three years instead of four (at my option), putting him back in the FA pool a year early.

Any insights? Thanks.

If the Cleveland team is good and he has a desire for winning then he'd take less money to go there. Or, if you have some short stops in your system and Cleveland is clean out of them, then he'd want to go where he'd have more playing time.

[dunningrb]

Originally Posted by gentlemanofleisure

If the Cleveland team is good and he has a desire for winning then he'd take less money to go there. Or, if you have some short stops in your system and Cleveland is clean out of them, then he'd want to go where he'd have more playing time.

That ain't it. The Highlanders are thin at shortstop, but are otherwise doing great (six straight pennants!).

[StyxNCa]

What surprises me is how many players, even those going into their prime, will take a front loaded contract. For example I re-signed my best pitcher (actually the league's best being the first pitcher to hit 200 wins and he did it in 9 seasons) to a 7 year contract. Only the first and second season salaries were above the average he asked for, with the first being dramatically above and the final five years were reduced pretty dramatically with each passing year with the last two seasons being under what the current league average is. The overall average of the contract is what he asked for though.

I have done this with all players I have had to sign or re-sign and so far not one as refused such a setup.

I like doing contracts like that because I have no idea what the future will hold with prospects I have and in the event of a major drop off from the player I won't be shelling out a lot of money and would have an easier time trading him if need be.

What strikes me odd is that you would think players would be more interested in having more money down the road as they approach retirement. Doesn't seem to be the case.

[robc]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

What strikes me odd is that you would think players would be more interested in having more money down the road as they approach retirement. Doesn't seem to be the case.

If they are intelligent (for real, not in OOTP) I would think it is always better to get the money now so you can get a return on it by investing it. That is assuming you don't buy 3 houses, 15 cars, and a wheelbarrow of blow.

[Fullgatsu]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

What strikes me odd is that you would think players would be more interested in having more money down the road as they approach retirement. Doesn't seem to be the case.

It makes sense in taking a front loaded contract because of inflation that 20 millions is a little more worth the first year then 5 years later, that is also often the excuse for giving a backloaded contract in the real world.

I also frontload contracts quite often but rarely if ever backloads a contract it just seems very risky makes trading a player that much harder.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by robc

If they are intelligent (for real, not in OOTP) I would think it is always better to get the money now so you can get a return on it by investing it. That is assuming you don't buy 3 houses, 15 cars, and a wheelbarrow of blow.

Exactly, but so many people who didn't grow up with money go through it like wildfire once they get it. Personally, I would think it's better to get money later on in life once one matures (if they ever do) and is better situated to handle it.

[hopeful1212]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Exactly, but so many people who didn't grow up with money go through it like wildfire once they get it. Personally, I would think it's better to get money later on in life once one matures (if they ever do) and is better situated to handle it.

But I'm pretty sure every agent understands that $1 mil now is worth more than $1 mil later. And they'd want their cut as soon as possible.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by hopeful1212

But I'm pretty sure every agent understands that $1 mil now is worth more than $1 mil later. And they'd want their cut as soon as possible.

This is true.