Contract length: Players should be more flexible (for a price)

[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).

[Matt Arnold]

We keep debating on how the counter offer should work. If he wants one and you want 4, should he reply back with what it would take your years, or keep going with his original length? To me there's good and bad to either one, and I'm not sure which one necessarily makes more sense, especially if he's not overly interested in multiple years.

Otherwise, players will shift demands for multiple year offers. For guys before free agency, they will sign to eat up their arbitration years, but you're going to have to pay them essentially their arb value for each year. So say you have a guy whose next 4 arbitration contracts would be something like 2m/4m/6m/8m if you ended up going year to year on him, he will very likely still sign for 4 years/20M. But on a 1 year deal, he'll ask for 1 year/2M. Arbitration salaries can rise fast, and players are not necessarily going to give away those years, but if you think about their future years, they will likely be willing to sign away pre-FA years.

And similar with older players. If a guy is 39 and asking for 15M, it's not going to take 2/30 to sign him to a 2 year deal - but the level of discount that he's willing to give you to go 2 years might not be the same as the level of discount that you'd expect him to take. Just because he's asking for 1 year doesn't mean he won't be willing to cut you a deal to lock in a few more years.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Otherwise, players will shift demands for multiple year offers. For guys before free agency, they will sign to eat up their arbitration years, but you're going to have to pay them essentially their arb value for each year. So say you have a guy whose next 4 arbitration contracts would be something like 2m/4m/6m/8m if you ended up going year to year on him, he will very likely still sign for 4 years/20M. But on a 1 year deal, he'll ask for 1 year/2M. Arbitration salaries can rise fast, and players are not necessarily going to give away those years, but if you think about their future years, they will likely be willing to sign away pre-FA years.

And similar with older players. If a guy is 39 and asking for 15M, it's not going to take 2/30 to sign him to a 2 year deal - but the level of discount that he's willing to give you to go 2 years might not be the same as the level of discount that you'd expect him to take. Just because he's asking for 1 year doesn't mean he won't be willing to cut you a deal to lock in a few more years.

All of this is fine. As it stands, the player will essentially respond with "How about this?" which is the same number of years he wanted before (but often upping his salary demand).

If he asks for 1 year and I over 4 years, but I'm not offering enough for the 4 years to satisfy him, he should respond with "Here's what it would take to sign me for 4 years" (assuming he's willing to sign for 4 years at all, which he always should if those are arbitration years or he's truly old; if they're free agent years it should vary based on how happy he is on the current team, which might be partly random in addition to more obvious factors).

If I don't like that response, I can lower the amount of years back in my counter-offer closer to what he wanted. A small improvement would be for it to also let the user see a history of offers and counter-offers, so I can think "Hmm...this (arbitration-eligible) player wants either $2m this season or $2m/4m/6m/8m...maybe I should go in between to 3 years at $2m/$4m/$6m, and then wait to see if he progresses to be worth $8m that last year" or whatever.

Note that to some degree, if it's guaranteed money, I think players of whatever age should tend (not in every case, but tend) to offer a discount for security. If he thinks his arbitration would go $2m/$4m/$6m/$8m, he might think "Hmm...I could get hurt and this guarantees me money 4 years out even if I do, so I'll take $2m/$4m/$6m/$7m for security."

[NoOne]

when you do something different from the player's initial demand and it fails, there should be repercussions - like they currently reduce negotiating mood and raise $$$ demand.

you have to pay for the changes you want. if you short them too much they get offended like like a little prima donna. keep playing around in an throwaway league and stick to some generalizations that you come to from that experience.

i think loyalty and such can influence what you can get away with, but i am not sure at all on that. total assumption. so, going to ignore it for the example.

starting of negotiations: i figure i can knock at least 10-15% off in general. if i have to remove a player option or an early opt-out year that i don't like, i won't reduce it as much or i will meet his $$$ demand and change the other things straight-up. in a very extreme case i may even pay more than their demand.

i don't think it should be an automatic thing that they accept it or even open to it. i can't attest to rate/distribution of results, but from that point of view it's as it should be. i think it's a good thing some players are more rigid than others. i can't apply a one-size fits all method - yet... in time all is possible, though. unless the metrics used are invisible, it just takes time to find the best way.

[MrBojangles]

I have always gone with the "out of the box" settings when I get the new version of OOTP. But, it does seem that in years past it was easier to get a young star to commit to a long-term contract for fewer $ (i.e. not demand his expected arbitration value).
No complaints - I'm just wondering if this was an actually shift in OOTP or if my sample size/observations are just wrong.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by NoOne

when you do something different from the player's initial demand and it fails, there should be repercussions - like they currently reduce negotiating mood and raise $$$ demand.

you have to pay for the changes you want. if you short them too much they get offended like like a little prima donna. keep playing around in an throwaway league and stick to some generalizations that you come to from that experience.

i think loyalty and such can influence what you can get away with, but i am not sure at all on that. total assumption. so, going to ignore it for the example.

starting of negotiations: i figure i can knock at least 10-15% off in general. if i have to remove a player option or an early opt-out year that i don't like, i won't reduce it as much or i will meet his $$$ demand and change the other things straight-up. in a very extreme case i may even pay more than their demand.

i don't think it should be an automatic thing that they accept it or even open to it. i can't attest to rate/distribution of results, but from that point of view it's as it should be. i think it's a good thing some players are more rigid than others. i can't apply a one-size fits all method - yet... in time all is possible, though. unless the metrics used are invisible, it just takes time to find the best way.

I disagree with much of what you wrote here.

I think negotiating mood should generally go down much more slowly, for one. Negotiations should be much more like two-way negotiations. Let there be offers and counteroffers. The player should also be looking to make a deal. There should be such thing as an offer so bad it's insulting and negotiating mood deteriorates quickly, but that's the only way it should.

If the player asks for 1 year and I offer 4 years, either the player should tell me what it would take to get him for 4 years (which should be more expensive than otherwise-- I agree in a broad way about having to pay for changes-- because the player isn't getting his preferred length) or, if he's dead set on 1 year, should have a reaction like "Okay, so the front office doesn't want so short term a deal, so I'll lower my demand a bit for a 1 year deal-- or maybe offer to sign for 2 years."

That's generally how negotiations work. If we were haggling over a price of something I wanted to buy from you, and your negotiating position was $20, with the minimum you'd accept $15, and I offered $12, you might say "How about $18?" You wouldn't say, "How about $22?" And your bottom line wouldn't rise from $15 There would be some point, maybe if my offer were $5, where you might get angry and say, "We're too far apart. I won't go below $20" and mean it.

That's a one-dimensional negotiation, of course, and contracts have a lot of dimensions beyond salary: Length, options, opt-outs, incentive money, etc.. And if I want the player to accept a length other than what he prefers I should have to make concessions elsewhere. But the player should also be trying to reach agreement, and if the contract only covers arbitration years where under no circumstances can he leave unless I allow it, should always be open to something at that proposed length.

The financial part works pretty much as you describe it, and that part is fine, that you can shave about 15% off the player's demand, because the player isn't showing his bottom line either (and shouldn't), and if you give him his other terms he'll generally take it. You have to shave less off if you want a team option or remove an opt-out he asks for. Really, if you agree to the player's preferred length the player is generally very reasonable in exactly this way.

I want to have more control over contract length, realizing that I have to pay something extra for it. I titled the thread that players should be more flexible "(for a price)."

The one other thing is that when the player isn't okay with my proposed length (which certainly should sometimes happen if it obligates him for free agent years), his negotiating mood should not go down for that. He can't expect me to be a mind reader as to what he'll accept. But since his first offer wasn't his bottom line, and shouldn't be, he should in some way move in my direction when we disagree on the length, whether he proposes to take a bit less (but still more than his minimum acceptable) or proposes a length somewhere in between, or something.

[da commish]

Originally Posted by MrBojangles

I have always gone with the "out of the box" settings when I get the new version of OOTP. But, it does seem that in years past it was easier to get a young star to commit to a long-term contract for fewer $ (i.e. not demand his expected arbitration value).
No complaints - I'm just wondering if this was an actually shift in OOTP or if my sample size/observations are just wrong.

It has been my experience that it is more difficult and more expensive to lock up a younger player in a long-term contract in OOTP 17 than it was in OOTP 16. I assume this was a conscious change in OOTP 17 and I believe an improvement. It's tougher to do the cheap long-term contracts now but I think more realistic than it was in OOTP 16.