An issue I have with offseason trades

[rstoomeyii]

I have an issue that I'm sure I cant be the only one to come across. Right now I have a 24 year old 1B in the minors that is ready to make the jump to the majors. I currently have a veteran 32 year old 1B who has been with my team 9 years and is in the final year of his deal, making 19M this year. I'd like to move him and there are definitely teams that are interested as he is still productive (coming off of a 25/90/.270 season). But as i shop him around and look at other teams that might have a need at 1B nobody has the money. But really they do. There are tons of teams with a lot of budget room, but they all of that space taken up by "offered contracts". Why should this prohibit a trade? What if they'd actually prefer my player over someone they've offered a contract to? In real life, a team would make the trade with me and just break off contract talks with the other player.

[IsaacR]

Originally Posted by rstoomeyii

I have an issue that I'm sure I cant be the only one to come across. Right now I have a 24 year old 1B in the minors that is ready to make the jump to the majors. I currently have a veteran 32 year old 1B who has been with my team 9 years and is in the final year of his deal, making 19M this year. I'd like to move him and there are definitely teams that are interested as he is still productive (coming off of a 25/90/.270 season). But as i shop him around and look at other teams that might have a need at 1B nobody has the money. But really they do. There are tons of teams with a lot of budget room, but they all of that space taken up by "offered contracts". Why should this prohibit a trade? What if they'd actually prefer my player over someone they've offered a contract to? In real life, a team would make the trade with me and just break off contract talks with the other player.

This. I have the same issue. I can only make trades at the beginning or end of the offseason.

[Bluenoser]

Start pulling tendered offers off the table and then see how many FA's are willing to negotiate with you next year.

Not a good idea.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Start pulling tendered offers off the table and then see how many FA's are willing to negotiate with you next year.

Not a good idea.

I don't think the repercussions are global. Typically just the player.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by RchW

I don't think the repercussions are global. Typically just the player.

Agreed, in OOTP. His reference was "in real life teams would just break off negotiations with the player".

That's what I was referring to

IRL other players are going to hear about it through the grapevine at the very least, but most likely today's media would be all over it.

['94 EXPOS]

Originally Posted by rstoomeyii

I have an issue that I'm sure I cant be the only one to come across. Right now I have a 24 year old 1B in the minors that is ready to make the jump to the majors. I currently have a veteran 32 year old 1B who has been with my team 9 years and is in the final year of his deal, making 19M this year. I'd like to move him and there are definitely teams that are interested as he is still productive (coming off of a 25/90/.270 season). But as i shop him around and look at other teams that might have a need at 1B nobody has the money. But really they do. There are tons of teams with a lot of budget room, but they all of that space taken up by "offered contracts". Why should this prohibit a trade? What if they'd actually prefer my player over someone they've offered a contract to? In real life, a team would make the trade with me and just break off contract talks with the other player.

An excellent point and request.

I respect the arguments about the perceived cost of pulling offers from the table but in my opinion I think it happens quite frequently.

In the mean time...won't help for this year but when the season ends....make your salary dumping trades before the arbitration date

['94 EXPOS]

Originally Posted by IsaacR

This. I have the same issue. I can only make trades at the beginning or end of the offseason.

Isaac---I should have read yours more closely/ Nothing like repeating what others have already said!

[IsaacR]

Originally Posted by '94 EXPOS

An excellent point and request.

I respect the arguments about the perceived cost of pulling offers from the table but in my opinion I think it happens quite frequently.

In the mean time...won't help for this year but when the season ends....make your salary dumping trades before the arbitration date

In real life, a team may be negotiating with 4 outfielders, but once they sign one they break off negotiations with the other 3. Same with trades.

[marc5477]

I work around this problem by trading well before free agency. At least there is a work around for this issue. There are other issues in the game that need focus like player development (too random and often makes no sense), AI finances, AI contracting performance (greatly improved but still needs work when there is a shortage of players) and finally something to do with all the money a team makes... my current team is sitting on a savings of nearly $700...m id love some sort of system to use this money. Maybe buying a new stadium or adding stuff to a stadium like... reclining theater seats with warmers...

Oh I know what I would really love to see... story style progression. Start managing a low end team in the minors. Save money. Buy a team one league up from your own and keep going until you buy a MLB team. That would be awesome.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by marc5477

I work around this problem by trading well before free agency. At least there is a work around for this issue. There are other issues in the game that need focus like player development (too random and often makes no sense), AI finances, AI contracting performance (greatly improved but still needs work when there is a shortage of players) and finally something to do with all the money a team makes... my current team is sitting on a savings of nearly $700...m id love some sort of system to use this money. Maybe buying a new stadium or adding stuff to a stadium like... reclining theater seats with warmers...

in reply:
you can remove the randomness of development with 1 setting. random player talent change - or close to that verbage. lower it is, the more consistently they develop. i don't have the game open, so refer to the manual for its location.

i have tried it at 50 and 100. personally,100 was better. there is a thread in these forums that did an adequate job relating that setting to the round a player is drafted and their resulting career WAR or something like that. it's been many months since i read it.

basically if you lower it, don't expect as many draft surpises in later rounds.

you can set a max on money. this also helps with contract inflation, i think. i don't play with a money max, so i am not 100% sure on that last part.

in general:

i think that would be a great request for future versions, if it is not already in the game. during FA if an AI controlled team gets a trade offer that outweighs the FA they are targetting, while considering what they lose in the trade too, then the AI can withdraw an offer and complete trade.

since they are giving stuff up in a trade, i bet they are going to prefer the free agent most times than not.

the bottom line is you only encounter this problem once a year. so, it's a self-inflicted problem that you can and should avoid.

if you have 600million in funds, just throw cash at the problem. an even quicker fix and you still don't have to learn the economic ramifications of the game.

[olivertheorem]

I ran into this as well, and it is annoying. However, I wonder now if real-life trades are clustered near the beginning/end of free agency like OOTP ends up having.

[IsaacR]

Originally Posted by olivertheorem

I ran into this as well, and it is annoying. However, I wonder now if real-life trades are clustered near the beginning/end of free agency like OOTP ends up having.

The Winter Meetings is where they're clustered, exactly the opposite.

[marc5477]

Originally Posted by NoOne

in reply:
you can remove the randomness of development with 1 setting. random player talent change - or close to that verbage. lower it is, the more consistently they develop. i don't have the game open, so refer to the manual for its location.

i have tried it at 50 and 100. personally,100 was better. there is a thread in these forums that did an adequate job relating that setting to the round a player is drafted and their resulting career WAR or something like that. it's been many months since i read it.

basically if you lower it, don't expect as many draft surpises in later rounds.

you can set a max on money. this also helps with contract inflation, i think. i don't play with a money max, so i am not 100% sure on that last part.

in general:

i think that would be a great request for future versions, if it is not already in the game. during FA if an AI controlled team gets a trade offer that outweighs the FA they are targetting, while considering what they lose in the trade too, then the AI can withdraw an offer and complete trade.

since they are giving stuff up in a trade, i bet they are going to prefer the free agent most times than not.

the bottom line is you only encounter this problem once a year. so, it's a self-inflicted problem that you can and should avoid.

if you have 600million in funds, just throw cash at the problem. an even quicker fix and you still don't have to learn the economic ramifications of the game.

Thanks for the talent point tip but this is still random lol. All it seems to do is follow potential more closely but potential itself is working fine at 100. Thats not really what I want to see.

What I would love to see is development influenced by performance, intelligence, work ethic, and age progression especially for fully developed and veteran players. For instance, a pitcher is having a great season but then all of a sudden their talents start to fall off the cliff during the season due to age... makes no sense. Its one thing if it happens after an injury, or during off season but not in the middle of the season itself. Or how about hitter having a great season? I have a 31 y/o power hitter with 52 dingers who lost power rating during the season... thats just iffy especially since power increases in most males up to the age of 50 or so (even longer if they keep working out albeit at the cost of injury). What should happen is that speed and fielding should drop based on work ethic rating (more severe if work ethic is low vs high). Also, intelligence should have a lot more influence of ability. Someone with very high int (which should be a hell of a lot more rare in the game) should be able to improve skills that involve mental ability more quickly (such as contact, pitches (both throwing and recognizing them), stealing ability, gap, etc). Further high intelligence/work ethic players should be able to adapt better as they age (for instance, since speed always goes with age, a big shift to power should occur).

On the flip side, if a great player is always in a slump it should show. I had a rookie with 15/20 contact and gap who barely every hit over .250 yet his rating stayed at 15 for two years. Made no sense. I have one player right now with 14/10/14/9/8 and he has never hit more than 15 homers in 3 seasons. Meanwhile a 10/10/12/9/9 hitter has been hitting about 20 since he was a rookie yet his power wont budge lol.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by marc5477

Thanks for the talent point tip but this is still random lol. All it seems to do is follow potential more closely but potential itself is working fine at 100. Thats not really what I want to see.

What I would love to see is development influenced by performance, intelligence, work ethic, and age progression especially for fully developed and veteran players. For instance, a pitcher is having a great season but then all of a sudden their talents start to fall off the cliff during the season due to age... makes no sense. Its one thing if it happens after an injury, or during off season but not in the middle of the season itself. Or how about hitter having a great season? I have a 31 y/o power hitter with 52 dingers who lost power rating during the season... thats just iffy especially since power increases in most males up to the age of 50 or so (even longer if they keep working out albeit at the cost of injury). What should happen is that speed and fielding should drop based on work ethic rating (more severe if work ethic is low vs high). Also, intelligence should have a lot more influence of ability. Someone with very high int (which should be a hell of a lot more rare in the game) should be able to improve skills that involve mental ability more quickly (such as contact, pitches (both throwing and recognizing them), stealing ability, gap, etc). Further high intelligence/work ethic players should be able to adapt better as they age (for instance, since speed always goes with age, a big shift to power should occur).

On the flip side, if a great player is always in a slump it should show. I had a rookie with 15/20 contact and gap who barely every hit over .250 yet his rating stayed at 15 for two years. Made no sense. I have one player right now with 14/10/14/9/8 and he has never hit more than 15 homers in 3 seasons. Meanwhile a 10/10/12/9/9 hitter has been hitting about 20 since he was a rookie yet his power wont budge lol.

i think alot of your frustration is more about misconception. i was going to write a book of a response, but have decided it would be futile, lol. i'm just going to touch on two concepts to show what i mean.

men get stronger upto 50.. this may be true when you only measure this by muscle mass or ability to maintain it. i will simply say that there are a plethora of other factors that go into hitting for power in the baseball that have nothign to do with muscles. you need to broaden the scope with which you are thinking. the preponderance of evidence is that older players hit for less power. this is not based on a small sample size. there are outliers - more likely to be found in the steroid era. big papi won't have to retire because he is no longer strong. he will retire because his brain can no longer recognize and react as it once did. just a 1/10th of a second slower and an all-star can turn into a has-been (just b,s, numbers to show a point).

players generally lose weight during a ~184-day season with only ~22 days off. they cannot lift weights during the season like they do in the offseason. hitting 50 home runs does not build muscle-mass.

don't get lost in randomness focusing on a handful of players. also, you need to firmly understand what normal is, relative to your league. sim 20-30 years and look at the historical accuracy report, then you'll have a better idea of where your settings are taking your league. it's too complex to comment on without that knowledge.

[marc5477]

Originally Posted by NoOne

i think alot of your frustration is more about misconception. i was going to write a book of a response, but have decided it would be futile, lol. i'm just going to touch on two concepts to show what i mean.

men get stronger upto 50.. this may be true when you only measure this by muscle mass or ability to maintain it. i will simply say that there are a plethora of other factors that go into hitting for power in the baseball that have nothign to do with muscles. you need to broaden the scope with which you are thinking. the preponderance of evidence is that older players hit for less power. this is not based on a small sample size. there are outliers - more likely to be found in the steroid era. big papi won't have to retire because he is no longer strong. he will retire because his brain can no longer recognize and react as it once did. just a 1/10th of a second slower and an all-star can turn into a has-been (just b,s, numbers to show a point).

players generally lose weight during a ~184-day season with only ~22 days off. they cannot lift weights during the season like they do in the offseason. hitting 50 home runs does not build muscle-mass.

don't get lost in randomness focusing on a handful of players. also, you need to firmly understand what normal is, relative to your league. sim 20-30 years and look at the historical accuracy report, then you'll have a better idea of where your settings are taking your league. it's too complex to comment on without that knowledge.

It was just one example to illustrate a point that development is too random. I understand there is more to it than just raw strength but that does not make my statement less true. It is a fact that most ball players gain strength through their 30s (with exception to pitchers for obvious reasons) unless they go on a diet or work on cardio a lot (which baseball players generally dont). The game already reflects this fact in weight gain. If you monitor your players, you will note that they almost always gain weight over time. What I am trying to say is that I wish the game simulated development better especially in veterans in their 30s especially good players who almost never lose anything until their late 30s.

Further, you assumption that they hit less home run is misleading. *Most* players hit less home runs in their 30s because they dont play as much. This is true because *most* players are just average and average players get replaced with younger average players that have potential. Go check some stats for average players that played consistently into their 30s. They almost all got stronger into their late 30s. It is not debatable. It is a fact. An even better way to note this is to look at a player who was a rookie in their late 20s and played into their 40s. I can give you tons of examples... in fact give me a sec and I will....

I randomly chose the Braves of 1992 for players and looked at their 2 oldest players:

Otis Nixon and Lonnie Smith.

You will note that what I state is absolutely true even for a guy like Otis Nixon who is a top of order base thief. He hit harder and actually played better in his mid 30s. He sucked in his 20s.

Lonnie is an even better example. In his late 30s he hit just as many home runs as he did in his prime but with a lot fewer AB's (because he was not a starter). But still it clearly illustrates the fact that he was definitely stronger. His 1989 season proves that even though he may not have been a better player overall.

Next I just looked up folks who played into their 40s:

Omar Vizquel
Julio Franco
Carlton Fisk

Hell even back back in the 1800s.

Cap Anson

All show a clear trend that players get stronger.

That said, your statement that *most players hit fewer home runs with age is true if we take into account health (for baseball players its wear to upper body joints) and replaceability. But neither of these are "strength." If anything this should be reflected in injury proneness but definitely not strength rating.

The fact is that good hitters stay good well into their late 30s while those who are average or below play less and less and generally get worse. This is why when I see a player hit 52 home runs in their early 30s only to get a reduction in strength while also getting heavier than when he was younger I scratch my head. This makes no sense. If anything, he might lose contact, K, or eye but no way he loses strength.

If you still think my statement about strength is not true I can give you real life examples (of myself because I was an athlete into my mid 30s).

[Bigkizen]

There is a reasonable fix to what you've been discussing with NoOne in OOTP. In the settings the batter aging speed and pitcher aging speed settings help this alot, I found lowering both these settings helped with the realism of older players and how it affected their stats. The better players kept their stats and sometimes even progressed depending on their season performance well into their late 30's and I even had a 1B still hitting 30HR a season at the age of 42.

It might not be exactly what you were talking about but my settings are 0.600 for batter aging and 0.750 for pitcher aging speed. I do however agree with you slightly there is certain things in OOTP that could be different and theres room for improvement but thats true of every game ever made its all relative to how much fun you have playing the game, at least thats how i view it.