OOTP10 Suggestions: Player and Staff Contracts - Page 2

Le Grande Orange · 12-06-2008, 11:23 PM

SUGGESTION

Better support and recreation of the reserve clause era in terms of player contracts and team finances.

REASON

Right now, there is relatively little support for recreating the reserve clause era in the game's financial aspects. You can turn off free agency, but that's not really sufficient. The reserve clause era requires several additional aspects to be implemented in order for it to be more authentic to that era and more interesting and challenging to the OOTP user.

PRIORITY

Medium/High.

The Suggestion in Detail

In terms of player contracts, the three main aspects of the reserve clause era which would need to be included in OOTP would be: 1) player hold-outs; 2) different termination pay provisions; and 3) contract lengths, renewals, and incentives; and 4) player sales.

Player hold-outs. These are an important item. In the reserve clause era, the team had the right to impose a new salary should the player and team not be able to agree on one. The player's only option at that point was to either accept the new salary or become a hold-out. While long hold-outs were rare, there were cases of players holding for thirty days or more of the season, and a few even sat out the entire season. Having to deal with a hold-out would add an interesting twist for the user, though of course the AI regarding contract demands and whether to hold out and for how long would need to be balanced well.

Termination pay provisions. Differences in how these operated meant it was much less costly for a team to release a player during the reserve clause era. Before 1947, when a player was released during the regular season he only received 10 days (1/18th of the season) severance pay; if released during the off-season or spring training he received nothing. From 1947-1970 a player released during the regular season got 30 days (1/6th of the season) termination pay; he still got nothing if cut during the off-season or spring training.

Starting in 1972, players received, for the first time, severance pay if cut during spring training: they got 30 days (1/6th of the season) pay. If they were released during the regular season before May 15th they got 60 days (1/3rd of the season) severance pay; and if released after May 15th they received the entire year's remaining pay. By 1990, with free agency well-established, players still under the reserve clause (i.e. those not yet eligible for free agency) recieved 30 days (1/6th of the season) pay if cut during the off-season and first half of spring training; 45 days (1/4 of the season) severance pay if cut during the second half of spring training; and their full season's salary if released during the regular season. Free agents, with guaranteed contracts, were of course entitled to their full contract amounts if released.

The above thus shows that, during the reseve clause era, releasing a player was far less costly, in financial terms, compared to the free agency years, thus making it much easier to cut a player and bring in someone else.

Contract lengths, renewals, and incentives. Nearly all contracts during the reserve clause era were for one year; only rarely were multi-year contracts offered. As a result, this means that players and clubs renegotiated their contract each year, though of course the club had the huge advantage of being able to impose a new salary should there not be an agreement. For OOTP purposes, the AI governing these negotiation should be simpler and quicker than that for the free agency era, but there should be a few players who prove troublesome to deal with, thus raising the possibility of having to impose a salary and risk triggering a hold-out.

In terms of incentives, one incentive used, particuarly in earlier years, was waiving the termination pay clause. Removing this turned the contract into a one-year guaranteed contract. So, for example, a player in 1925 who had this clause removed meant that if he was released during the season, instead of only getting 10 days severance pay, he got the rest of his salary for the season. Other incentive clauses used during the reserve clause era included bonus money for the club exceeding a stated attendance number, the team finishing at or above a specified position in the league, at achieving certain performance goals (e.g. wins for pitchers, batting average for hitters). Incentive clauses more similar to today's, such as for winning certain awards or playing in a specified number of games, were also used.

Player sales. These were very common in the reserve clause era. Major league and minor league players were often sold only for cash rather than traded, particularly by teams needing to raise some quick cash. Some clubs made a handsome profit by selling their excess players to other organizations. Buying a player, rather than trading for him, offered a different way of acquiring a desired or needed player.

dodgerblue88 · 12-12-2008, 12:31 AM

Suggestion

Have injured free agents or free agents who missed a large portion of the season due to injury accept short term incentive-laden deals, rather than seek 5-7 year deals.

Reason

In real life, injured players or those coming off injuries generally dont get big multi-year contracts until having proved themselves healthy.

Priority

Medium/High

KurtBevacqua · 12-12-2008, 04:16 PM

Suggestion
Have a real system of offering and decling arbitration for each eligible player rather than the current system by exception. Use this to include the option to offer arbi to all prospective free agents so we can improve the FA compensation system.

Reason
The way it's done now doesn't mirror the way it's done IRL. This also makes FA compensation deeply flawed. Finally it would add another element of realism as IRL arbitration can be a very big deal in the offseason. IRL it sometimes changes the way a player feels about a franchise. The game as is, is very clinical. You don't cut a guy so he automatically accepts arbi and all is well when in fact maybe the guy wants to negotiate a long term deal now and if the team refuses too he may decide to leave at his first opportunity or ask for a trade. It happens all the time.

Priority
To me it's a must have if the intent is to improve FA compensation. Plus the dynamics of resigning players has changed quite a bit the last few years as more and more players are signing long term deals while still eligible for arbi. In fact I'd say most of the really good ones are getting big deals done earlier and earlier.

Curtis · 12-20-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by injury log

Suggestion

Add an 'offer extension to all staff' button, like the one on the free agent page for minor league free agents.

Reason

Playing with coaches can be pretty tedious if you have a deep minor league system. Hiring coaches, and offering them contracts, is dull. I don't know about other players, but I'm happy to meet the contract demands of my coaches -- the negotiations are over such small sums of money that they aren't worth spending time on. If there was a button that automatically offered every coach with an expiring contract the precise salary they were demanding, playing with coaches on would be more palatable.

This is a good suggestion, but as the game functions now it probably wouldn't work as Injury Log intended. To make it work:

Suggestion: When you are trying to sign any player or personnel to an extension, if you meet their demands, they should sign with you.

Reason: Just makes sense to me.

I had a little experience with coaching annoyance recently when I began a new MLB quickstart. I fired a bunch of personnel, hired a bunch and moved a bunch around. I then offered extensions to twenty of the 27 personnel. In each case I met their demands exactly. I received telegrams from seven of them saying I had come up short. (I only got acceptance telegrams from two of the rest, so I thought the other eleven were still mulling it over, but when I checked their profiles they had all accepted.)

I can understand getting in a bidding war over free agents, but when you meet the demands of someone who's already under contract, they should simply sign.

Priority: Low, but if you don't incorporate this it would be useless to incorporate Injury Log's suggestion.

markprior22 · 01-20-2009, 09:07 AM

Suggestion

Have player morale affected negatively a large percentage of the time the player has to go through arbitration.

Reason

Teams and players both try very hard to avoid arbitration because of the bad feelings caused. I pretty much give arbitration to my players (as long as I have the ability) with no repercussions that I'm aware of.

Priority

Medium-I guess nothing is "broken" but changing this would make arbitration more life like and bring another challenge to the table.

aewin · 01-20-2009, 07:08 PM

Suggestion

Get rid of the current "mutual options" as they are pointless. Requiring BOTH team and player to agree means that it is not an "option" in the true sense (ie no party has the unilateral ability to execute it) and it really doesn't add anything of value to either party to the contract. Team and player can agree to an extension at anytime anyway.

Replace current "mutual option" concept with an option where EITHER the team or the player can execute the option. This would truly be an option and would potentially be of value to one party come the time - ie an undervalued contract salary would benefit the team and an overvalued contract salary would benefit the player.

AT THE VERY LEAST A CURRENT MUTUAL OPTION SHOULD HAVE ZERO VALUE WHEN THE AI EVALUATES A CONTRACT OFFER.

Reason

It is currently pointless and actually MIGHT (I don't know how contract offers are valued) be used to unfairly distort contract offers.

Let me give an extreme example of possible abuse. Let's say I want to offer an FA a 4 year contract at say $10m per year. I can offer him a 5 year contract with a 5th year mutual option with salaries of $10m, $10m, $10m, $10m and $50m knowing that I as GM can always refuse the 5th year.

Priority

High

aewin · 01-21-2009, 07:52 PM

Suggestion

When the AI calculates what a player wants for an extension (and when the AI assesses an extension offer) it MUST take account of the player's MLB service time and whether that player has years left at MLB league minimum salary or arbitration years. Currently I get silly things like a player in his first MLB service year requesting a 2 year multi-million contract extension!!! That is unrealistic when the team has him on league minimum salary for those next 2 years. If this could be made more realistic then it might be possible to sign super-stud prospects to long term contracts (ie contracts longer than 3 league minimum + 3 arbitration years).

Reason

Currently totally unrealistic.

Priority

High

lt2cents · 01-23-2009, 11:42 AM

Suggestion

Provide an alternate method for a team to act on team option year for a player contract.

Reason

The single method to pick up/void a team option year for a player contract is now tied solely to a message. If the message gets deleted there is no path to dealing with the option.

Priority

Medium.

WWBL Commissioner · 01-27-2009, 05:55 PM

Suggestion

Set limit on number of years a player can ask for in a contract in league set up so that there are no deals over a certain period of time

Reason

In the WWBL we like to limit deals to 6 years that way players that are great can't be signed early in career cheap and never hit the market.

Priority

Medium.

Scott Vibert · 01-28-2009, 10:43 PM

Suggestion
Posting system for free agents from Japan/Independents/etc

Reason
Its the way players come to MLB from Japan before they would otherwise be Free Agent Eligible, also allows for more of a European football-transfer type system.

Priority
Medium/Low

Pineapple · 01-31-2009, 04:49 AM

Suggestion
Allow for a team/manger to make verbal promises (incentives) to a free agent.

Reason
In real life, a team may persuade a player to sign with them by promising he will be the team's closer or starting third baseman for example. I think it would offer a new dimension to the free agent signing process if teams are allowed to make promises to a player. Promises can vary from guaranteeing a starting position, specific role, or a spot on the active roster.

If promises are broken, the signed player's morale would significantly dropped. Also, perhaps every GM should have a dynamic reputation rating. Honoring promises would boost the GM's reputation and therefore have free agents more likely to sign with those teams. Broken promises would lower the GM's reputation and make it more wary for free agents to sign.

Currently in OOTP9, a free agent factors in the money offered, loyalty, team record and team location when making a decision. I think adding a verbal promise feature would enhance the current incentive/reward feature that already exists.

Priority
Low

blalock84 · 02-15-2009, 02:25 AM

Suggestion:
Allow Minor League contracts to have the built in inclusion of a signing bonus. I know this was posted earlier, but i wanted to give my own reasons as to why this should be in the game

Reason:
This is a very big part of baseball and as its currently set up minor league contracts have zero cost to the team signing a player on one. Im not suggesting that this needs to be used for draft picks, it could,or you could just use it in a slotting system. But this needs to be done for signing major league players, it would be a huge, huge addition to that part of the game and would get me more interested in pursuing players in the FA market. It would only work of course if this was only an option for very marginal ML players on the FA market and young players who have a bunch of potential but arent there yet.

The biggest reason id want this however, is to recreate the Amatuer FA market. The signing of International players espececially from Latin America. This, to me, is by far the biggest element of Real life that is missing from the General Managing of a OOTP team. In reality, this was also used for a while as the only means to acquire amatuer players before the amatuer draft was instituted, so for all those history buffs, this would be a huge addition to that aspect of the game. I really think that this would add a whole other dynamic to the game that would be awesome. I've been trying to recreate this aspect of the game for a while now in OOTP 9, but its really impossible to come close to doing this without the ability to add Bonuses to Minor League contracts.

Priority:
Super super high, if there wasnt anything else to added to the game, id buy OOTP 10 just for this.

twitt · 02-19-2009, 01:03 PM

Suggestion
Allow promotion of coaches to higher levels, but not just to Major Leagues. Also, include a development engine for the coaches (if there isn't one already).

Reason It would be nice to develop and move coaches up through the system like a player, allowing them to learn at different levels on their way to the major leagues. Right now, I have to fire them when they get too expensive for the level they're at and I don't want them in the Majors, so it's hard to tell if they develop. I also like the suggestion above of being allowed to offer contracts to already employed coaches. Right now, the coaching contract negotiation system is static and unnecessarily dull (you end up having to pay them what they want) given that you have to go through with it every season.

Priority
I think it's a fairly high priority for an aspect of the game that has to be dealt with so regularly.

Scott33315 · 02-20-2009, 10:47 AM

Suggestion:
Make the coaches and manager contract negotiations more like player negotiations. Have the coaches and managers say what they really want in a contract.

Reason:
Right now, coaches often say they want a contract for x dollars for y years, then reject such a contract when offered. Sometimes they will reject even 1.5x or 2x the amount they asked for. This can lead to multiple rounds of making offers as you try to guess how much they want.

Priority:
Medium. The current system is kind of annoying and slows down an otherwise-fun game, and it can drive a new player nuts until you figure out how to work around it.

aewin · 02-23-2009, 01:33 AM

Suggestion

Introduce actual salaries for minor league contracts (MLCs) - eg 1st year MLC $32,500 (2009 & 2010) and 2nd and subsequent year MLCs $65,000 (2009 & 2010).

Reason

Make financials more realistic and stop GMs hoarding "free" minor league prospects.

Priority

Medium

aewin · 02-25-2009, 09:34 PM

Suggestion

Break the Budget into four components (player payroll, coaching payroll, scouting payroll and scouting budget) so that roster sets (like CF2009v3.0) don't have to have the finanacials (eg team budget) manually edited depending on whether scouts and coaches are on or off.

CubbyFan23 says (in response to an issue I raised about CF2009v3.0 having an inflated staff payroll - see that thread if you want details):

"It's always going to be an issue having to manually edit financials when you turn on coaches/scouting because unfortunately OOTP does not turn down the overall budget when you switch any of those on/off... the budget just is what it is in game unless you edit it. The only reason we're seeing it now moreso is because the number is a bit inflated.

If coaches/scouting is changed, I would always recommend editing numbers because whether it's 2M or 10M, that budget number doesn't change unless you edit it when options are switched around.

I'm pretty sure the cause of the problem is "ghost" GMs/trainers on all of the minor league teams with salary, but I'm not aware of any way to remove them without taking way more time than it would be worth. "

Reason

Would make roster sets MUCH MORE user friendly with respect to changing the option of coaches/scouts on or off.

Priority

High

bebop · 02-28-2009, 01:35 PM

Suggestion
Many, many more incentives for contracts.
There should be incentives for HRs, OBP, BA, Sbs, XBHs..
Also, even better would be incentives for Career Milestones..

Reason
Makes game WAY more realistic. Easier to find bargains on the Free Agent
market for Small Market teams..

Priority
High.

noel33 · 03-01-2009, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bebop

Suggestion
Many, many more incentives for contracts.
There should be incentives for HRs, OBP, BA, Sbs, XBHs..
Also, even better would be incentives for Career Milestones..

Reason
Makes game WAY more realistic. Easier to find bargains on the Free Agent
market for Small Market teams..

Priority
High.

While having the options for these might be interesting, it's not realistic, as you are not allowed to have performance incentives, except for awards and IP or AB.

bebop · 03-11-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noel33

While having the options for these might be interesting, it's not realistic, as you are not allowed to have performance incentives, except for awards and IP or AB.

But pre-1950s teams did this often, I believe (?)
maybe i heard wrong?

bebop · 03-18-2009, 10:55 AM

Suggestion
Vesting options for contracts.
Being able to set up a Kevin Millwood-esque contract or a Julio Lugo-esque
contract would be great (though hopefully you wont get burned on them
like those teams did..)

Reason
Makes game WAY more realistic. Easier to find bargains on the Free Agent
market for Small Market teams..

Priority
Medium-High.

12-12-2008, 12:31 AM	#22
dodgerblue88 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Whittier, CA Posts: 212	Injured Free Agents Suggestion Have injured free agents or free agents who missed a large portion of the season due to injury accept short term incentive-laden deals, rather than seek 5-7 year deals. Reason In real life, injured players or those coming off injuries generally dont get big multi-year contracts until having proved themselves healthy. Priority Medium/High

12-12-2008, 04:16 PM	#23
KurtBevacqua Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,968	Suggestion Have a real system of offering and decling arbitration for each eligible player rather than the current system by exception. Use this to include the option to offer arbi to all prospective free agents so we can improve the FA compensation system. Reason The way it's done now doesn't mirror the way it's done IRL. This also makes FA compensation deeply flawed. Finally it would add another element of realism as IRL arbitration can be a very big deal in the offseason. IRL it sometimes changes the way a player feels about a franchise. The game as is, is very clinical. You don't cut a guy so he automatically accepts arbi and all is well when in fact maybe the guy wants to negotiate a long term deal now and if the team refuses too he may decide to leave at his first opportunity or ask for a trade. It happens all the time. Priority To me it's a must have if the intent is to improve FA compensation. Plus the dynamics of resigning players has changed quite a bit the last few years as more and more players are signing long term deals while still eligible for arbi. In fact I'd say most of the really good ones are getting big deals done earlier and earlier. __________________ "The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man" - William Graham Sumner

01-20-2009, 07:08 PM	#26
aewin Major Leagues Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 447	Suggestion Get rid of the current "mutual options" as they are pointless. Requiring BOTH team and player to agree means that it is not an "option" in the true sense (ie no party has the unilateral ability to execute it) and it really doesn't add anything of value to either party to the contract. Team and player can agree to an extension at anytime anyway. Replace current "mutual option" concept with an option where EITHER the team or the player can execute the option. This would truly be an option and would potentially be of value to one party come the time - ie an undervalued contract salary would benefit the team and an overvalued contract salary would benefit the player. AT THE VERY LEAST A CURRENT MUTUAL OPTION SHOULD HAVE ZERO VALUE WHEN THE AI EVALUATES A CONTRACT OFFER. Reason It is currently pointless and actually MIGHT (I don't know how contract offers are valued) be used to unfairly distort contract offers. Let me give an extreme example of possible abuse. Let's say I want to offer an FA a 4 year contract at say $10m per year. I can offer him a 5 year contract with a 5th year mutual option with salaries of $10m, $10m, $10m, $10m and $50m knowing that I as GM can always refuse the 5th year. Priority High Last edited by aewin; 01-21-2009 at 05:16 PM.

01-27-2009, 05:55 PM	#29
WWBL Commissioner All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 887	Suggestion Set limit on number of years a player can ask for in a contract in league set up so that there are no deals over a certain period of time Reason In the WWBL we like to limit deals to 6 years that way players that are great can't be signed early in career cheap and never hit the market. Priority Medium. __________________ Offey WWBL Commissioner(2004-2014 real life years) WWBL: Hawaii Island Warriors 2005 Pacific League Champion 2006 Pacific League Champion 2007 Pacific League Champion 2008 WWBL WORLD CHAMPION 2010 WWBL WORLD CHAMPION 2019 WWBL WORLD CHAMPION 2029 WWBL WORLD CHAMPION The Island Warriors are 21-23 in World Series play. BadAssBaseball: Boston Red Sox 1906 American League Champion 1907 WORLD CHAMPION

02-19-2009, 01:03 PM	#33
twitt Bat Boy Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1	Coach development and promotion Suggestion Allow promotion of coaches to higher levels, but not just to Major Leagues. Also, include a development engine for the coaches (if there isn't one already). Reason It would be nice to develop and move coaches up through the system like a player, allowing them to learn at different levels on their way to the major leagues. Right now, I have to fire them when they get too expensive for the level they're at and I don't want them in the Majors, so it's hard to tell if they develop. I also like the suggestion above of being allowed to offer contracts to already employed coaches. Right now, the coaching contract negotiation system is static and unnecessarily dull (you end up having to pay them what they want) given that you have to go through with it every season. Priority I think it's a fairly high priority for an aspect of the game that has to be dealt with so regularly.

12-06-2008, 11:23 PM	#21
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,642	SUGGESTION Better support and recreation of the reserve clause era in terms of player contracts and team finances. REASON Right now, there is relatively little support for recreating the reserve clause era in the game's financial aspects. You can turn off free agency, but that's not really sufficient. The reserve clause era requires several additional aspects to be implemented in order for it to be more authentic to that era and more interesting and challenging to the OOTP user. PRIORITY Medium/High. The Suggestion in Detail In terms of player contracts, the three main aspects of the reserve clause era which would need to be included in OOTP would be: 1) player hold-outs; 2) different termination pay provisions; and 3) contract lengths, renewals, and incentives; and 4) player sales. Player hold-outs. These are an important item. In the reserve clause era, the team had the right to impose a new salary should the player and team not be able to agree on one. The player's only option at that point was to either accept the new salary or become a hold-out. While long hold-outs were rare, there were cases of players holding for thirty days or more of the season, and a few even sat out the entire season. Having to deal with a hold-out would add an interesting twist for the user, though of course the AI regarding contract demands and whether to hold out and for how long would need to be balanced well. Termination pay provisions. Differences in how these operated meant it was much less costly for a team to release a player during the reserve clause era. Before 1947, when a player was released during the regular season he only received 10 days (1/18th of the season) severance pay; if released during the off-season or spring training he received nothing. From 1947-1970 a player released during the regular season got 30 days (1/6th of the season) termination pay; he still got nothing if cut during the off-season or spring training. Starting in 1972, players received, for the first time, severance pay if cut during spring training: they got 30 days (1/6th of the season) pay. If they were released during the regular season before May 15th they got 60 days (1/3rd of the season) severance pay; and if released after May 15th they received the entire year's remaining pay. By 1990, with free agency well-established, players still under the reserve clause (i.e. those not yet eligible for free agency) recieved 30 days (1/6th of the season) pay if cut during the off-season and first half of spring training; 45 days (1/4 of the season) severance pay if cut during the second half of spring training; and their full season's salary if released during the regular season. Free agents, with guaranteed contracts, were of course entitled to their full contract amounts if released. The above thus shows that, during the reseve clause era, releasing a player was far less costly, in financial terms, compared to the free agency years, thus making it much easier to cut a player and bring in someone else. Contract lengths, renewals, and incentives. Nearly all contracts during the reserve clause era were for one year; only rarely were multi-year contracts offered. As a result, this means that players and clubs renegotiated their contract each year, though of course the club had the huge advantage of being able to impose a new salary should there not be an agreement. For OOTP purposes, the AI governing these negotiation should be simpler and quicker than that for the free agency era, but there should be a few players who prove troublesome to deal with, thus raising the possibility of having to impose a salary and risk triggering a hold-out. In terms of incentives, one incentive used, particuarly in earlier years, was waiving the termination pay clause. Removing this turned the contract into a one-year guaranteed contract. So, for example, a player in 1925 who had this clause removed meant that if he was released during the season, instead of only getting 10 days severance pay, he got the rest of his salary for the season. Other incentive clauses used during the reserve clause era included bonus money for the club exceeding a stated attendance number, the team finishing at or above a specified position in the league, at achieving certain performance goals (e.g. wins for pitchers, batting average for hitters). Incentive clauses more similar to today's, such as for winning certain awards or playing in a specified number of games, were also used. Player sales. These were very common in the reserve clause era. Major league and minor league players were often sold only for cash rather than traded, particularly by teams needing to raise some quick cash. Some clubs made a handsome profit by selling their excess players to other organizations. Buying a player, rather than trading for him, offered a different way of acquiring a desired or needed player.

01-20-2009, 09:07 AM	#25
markprior22 All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: springfield, illinois Posts: 1,243	Suggestion Have player morale affected negatively a large percentage of the time the player has to go through arbitration. Reason Teams and players both try very hard to avoid arbitration because of the bad feelings caused. I pretty much give arbitration to my players (as long as I have the ability) with no repercussions that I'm aware of. Priority Medium-I guess nothing is "broken" but changing this would make arbitration more life like and bring another challenge to the table.

01-21-2009, 07:52 PM	#27
aewin Major Leagues Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 447	Suggestion When the AI calculates what a player wants for an extension (and when the AI assesses an extension offer) it MUST take account of the player's MLB service time and whether that player has years left at MLB league minimum salary or arbitration years. Currently I get silly things like a player in his first MLB service year requesting a 2 year multi-million contract extension!!! That is unrealistic when the team has him on league minimum salary for those next 2 years. If this could be made more realistic then it might be possible to sign super-stud prospects to long term contracts (ie contracts longer than 3 league minimum + 3 arbitration years). Reason Currently totally unrealistic. Priority High

01-23-2009, 11:42 AM	#28
lt2cents Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 212	Suggestion Provide an alternate method for a team to act on team option year for a player contract. Reason The single method to pick up/void a team option year for a player contract is now tied solely to a message. If the message gets deleted there is no path to dealing with the option. Priority Medium.

01-28-2009, 10:43 PM	#30
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,251	Suggestion Posting system for free agents from Japan/Independents/etc Reason Its the way players come to MLB from Japan before they would otherwise be Free Agent Eligible, also allows for more of a European football-transfer type system. Priority Medium/Low

01-31-2009, 04:49 AM	#31
Pineapple Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 92	Suggestion Allow for a team/manger to make verbal promises (incentives) to a free agent. Reason In real life, a team may persuade a player to sign with them by promising he will be the team's closer or starting third baseman for example. I think it would offer a new dimension to the free agent signing process if teams are allowed to make promises to a player. Promises can vary from guaranteeing a starting position, specific role, or a spot on the active roster. If promises are broken, the signed player's morale would significantly dropped. Also, perhaps every GM should have a dynamic reputation rating. Honoring promises would boost the GM's reputation and therefore have free agents more likely to sign with those teams. Broken promises would lower the GM's reputation and make it more wary for free agents to sign. Currently in OOTP9, a free agent factors in the money offered, loyalty, team record and team location when making a decision. I think adding a verbal promise feature would enhance the current incentive/reward feature that already exists. Priority Low

02-15-2009, 02:25 AM	#32
blalock84 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 54	Suggestion: Allow Minor League contracts to have the built in inclusion of a signing bonus. I know this was posted earlier, but i wanted to give my own reasons as to why this should be in the game Reason: This is a very big part of baseball and as its currently set up minor league contracts have zero cost to the team signing a player on one. Im not suggesting that this needs to be used for draft picks, it could,or you could just use it in a slotting system. But this needs to be done for signing major league players, it would be a huge, huge addition to that part of the game and would get me more interested in pursuing players in the FA market. It would only work of course if this was only an option for very marginal ML players on the FA market and young players who have a bunch of potential but arent there yet. The biggest reason id want this however, is to recreate the Amatuer FA market. The signing of International players espececially from Latin America. This, to me, is by far the biggest element of Real life that is missing from the General Managing of a OOTP team. In reality, this was also used for a while as the only means to acquire amatuer players before the amatuer draft was instituted, so for all those history buffs, this would be a huge addition to that aspect of the game. I really think that this would add a whole other dynamic to the game that would be awesome. I've been trying to recreate this aspect of the game for a while now in OOTP 9, but its really impossible to come close to doing this without the ability to add Bonuses to Minor League contracts. Priority: Super super high, if there wasnt anything else to added to the game, id buy OOTP 10 just for this.

02-20-2009, 10:47 AM	#34
Scott33315 Bat Boy Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Miami, Fla. Posts: 3	Coach/manager negotiations Suggestion: Make the coaches and manager contract negotiations more like player negotiations. Have the coaches and managers say what they really want in a contract. Reason: Right now, coaches often say they want a contract for x dollars for y years, then reject such a contract when offered. Sometimes they will reject even 1.5x or 2x the amount they asked for. This can lead to multiple rounds of making offers as you try to guess how much they want. Priority: Medium. The current system is kind of annoying and slows down an otherwise-fun game, and it can drive a new player nuts until you figure out how to work around it.

02-23-2009, 01:33 AM	#35
aewin Major Leagues Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 447	Minor League Contracts Suggestion Introduce actual salaries for minor league contracts (MLCs) - eg 1st year MLC $32,500 (2009 & 2010) and 2nd and subsequent year MLCs $65,000 (2009 & 2010). Reason Make financials more realistic and stop GMs hoarding "free" minor league prospects. Priority Medium

02-25-2009, 09:34 PM	#36
aewin Major Leagues Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 447	Suggestion Break the Budget into four components (player payroll, coaching payroll, scouting payroll and scouting budget) so that roster sets (like CF2009v3.0) don't have to have the finanacials (eg team budget) manually edited depending on whether scouts and coaches are on or off. CubbyFan23 says (in response to an issue I raised about CF2009v3.0 having an inflated staff payroll - see that thread if you want details): "It's always going to be an issue having to manually edit financials when you turn on coaches/scouting because unfortunately OOTP does not turn down the overall budget when you switch any of those on/off... the budget just is what it is in game unless you edit it. The only reason we're seeing it now moreso is because the number is a bit inflated. If coaches/scouting is changed, I would always recommend editing numbers because whether it's 2M or 10M, that budget number doesn't change unless you edit it when options are switched around. I'm pretty sure the cause of the problem is "ghost" GMs/trainers on all of the minor league teams with salary, but I'm not aware of any way to remove them without taking way more time than it would be worth. " Reason Would make roster sets MUCH MORE user friendly with respect to changing the option of coaches/scouts on or off. Priority High Last edited by aewin; 02-25-2009 at 09:36 PM.

02-28-2009, 01:35 PM	#37
bebop Minors (Single A) Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 72	Suggestion Many, many more incentives for contracts. There should be incentives for HRs, OBP, BA, Sbs, XBHs.. Also, even better would be incentives for Career Milestones.. Reason Makes game WAY more realistic. Easier to find bargains on the Free Agent market for Small Market teams.. Priority High.

03-18-2009, 10:55 AM	#40
bebop Minors (Single A) Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 72	Suggestion Vesting options for contracts. Being able to set up a Kevin Millwood-esque contract or a Julio Lugo-esque contract would be great (though hopefully you wont get burned on them like those teams did..) Reason Makes game WAY more realistic. Easier to find bargains on the Free Agent market for Small Market teams.. Priority Medium-High.