Financials out of whack - any workarounds?

[Long_Long_Name]

My online league has a huge number of very, very rich teams. A lot of them have stockpiled amounts of cash way over 50 million dollars. Now, there is a problem with this: it's absolutely impossible to sign anyone in the game, either as free agents or to extensions. The players completely disregard the salary scale, which is really annoying, because it's nearly impossible to sign contract extensions. The salary scale is normal, varying from 400k for a poor player to 2mil for an average player to 16mil for a superstar. However, star players are asking for 26millions, and a mediocre middle reliever wants 13mil a year as a contract extension.

Now, other than taking cash away from my owners, is there any way to work around that and get players to make reasonable demands? Is there any way that players can actually follow the salary scale (that's what it's there for anyway, isn't it?) rather than adjust their salary demands on the cash floating around? (I assume that's the problem - we have tons of it, and some have reported on this board that it could be the issue). This is a pretty major hurdle for our league, as we had to scratch the in-game FA system in favour of a separate bidding war format, and now it looks like extensions will be nearly impossible to sign, since no one is ready to spend that much on players.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

My online league has a huge number of very, very rich teams. A lot of them have stockpiled amounts of cash way over 50 million dollars. Now, there is a problem with this: it's absolutely impossible to sign anyone in the game, either as free agents or to extensions. The players completely disregard the salary scale, which is really annoying, because it's nearly impossible to sign contract extensions. The salary scale is normal, varying from 400k for a poor player to 2mil for an average player to 16mil for a superstar. However, star players are asking for 26millions, and a mediocre middle reliever wants 13mil a year as a contract extension.

Now, other than taking cash away from my owners, is there any way to work around that and get players to make reasonable demands? Is there any way that players can actually follow the salary scale (that's what it's there for anyway, isn't it?) rather than adjust their salary demands on the cash floating around? (I assume that's the problem - we have tons of it, and some have reported on this board that it could be the issue). This is a pretty major hurdle for our league, as we had to scratch the in-game FA system in favour of a separate bidding war format, and now it looks like extensions will be nearly impossible to sign, since no one is ready to spend that much on players.

The salary scale is this: the players know your owners are loaded, and they want their cash. If you want to maintain the wage scale you have, drain cash from the system. Otherwise, it is working as designed; e.g. the players are going after every dime the GM has access to.

[Long_Long_Name]

I just tested the "too much cash" theory. In a test league, I made cash amounts vary between -50mil and 20mil, and simmed two years in the future. Players were still asking for over 20 million dollars (no one in our league earns over 20 mil, and as I've mentioned before, out scale supposes 16mil for a superstar) in free agency, completely out of whack with our scale. Extension demands, however, were fine.

Basically, it seems like the "too much cash" issue is a problem, but it doesn't explain everything. What else could there be?

Anyway, all in all, it still bothers me that the salary scale is useless when teams are rich. It seems counterintuitive, to me anyway, that a mediocre middle reliever would ask to be one of the top 5 best paid players simply because teams have a lot of cash in their pockets - they just won't sign the guy, and he'll retire. I just don't see the upside, at least in human-controlled leagues, to have players adjust their demands based on circulating cash rather than the actual market, or the salary scale, but I do see a tremendous downside, as we are experiencing in my league. I'd love to log this as a bug, but I kinda have the idea that Markus put this in as a "feature". I'd love to hear why it should be left the way it is, though, and if there are any workarounds for people who are struggling with this "feature".

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

The salary scale is this: the players know your owners are loaded, and they want their cash. If you want to maintain the wage scale you have, drain cash from the system. Otherwise, it is working as designed; e.g. the players are going after every dime the GM has access to.

That's what I thought, but I don't see the logic. A player's value doesn't depend on how much money owners have, it depends on what comparable players are worth, it depends on what the market offers him, and not what the market has the potential to offer him. Take my 1-star reliever who wants a Top 5 salary. He knows owners are rich and have tons of money to spend. However, shouldn't he know that players like him only make 1-2mil a year, and not 13mil? Shouldn't he know that if I don't give 13mil to my ace starter, there's no chance I'll give it to him? That's ultimately what happens: no one will give that player what he wants, he won't adjust his demands to what people are offering, and he'll retire. Can you imagine that in the real world, a mediocre player refusing 5 million dollars because he wants 13mil even though even the best players on his team don't get that much money, and he can't get any more money elsewhere? Can you imagine an oil company employee asking to be paid the same salary as the company's vice-president because he knows that the company is making tremendous profits? That's a problem that has plagued numerous leagues. If players adjust their demands on cash totals, then why even have a salary scale function if it's going to be disregarded?

Also, I'm taking my league in example. It so happens that we have one extremely rich team (165mil cash), and no one is nearly close to that. Somehow, that 165mil fund they have should influence what my player demands as an extension for me? The extremely rich team is rebuilding and has a very, very conservative owner, he'll never offer the guy a contract, but every team that wants to offer him a contract can't afford to because he asks for twice as much as the salary scale should provide him. Basically, the contending teams can't sign a player because the rebuilding teams are super rich, and they won't sign him anyway. So, instead of taking what they are offered, they retire.

[SDtwin]

I think the problem might be a combination of the salary scale and the "too much cash" problem. In real life, there is no salary scale. Contracts are based off other players contracts and the amount of money out there. In OOTP it seems the Salary scale is being used for extensions and as the base for free agents. The problem with that is players will ask for way more than usual because they start at say.....16 million for their superstar pay, but then keep upping the ante because the money is there.

I'm not saying I don't like the players asking for more money because the teams have it, but it seems like there needs to be more of a balance between the Salary Scale and the contracts being given out because of all the extra cash floating around. Maybe the Salary Scale should be able to be a little more fluid and based off of the current contracts in the league.

I guess this is why teams try to hold on to their best players in real life. They don't feel like overpaying when the players hit free agency and competing with teams that have huge budgets.

[Long_Long_Name]

I think my league's situation is evidence that the system doesn't work. My 1-star MR will never, ever get a 13mil salary. In the real world, he'd settle for the million or two he'd be offered. In OOTP, he'd retire. And, if it continues that way, every player who has out of whack demands (so, pretty much ever player) will retire whenever his arbitration years are over. Teams will make even more money, since they never sign free agents and only have arbitration and minimum wage players on their roster, and the problem will only get worse and worse.

So, even if it did theoretically work like this in real life, it's highly impractical in OOTP - it just doesn't work.

Anyway, I though of a workaround. I could create a system where every team with more than 10mil would have t put the balance of its income in a bank, outside OOTP, so that players don't "know" that the teams have money and will settle on asking for contracts that they can actually get, with a reasonable salary scale. I find it a pity that this is necessary, though.

[SDtwin]

I think Markus just needs to tone down how much players ask for when the money is available. I agree that it does get pretty ridiculous when you have to pay one guy almost a quarter of your player budget just to sign someone in free agency when he isn't the best player in the league. It doesn't seem like it would be hard to fix, but I could be totally wrong.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by SDtwin

I think Markus just needs to tone down how much players ask for when the money is available. I agree that it does get pretty ridiculous when you have to pay one guy almost a quarter of your player budget just to sign someone in free agency when he isn't the best player in the league. It doesn't seem like it would be hard to fix, but I could be totally wrong.

Even if you reduce the percentage of how much it influences it, it will still be an issue. What if everybody in the league has 165mil stockpiled? Then it'll sticll be out of whack.

I honestly fail to see how it would be problematic to adjust what teams offer and not what players ask for. The market will do the rest. If my player asks for 2million dollars, and my rich competitor offers him 10mil because he's rich, maybe I can offer him 12mil because I'm rich too. If neither of us had money, well, perhaps someone would only offer him 2mil and that'd be what he signed for - market value. The salary scale could be used for extensions, and even if making it dynamic could be hard (maybe, the average of all 5 star guys for superstar, etc.), at least if it was static but editable to follow market value it would fix all problems. With this system, players would take what the owners gave them - I think the market would do a better job than the current system where no one will ever consider offering the bad middle reliever one of the top 5 salaries in the league.

Picture yourself a fringe middle reliever - not a mop up, but still way down the depth chart. All the teams are loaded, but you know that they're offering players your caliber 1-2mil a year. An owner calls you up and offers you 2mil. You tell him you'll wait, because you know everybody's rich and can offer you more. Days pass. You get another offer for 1.5mil a year. Days pass, you get nothing else. Will you still tell the owners "Sorry, it's 13mil or I retire"? Of course not, you take the 2mil, it's better than nothing! That's why I think that cash should influence what teams offer rather than what players ask for, because they are hurting themselves, owners and the league altogether by accepting nothing less than something that they can never ever get.

[kq76]

In the real world, players may demand the world, but they'll only get what the owners are willing to give them. With modern day CBAs the union might be able to get the players a huge chunk of the pie, but that certainly wasn't the case before modern day CBAs came into being. Players can demand all they want, but they need to eventually realize that their initial demands may be too much and that they might need to accept less. With FAs that should be fairly easy (retire or sign for less but still be paid ridiculous sums while getting to play a game with friends, hmm, tough choice), but with extensions that's a bit more difficult because they can easily just go to FA to see the market. They should have a decent idea what the market is before that point though.

In short, the system, if it is as described, is broken, huge number of filthy rich teams or not. Having a salary scale was a great idea for a tool to structure financials the way one would want them; it should be at least somewhat followed.

[SDtwin]

Ah, I see your point. So you think that instead of players asking for all the money the owners have, that the owners should be willing to outbid other teams if they have the money to do so, am I right?

I think that is partially what is happening right now though, except instead of owners offering the original deal, they just keep agreeing to bigger and bigger contracts until the crappy pitcher who wanted maybe 1 million a year ends up getting paid 4-6 million a year. I've had it happen to me, and I just had to learn to back down.

I guess it wouldn't hurt if Markus could make it so the players ask for a little less and then the team's doing the bidding caused the inflated contracts. I just think that you could possibly still end up with some of the same problems there are now.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by SDtwin

Ah, I see your point. So you think that instead of players asking for all the money the owners have, that the owners should be willing to outbid other teams if they have the money to do so, am I right?

I think that is partially what is happening right now though, except instead of owners offering the original deal, they just keep agreeing to bigger and bigger contracts until the crappy pitcher who wanted maybe 1 million a year ends up getting paid 4-6 million a year. I've had it happen to me, and I just had to learn to back down.

Take an average 1B. Comparable players are worth, say, 3-4mil. In a league with lots of cash, like mine, he'll ask for 19mil, making him the best paid player. He'll just never get it. He expects too much.

Now, imagine a system where he'd always demand what the salary scale dictates. He'll ask for 3.5mil in free agency. If you're in a league where everybody is financially strapped, a team will offer him 3mil because that's all their budget will permit for a guy like that - he'll probably take it, grudgingly, but it's better than retiring. If you play in a league like mine, where people have money, owners will adjust their offers based on the cash they have. Maybe the same team as before is 30mil under budget and will make an offer for 5, 6, maybe 8 million dollars. If that's what owners are willing to pay for him since they have the cash, then that's as much as he'll ever get. That's the way to maximize revenue to players, and make the teams be able to afford players they need. It's the most efficient way to deal with it, it benefits everyone.

What would you rather have, a system where players sign for what teams are ready to offer based on whether they are rich or not, or a system where they fully expect to be paid several times as much money as similar players and retire if they do not get it?

[SDtwin]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

What would you rather have, a system where players sign for what teams are ready to offer based on whether they are rich or not, or a system where they fully expect to be paid several times as much money as similar players and retire if they do not get it?

That makes sense. Maybe Markus should come in and tell us if that is workable or not. He seems to always be tweaking the AI so maybe he'll give it a shot in the next patch.

[Solonor]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

Take an average 1B. Comparable players are worth, say, 3-4mil. In a league with lots of cash, like mine, he'll ask for 19mil, making him the best paid player. He'll just never get it. He expects too much.

Now, imagine a system where he'd always demand what the salary scale dictates. He'll ask for 3.5mil in free agency. If you're in a league where everybody is financially strapped, a team will offer him 3mil because that's all their budget will permit for a guy like that - he'll probably take it, grudgingly, but it's better than retiring. If you play in a league like mine, where people have money, owners will adjust their offers based on the cash they have. Maybe the same team as before is 30mil under budget and will make an offer for 5, 6, maybe 8 million dollars. If that's what owners are willing to pay for him since they have the cash, then that's as much as he'll ever get. That's the way to maximize revenue to players, and make the teams be able to afford players they need. It's the most efficient way to deal with it, it benefits everyone.

What would you rather have, a system where players sign for what teams are ready to offer based on whether they are rich or not, or a system where they fully expect to be paid several times as much money as similar players and retire if they do not get it?

The problem with players retiring if they don't get anyone to meet their salary demands was reported, and it is supposed to be fixed in OOTP9. If you're seeing a perfectly healthy, young player retire just because he doesn't get $16 million and won't settle for the best offer out there, then it needs to be reported again!

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Solonor

The problem with players retiring if they don't get anyone to meet their salary demands was reported, and it is supposed to be fixed in OOTP9. If you're seeing a perfectly healthy, young player retire just because he doesn't get $16 million and won't settle for the best offer out there, then it needs to be reported again!

Admittedly, I can't confirm this - I haven't tested it in OOTP 9, onlyin previous versions. I'll give it a try.

[Solonor]

I'm double-checking it right now by creating a very small league, turning on Online, and setting up human GM's for each team. I'll have a single team bid on the biggest superstar free agent for half of what he's asking and see what he does.

[Solonor]

Sadly, no, the behavior has not changed. I offered a 28-year old player a million dollars a year to play, when he wanted 5 million. He got no other offers, waited a year and retired.

EPIC FAIL!

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

I just tested the "too much cash" theory. In a test league, I made cash amounts vary between -50mil and 20mil, and simmed two years in the future. Players were still asking for over 20 million dollars (no one in our league earns over 20 mil, and as I've mentioned before, out scale supposes 16mil for a superstar) in free agency, completely out of whack with our scale. Extension demands, however, were fine.

Basically, it seems like the "too much cash" issue is a problem, but it doesn't explain everything. What else could there be?

I'll mention that again. The "too much cash" problem is not everything there is to it - a star, but not superstar player (7/8/8) is asking for 24mil in a league where teams' cash reserves are averaging barely above 0, and where a superstar player should get 16mil according to the salary scale. What's weird, though, is that the player asking for 24mil eventually signed for 13mil a year - are demands just ridiculously high? In previous versions, I never would've offered anything less than 20mil to a guy asking for 24 for fear of getting ridiculed and ignored by the player. This was after several years, mind you, it's not a case of OOTP not having computed it yet. At least this only affects free agents, so my league can continue with a "house rule" for our very own bidding war format, but at least it takes care of extensions. It's still way out of whack, though.

I hope Markus reads this, because I'm really not sure how to write it in Bugzilla.

[gordyhulten]

In my experience of testing and re-testing a fictional league in 100-year fast sims, it's not just too much cash that causes the out-of-whack demands, but too much revenue. You need to scale back both the cash available and the revenue. If you do it right (and it's a delicate balance) then the player demands settle down into an approximation of the salary scale.

In my current solo fictional league, I've tweaked finances to a large degree (manually setting market sizes, fan loyalty, ballpark sizes, average ticket prices, turning off revenue sharing, instituting a cash cap, and even setting each team's media contract at a fixed amount based on market size and loyalty for 200 year durations) and I don't think I've ever seen a player in his prime retire because of a lack of contract offers. When testing my league settings, I would periodically check during April and October for high-quality unsigned FAs, and wouldn't see any.

[tysok]

Originally Posted by Solonor

Sadly, no, the behavior has not changed. I offered a 28-year old player a million dollars a year to play, when he wanted 5 million. He got no other offers, waited a year and retired.

EPIC FAIL!

There's somewhere else talking about guys seemingly "stealing" a player on the cheap later in the season. Where he was asking for too much to begin with, and declined offers early. Later on he lowered his demands until he was signing multi-year very cheap deals. Sounds like you offered 1 million, he declined, and no one ever came back with another offer.

If he's declined it, you surely don't expect that he'll come back begging you to make the offer again? It's wiped out and gone. Guessing you set it up as a test where you controlled all teams? Did you check to see if you could get him later on the cheap?

The whole thing is rather crappy. At league creation it doesn't follow the salary structure you set up (not very well at least). In a fictional MLB type league you need this "feature" in order to get a proper financial look to the contracts.

I can see where, in an entirely human GM game, it could cause problems. When the AI controls most teams they pay the contracts and go horribly in debt for a bit... the whole thing creates a strange balloon effect from years 3-7 or 8. Then it all settles down to a relative norm when all the surplus cash has been soaked up. In a human world they look and say "I don't even pay my ace that much, sure not giving it to you." Even though they have 165 million sitting around... if they pay the contracts and let the system even itself out it will. There's nothing else to do with the cash... spend it, that's what it's there for.
I have seen that a cash max will level out that balloon a little better. It's still there, but doesn't last as long and overall isn't as bad (obviously). I don't know what those players are asking for though, in either setup. Just know what the AI ends up with.

You need to suck that cash out of the league somehow, but you do have to let the salaries inflate to match the revenue the league brings in. If you have a bunch of 50 million payrolls, but have a bunch of 80 million budgets it won't work.

[Solonor]

Originally Posted by tysok

There's somewhere else talking about guys seemingly "stealing" a player on the cheap later in the season. Where he was asking for too much to begin with, and declined offers early. Later on he lowered his demands until he was signing multi-year very cheap deals. Sounds like you offered 1 million, he declined, and no one ever came back with another offer.

If he's declined it, you surely don't expect that he'll come back begging you to make the offer again? It's wiped out and gone. Guessing you set it up as a test where you controlled all teams? Did you check to see if you could get him later on the cheap?

The whole thing is rather crappy. At league creation it doesn't follow the salary structure you set up (not very well at least). In a fictional MLB type league you need this "feature" in order to get a proper financial look to the contracts.

I can see where, in an entirely human GM game, it could cause problems. When the AI controls most teams they pay the contracts and go horribly in debt for a bit... the whole thing creates a strange balloon effect from years 3-7 or 8. Then it all settles down to a relative norm when all the surplus cash has been soaked up. In a human world they look and say "I don't even pay my ace that much, sure not giving it to you." Even though they have 165 million sitting around... if they pay the contracts and let the system even itself out it will. There's nothing else to do with the cash... spend it, that's what it's there for.
I have seen that a cash max will level out that balloon a little better. It's still there, but doesn't last as long and overall isn't as bad (obviously). I don't know what those players are asking for though, in either setup. Just know what the AI ends up with.

You need to suck that cash out of the league somehow, but you do have to let the salaries inflate to match the revenue the league brings in. If you have a bunch of 50 million payrolls, but have a bunch of 80 million budgets it won't work.

OK, I screwed up. Panic mode over.

I tested a few more scenarios, and while the players are tough negotiators, they will keep lowering their demands as long as someone continues to make offers. Whew!