Online League Free Agency: Let's Improve It

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by rujasu

I think this is a flawed assumption, though. Rather, the league is basing their expected salaries on other players they already have.

That's essentially the same principle, though,right? A previous contract was established under a different financial situation and time. It would be like using Pujol's contract in as the basic reference for what an MVP contract should be ten years from now, but in reality, a player like Pujols in 2020 will likely be asking a lot more.

Point is that the GMs seem to be sustaining a financial status quo with contracts when the league finances have changed. I think that's fine, but the game isn't equipped to deal with that at this time, but it would be great if it could for leagues that want it.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Isryion

That's essentially the same principle, though,right? A previous contract was established under a different financial situation and time. It would be like using Pujol's contract in as the basic reference for what an MVP contract should be ten years from now, but in reality, a player like Pujols in 2020 will likely be asking a lot more.

The average player salary in MLB is linked with MLB revenue. If the latter goes up, the former does too.

Originally Posted by Isryion

Point is that the GMs seem to be sustaining a financial status quo with contracts when the league finances have changed. I think that's fine, but the game isn't equipped to deal with that at this time, but it would be great if it could for leagues that want it.

That may go to the fundamentals of the financial model. In real life it's been very much an (to borrow astronomical terms) an inflationary universe, where values increase over time. Some users may prefer a steady-state universe where finances stay about the same over the life of the league. My impression is that OOTP lands somewhere in the middle, which means it doesn't really capture the feeling of either the inflationary or steady-state universes.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The average player salary in MLB is linked with MLB revenue. If the latter goes up, the former does too.

That may go to the fundamentals of the financial model. In real life it's been very much an (to borrow astronomical terms) an inflationary universe, where values increase over time. Some users may prefer a steady-state universe where finances stay about the same over the life of the league. My impression is that OOTP lands somewhere in the middle, which means it doesn't really capture the feeling of either the inflationary or steady-state universes.

I agree, and regardless of inflation (and it's not just inflation that has led to increased salaries, a lot more revenue in general has found its way to baseball) or whatever, my point was that the changing league finances have not been reflected by the spending of the GMs because of the more steady-state mentality you describe. I'd also agree that it's very tough to keep it at that steady state, though it would be interesting and helpful for some apparently if FA demands essentially stayed steady as that seems a bigger concern than how much money is in the league.

[endgame]

Keep the discussion and exchanges flowing. You've all done a relatively respectable job of preserving the decorum within what is obviously a volatile topic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is accurately depicting the problem. More often, when a divisive issue presents itself, more problems are generated when solutions are bandied about before any real definition of the concerns. So, I interrupt only to ensure we have properly accounted for the crux of concerns; peripheral issues later:

21C graciously summarized and entered the bare bones succinctly into the appropriate Bug Reporting (Project Tool) area with the following:

Originally Posted by 21C

Current Situation:
When a team submits an offer to a free agent that is rejected as not being high enough, that offer effectively dissapears and is never considered again. Even when the player eventually drops their demands low enough that the offer should be considered, it is as if that offer never existed or was never made. The player does not consider that offer even if it would be the best one for them.

Desired Situation:
Once a free agent's demands drop to a level where a previous offer *that has not been withdrawn* is suddenly viable the player takes that offer into consideration, along with any new offers that are being made.

Why This is an Issue:
It is not an issue for anyone who sims a day at a time, because the player will let the original bidding owner know that he is 'back in play' so to speak when he receives an offer from someone else that he will consider. At that point the original bidding owner can re-submit his original offer now that it falls within the players demands.

However for online leagues where simming a day at a time in the offseason is not practical, the repsonse occurs mid sim and the original bidding owner has no opportunity to respond before the new (and often lower) offer is accepted by the player.

Short Version:
If I make an offer to a free agent that is rejected for being too low, unless I actively withdraw it it should never be taken off the table. The current game mechanics don't behave this way.

I'm confident he won't mind me reposting it here for review, and thanks goes to him for getting the issue in queue for Markus to properly render his judgment on the subject. If you don't mind, please look it over quickly and see if this, in your opinons, rightly serves to outline the fundamentals.

Thanks in advance.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by cockypop

There are many other things that have come up in this thread, but I believe there is at least one core game mechanical issue as follows:

Current Situation:
When a team submits an offer to a free agent that is rejected as not being high enough, that offer effectively dissapears and is never considered again. Even when the player eventually drops their demands low enough that the offer should be considered, it is as if that offer never existed or was never made. The player does not consider that offer even if it would be the best one for them.

Desired Situation:
Once a free agent's demands drop to a level where a previous offer *that has not been withdrawn* is suddenly viable the player takes that offer into consideration, along with any new offers that are being made.

Why This is an Issue:
It is not an issue for anyone who sims a day at a time, because the player will let the original bidding owner know that he is 'back in play' so to speak when he receives an offer from someone else that he will consider. At that point the original bidding owner can re-submit his original offer now that it falls within the players demands.

However for online leagues where simming a day at a time in the offseason is not practical, the repsonse occurs mid sim and the original bidding owner has no opportunity to respond before the new (and often lower) offer is accepted by the player.

Short Version:
If I make an offer to a free agent that is rejected for being too low, unless I actively withdraw it it should never be taken off the table. The current game mechanics don't behave this way.

And by implementing a system like this you're forcing GM's to tie up money that could be used elsewhere while the player is deciding.

If my offer is too low, then too bad, it comes off the table. I have no desire whatsoever to see that offer left on the table, because if it is, then that money is lost to me if I decide to go after another FA. I do not want to have to hit the "withdraw" button either, because by doing that the player gets insulted and will no longer talk to me, even if/when his demands drop.

If he lowers his demands later on, then the GM can re-submit if he still so desires.

The excuse that OOTP does not remember your offers is lame, sorry. It is your responsibility as GM to know what offers you made, not the games to remember them all. I can just see a real life GM walking in to the owners office and saying geee, I forgot what offers I made previously. I'm sure that GM would be joining the unemployment line in the very near future. If you want to be a GM, then take on the full responsibilities and keep a record of who you offer what. The option is in the game to keep notes, use that option. Or write it down on a piece of paper.

[reddawg]

Originally Posted by kon6749

Intelligent post.

When a mediocre player demands more money than what the top player in the league is making, and wants 8 years on top of it. Then there's a problem. It's not black and white, which is why the majority of us are attempting to have an intelligent conversation surrounding the issue and not just passing it off as a "feature of the game".

Nothing new there kon....considering the source.

btw it amazes me to what extent some on here (usually the same few) will go to to try and put down OTHERS wanting an option in the game.....sad just sad.
Personally I don't see why the option to have FA's accept the best offer (not just in terms of money) is such a problem.

[reddawg]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

No, a league full of spoiled children were talking and got called on it by a grown-up.

Have fun convincing Markus that you should be able to lowball free agents.

dude you got some serious problems... must be that oppressed minority thing huh lmao.....

After reading the whole thread its so obviously apparent that it's not just a matter of said league wanting to "lowball" FA's.
Talk about a zealot.

[BPS]

Lots of issues have been raised, some that don't admit to simple solutions.

But I want to underline one problem that seems to play a part in a number of the issues people have raised: Markus is trying to use the price of free agents to solve a couple of problems at a single time. Because of this, it appears the free agent system often fails to solve well any of these problems it is designed to solve.

In my opinion, the price of free agents should be used for one thing only: getting the free agent the most money possible and having the player end up on the team willing to pay the most for the player. Period. Full stop.

This is a very difficult thing to accomplish in a game as complex as OOTP.

But Markus also seems to be using the price of free agents to sop up extra cash (from the league as a whole or from a couple of wealthy GMs). But this is something that appears to be causing problems.

Yes, some folks says Markus is merely introducing something about "supply and demand"...but it needs to be remembered that demand for free agents is NOT based on the GMs have, but on the money they are willing to pay for free agents (which might be far below the money they have).

That is, just because I have $1 million in the bank this does not mean I'm willing to pay $500 for a lawnmower I (and other reasonable people) think is worth $150. If the price for the lawnmower is set at $500 (because a wealthy person just entered the store), the quantity demanded will be zero despite the fact he has lots of money to spend. This is what some people sometimes experience in the game with free agents.

I appreciate the discussion in this thread and it gives people lots to think about.

[Tavarin]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

The excuse that OOTP does not remember your offers is lame, sorry. It is your responsibility as GM to know what offers you made, not the games to remember them all. I can just see a real life GM walking in to the owners office and saying geee, I forgot what offers I made previously. I'm sure that GM would be joining the unemployment line in the very near future. If you want to be a GM, then take on the full responsibilities and keep a record of who you offer what. The option is in the game to keep notes, use that option. Or write it down on a piece of paper.

It's not a matter of us forgetting about the offers, the problem is that when an offer is submitted that the player doesn't initially approve of, it will not become an option in the future when his demands drop, so unless you submit the same offer every time there is a new sim, and risk angering the player, the player forgets the offer existed.

This leads to situations where a player is offered 3/$45M early in FA, rejects it, and even though the offer is still technically listed in OOTP's free agent offers screen, his demands will drop, and he'll end up signing a cheap 1 year deal.

And despite all of this, what has been forgotten is the fact that in online leagues, players have been taking 3-4 weeks to decide on offers, leading to situations where owners have money tied up in multiple "pending" players just prior to spring training. I'm not sure if this was intended to make players take this long to respond, but it's pretty ridiculous.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by BPS

Lots of issues have been raised, some that don't admit to simple solutions.

But I want to underline one problem that seems to play a part in a number of the issues people have raised: Markus is trying to use the price of free agents to solve a couple of problems at a single time. Because of this, it appears the free agent system often fails to solve well any of these problems it is designed to solve.

In my opinion, the price of free agents should be used for one thing only: getting the free agent the most money possible and having the player end up on the team willing to pay the most for the player. Period. Full stop.

Full stop? Full disagree. There are many examples of players taking less money to play on a team of preference. It is not always the team willing to pay the most.

Originally Posted by BPS

This is a very difficult thing to accomplish in a game as complex as OOTP.

But Markus also seems to be using the price of free agents to sop up extra cash (from the league as a whole or from a couple of wealthy GMs). But this is something that appears to be causing problems.

Yes, some folks says Markus is merely introducing something about "supply and demand"...but it needs to be remembered that demand for free agents is NOT based on the GMs have, but on the money they are willing to pay for free agents (which might be far below the money they have).

That is, just because I have $1 million in the bank this does not mean I'm willing to pay $500 for a lawnmower I (and other reasonable people) think is worth $150. If the price for the lawnmower is set at $500 (because a wealthy person just entered the store), the quantity demanded will be zero despite the fact he has lots of money to spend. This is what some people sometimes experience in the game with free agents.

I appreciate the discussion in this thread and it gives people lots to think about.

FA demands are based on money available in the league which comes from revenues. It is not based on what the GM's willing to pay. That's why not everyone bids on Albert Pujols, because they can't afford his asking price. Plenty of examples where some teams are willing to pay that and others aren't. What teams are willing to pay and what FA's are going to ask for are two entirely different things. Albert Pujols didn't lower his demands just because only 4 or 5 teams could afford or were willing to pay it. He knew what was available for a player of his talents and he asked for it.

[BPS]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Full stop? Full disagree. There are many examples of players taking less money to play on a team of preference. It is not always the team willing to pay the most.

You're fully right! Stop. I was simplifying.

The FA system in OOTP should aim to make the "best match" between player and team. The best match will (as in the real world) take into account non-monetary factors. Everything beyond this should be set aside in the FA pricing model in OOTP.

But from what I've seen in OOTP, however, this is not the way the system always works. You often have matches that don't seem to be the best possible. The goal should be to achieve these best matches. (Taking for granted that sometimes odd things might happen as in the real life...odd things happen in OOTP, as in real life, but these odd outcomes in OOTP don't seem to be intended by the FA matching model but are unintended consequences.)

[BPS]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

FA demands are based on money available in the league which comes from revenues. It is not based on what the GM's willing to pay. That's why not everyone bids on Albert Pujols, because they can't afford his asking price. Plenty of examples where some teams are willing to pay that and others aren't. What teams are willing to pay and what FA's are going to ask for are two entirely different things. Albert Pujols didn't lower his demands just because only 4 or 5 teams could afford or were willing to pay it. He knew what was available for a player of his talents and he asked for it.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said above because I think we're talking about "willing" using a different definition.

I might be able to pay $1 million for a lawnmower.
I might be willing to pay $300 for a lawnmower (but no more)
I'd like to pay $200 for a lawnmower.

Someone who wants to sell me a lawnmower should aim to get $300 from me. I'll try to talk him down to $200.

It would be a foolish lawnmower salesman who starts off asking $1 million for a lawnmower simply because I can afford it (as $1 million is far above what a lawnmower is worth to me). This is particularly true if I can get a serviceable lawnmower from someone else for $250 and I already have a bunch of lawnmowers I'm paying $100 for.

I'm not sure about OOTP's FA model but sometimes it seems, in essence, to start off by asking for $1 million simply because that is the money someone has. That seems to be a mistake as that isn't the way pricing/negotiation works in the real world; it isn't the way supply/demand works at all.

[dangarion]

Originally Posted by stevew

What is the acceptable level of trolling that is permitted around here?

Asshat level.

[cockypop]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

And by implementing a system like this you're forcing GM's to tie up money that could be used elsewhere while the player is deciding. If my offer is too low, then too bad, it comes off the table.

That's what the withdraw offer button is for. If I think the offer will eventually be accepted I can choose to leave it on the table and tie up finances, or not. If I decide the money can be better spend somewhere else, I can withdraw the offer and reallocate.

If anything a system like this discourages lowball offers... should I risk a lowball offer which I eventually have to withdraw and thereby pissing the player off? Probably not, instead I will make sure my offers are appropriate value for money.

EDIT: Though in thinking a bit more about this... if an offer is made and rejected as being too low, I reckon I should be able to withdraw that offer to free up cash if I choose to without pissing the player off. Leaving me the choice to (a) leave the offer on the table and gamble that his demands will drop, or (b) withdraw the perceived 'lowball' offer without penalty allowing me to make another offer later.

And keep in mind, this probably isn't relevant at all to anyone who sims the offseason a day at a time. When you do it daily you have time to respond to changes in the market for a player. But when you sim a week at a time online you lose that chance.

[kon6749]

Originally Posted by BPS

I'm not sure about OOTP's FA model but sometimes it seems, in essence, to start off by asking for $1 million simply because that is the money someone has. That seems to be a mistake as that isn't the way pricing/negotiation works in the real world; it isn't the way supply/demand works at all.

:golfclap: Bravo

[cockypop]

Originally Posted by BPS

That is, just because I have $1 million in the bank this does not mean I'm willing to pay $500 for a lawnmower I (and other reasonable people) think is worth $150. If the price for the lawnmower is set at $500 (because a wealthy person just entered the store), the quantity demanded will be zero despite the fact he has lots of money to spend. This is what some people sometimes experience in the game with free agents.

This is such a terrific analogy in my opinion, thanks for offering it up.

It's not collusion when independently people decide not to pay $500 for a flawed lawnmower just because they have $1 million to spend. In my opinion that's just common sense. What's wrong with saving your money so you are in a position to buy a better lawnmower when one appears?

What's fascinating to me is the other comment above that Markus is trying to solve a legitimate problem of cash management using free agent demands to sop up the excess. To me that totally explains why we're seeing the issue in our league.

So what to do about it... the 'keep an offer on the table' bug/feature request above is a start, it helps teams manage their finances as responsibly as they choose to in a world where free agents are being used to grab their excess cash.

But it's still a somewhat flawed system. I'd like to think there is a better way to manage cash overages than manipulating free agent demands artificially. But admittedly, I don't know what that would be.

I know lots of people have commented that the system isn't broken, and we should adapt and accomodate to the game as it is. I for one am glad the conversation has gotten to a point where this can be challenged. After all, the game wouldn't be as good as it already is if we didn't continually challenge Markus to make it better.

[cockypop]

Originally Posted by endgame

Keep the discussion and exchanges flowing. You've all done a relatively respectable job of preserving the decorum.

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Wolf out.

Not unrelated.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BPS

That is, just because I have $1 million in the bank this does not mean I'm willing to pay $500 for a lawnmower I (and other reasonable people) think is worth $150.

If that lawnmower was going to earn you an additional $75,000 in revenue each year, don't you think you might be willing to pay more than $500 for it?

Players aren't just a cost; they're also a source of revenue in that that's what folks are paying to watch at the ballpark or on television.

[cockypop]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

If that lawnmower was going to earn you an additional $75,000 in revenue each year, don't you think you might be willing to pay more than $500 for it?

Sure. There are $500 lawnmowers that will bring in lots of revenue, and they tend to sell for $500 or much more.

Then there are flawed, $150 lawnmowers that won't do that. Yet they still get put on sale for $500. Those are the lawmowers that are causing the problem. They won't accept $200 for them even if on a true free market that would be considered a good deal.

Another way of looking at it...

In a true capitalist free market, if the lawmower will really bring in $75K in revenue it will get sold at a high price.

However in the OOTP 'market many $150 lawnmowers that WON'T bring in $75K in additional revenue are put on sale for $500 NOT because it is worth that much, but because the pool of available funds for lawnmowers is so large.

So yeah... and I say this only partly tongue in cheek... OOTP has a socialist system that manipulates free agent demands to force the redistribution of wealth.

Or forget about lawnmowers for a minute... is Nick Punto worth $15 mil per season just because the Dodgers have that much money to spend? Because if OOTP ran MLB that's what he would be asking for.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by cockypop

So yeah... and I say this only partly tongue in cheek... OOTP has a socialist system that manipulates free agent demands to force the redistribution of wealth.

The issue of players being unable to come back for an offer, or rather, that player sticking to his original demand is certainly some kind of bug that should be addressed. Whether it is best addressed by keeping the offer on the table until withdrawn or simply removing it is another thing.

As for the quoted statement. It's not really true. As more money enters baseball, baseball players get more money. If they don't, in real life, they're union would be upset and could eventually strike.

I'd argue that the system Markus implemented (wherein FA understand the available money in the system) is there because it's trying to simulate an environment like real baseball and adapt to various league's financial situation, where GMs usually use up their allotted payroll and don't leave hundreds of millions of dollars floating around. It's not because it's some kind of control on money in the game. Like I said many times,

I've no problem with an off switch for this feature, but imo, saying that GMs are the the sole driving force in player salary doesn't capture the whole picture.