Purchase of Contracts

[DrArbiter]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

In earlier times, independent leagues were called outlaw leagues since they were outside the rules and regulations of organized baseball, that is, the agreements which existed between MLB and the NA.

Not to pick nits in an otherwise fine post, but not all independent leagues were outlaw leagues. "Outlaw" specifically referred to leagues which did not respect the contracts of other leagues, especially National Agreement leagues. There have existed many professional leagues which were independent but not outlaw, insofar as they did not attempt to lure players to jump existing contracts.

This has not always been a two-way street, however. In the 19th century, you'll often read in contemporary sources about leagues applying for "National protection," i.e., joining the National Agreement. The choice of terminology is telling, since National Agreement leagues felt no qualms in raiding non-NA leagues for players.

I generally concur with LGO's vision, though I disagree with him when he wrote previously that OOTP needs a financial system overhaul. OOTP needs a financial system, period. Salaries and club balance sheets right now are based on a very ad-hoc system, which severely limits the flexibility of the game. LGO's vision is ambitious and would require a significant up-front development investment. However, often starting with a clear vision of what the system should look like in the end winds up leading to simplifications in the software engineering, and it is possible that even those of you primarily interested in modern MLB-like models might be surprised when the financials start making more sense after such an overhaul. There've been many times I have rewritten major parts of programs once I had a clearer vision of what the overall structure should be, and wound up with a program that was both much smaller and more powerful. I don't know whether the same would occur in this case, but it's a distinct possibility.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by DrArbiter

Not to pick nits in an otherwise fine post, but not all independent leagues were outlaw leagues. "Outlaw" specifically referred to leagues which did not respect the contracts of other leagues, especially National Agreement leagues.

Hmmm, I've always read the term as simply applying to leagues not part of the national agreement/organized baseball, not necessarily to those which raided other leagues for players. But I defer to your more in-depth knowledge in this regard.

Originally Posted by DrArbiter

However, often starting with a clear vision of what the system should look like in the end winds up leading to simplifications in the software engineering... There've been many times I have rewritten major parts of programs once I had a clearer vision of what the overall structure should be, and wound up with a program that was both much smaller and more powerful.

This is it exactly.

Personally, it seems to me much of OOTP's growth in terms of features and capabilities has been done on an ad hoc basis rather than necessarily with any long-term specific goal or vision in mind. Users request certain features, Markus codes them in, adds a few things which interest him, puts out the game, which in turn garners more feature requests, and so on. How much of this is by design and how much by reaction I don't know, but it certainly seems as much random as planned sometimes.

I approach things with a specific vision and goal in mind: to one day have OOTP as the ultimate baseball sim. This means the user can select any year and have the game give a recreation that comes very close to that real year, in terms of player stats, league structures and relationships, finances, the whole deal, and regardless of whether it's for a historical or fictional league.

But to accomplish this means having a foundation within the game that can accommodate the full breadth of baseball's history in all of these various areas. The league structures and interactions of the 1920s is quite different from today's, for example, so the game needs to be aware of the differences and have a system by which both can be recreated by the user without an unduly complicated interface.

This is all doable, I feel, provided one thinks long and clearly about what needs to be included in the foundation and how it might be presented.

Then, with that foundation laid, the individual elements can gradually be put into the game each year. One year might see the introduction of a few league interaction categories, for example. The next version might see a few more added, and so on, until the full scope of the possibilties have been incorporated. With a solid, flexible foundation, adding all those options is easier than without such a starting point.

[Nutlaw]

Originally Posted by Dr. P.R. Park III

How about a checkable box in Game Options for "Allow Purchase of Players from Unaffiliated Leagues." With that checked, another group of drop-down menus pop up...where the user picks the number of and which Unaffiliated Leagues allow Purchase of Players. If an unaffiliated league is unselected, by default, that league would reject all purchase offers. If they are selected, they will negotiate amount.

To actually purchase player contract, right click on player, an option says "Purchase Players Contract," this takes you to a screen very similar to the Trade screen.

Once the purchase has been completed, the player automatically gets a minor league contract, until he is added to the 25 man roster.

How does this seem?

What if we simplified it further and simply said that only major leagues could purchase contracts from only unaffiliated non-major leagues? Each league could then simply have one option to determine whether or not major leagues could sign away its players.

[Dr. P.R. Park III]

Nutlaw,

I think that would be perfect. Unfortunately, I don't know if this thread will lead to anything, I can only hope.

LGO,
From experience, exactly what kind of format/information is helpful to Markus to market something like this to him? Obviously, it's a reassuring sign that he inquired publicly about it, but it's just confusing, trying to explain how things work, without knowledge of how such thing operate.

[DrArbiter]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Hmmm, I've always read the term as simply applying to leagues not part of the national agreement/organized baseball, not necessarily to those which raided other leagues for players. But I defer to your more in-depth knowledge in this regard.

Most of the latter-day examples of independent leagues before the current batch -- the post-WWII Mexican League, the various leagues in Vermont and Quebec, and so forth -- were indeed outlaw leagues. Earlier, there were examples of leagues that didn't go a-raiding other leagues.

Personally, it seems to me much of OOTP's growth in terms of features and capabilities has been done on an ad hoc basis rather than necessarily with any long-term specific goal or vision in mind. Users request certain features, Markus codes them in, adds a few things which interest him, puts out the game, which in turn garners more feature requests, and so on.

That is my impression as well.

[Nutlaw]

Originally Posted by Dr. P.R. Park III

Nutlaw,

I think that would be perfect. Unfortunately, I don't know if this thread will lead to anything, I can only hope.

Could we simplify it even further by taking the negotiating process out of it and replacing it with a standard fee? Something like five times the player's current yearly salary, or the standard superstar salary in the independent league, or the league minimum salary in the major league or something along those lines?

[DreamTeams]

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

Could we simplify it even further by taking the negotiating process out of it and replacing it with a standard fee? Something like five times the player's current yearly salary, or the standard superstar salary in the independent league, or the league minimum salary in the major league or something along those lines?

Like the simplicity of this, for a start.

Parhaps the news story can read "'team' has offered so and so a tryout and would like to purchase his contract from the 'team' of the Indy League for $$$, etc., etc."

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Dr. P.R. Park III

From experience, exactly what kind of format/information is helpful to Markus to market something like this to him?

I don't know if one way is better than any other, but offhand, my main suggestion would be to make your proposal as detailed and specific as you can. That is, sit down and think about what exactly you want the feature to do, considering the implications of any options included with the feature, and then write up as a final proposal/suggestion.

The more precisely you can describe what you want to have happen with the feature, the easier it is for Markus to understand it and see how it works, and have a design plan which he can follow.

The dialog between you and Nutlaw in this thread is effectively doing that, as you are both working out the details of how you'd like the purchasing of contracts to work for this version of the game. Your suggestion in post #39 and Nutlaw's replies in posts #43 and #46 are good examples of refining the concept to a specific method of operation. A little more discussion and I think you'll have it figured out. Then just write it up and post it as its own post, introducing it by saying something like, "This is how the feature could work." (Or you could send it to Markus as a PM and referencing this thread.)

I'd say the biggest problem for a lot of suggestions is that they lack detail. It's easy enough to say put X into the game or implement Y, but often, there's a lot of ways X or Y could work, and without some sort of guideline, it's left for Markus to try and figure out. If you instead supply a well thought out roadmap, getting to the destination is much easier. Of course, this requires the user put it more time and effort to work out the ins and outs of a given feature suggestion, but I think it's worth it if it means a better chance of feature being adopted.

[Dr. P.R. Park III]

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

Could we simplify it even further by taking the negotiating process out of it and replacing it with a standard fee? Something like five times the player's current yearly salary, or the standard superstar salary in the independent league, or the league minimum salary in the major league or something along those lines?

That's a much better idea. It would completely take out a prompt for another screen, and eliminate a step in the process. I'm thinking the amount determined could be determined by an in-game algorithm, I really like the player's salary x 5.

It'd be easier if Markus would suggest certain things, that would help alleviate the stress on him, and give us a direction in which we could come up with more structured suggestions.

[Nutlaw]

Originally Posted by Dr. P.R. Park III

That's a much better idea. It would completely take out a prompt for another screen, and eliminate a step in the process. I'm thinking the amount determined could be determined by an in-game algorithm, I really like the player's salary x 5.

It'd be easier if Markus would suggest certain things, that would help alleviate the stress on him, and give us a direction in which we could come up with more structured suggestions.

Let's figure out what we can here, then we can point Markus to it.

Editing the good Dr's earlier post, we're now at:

Any unaffiliated, non-major, non-feeder league would have a check box in League Options entitled "Allow Purchase of Players by Major Leagues." If checked, major league teams would have the ability to purchase the contract of any player in the league. If unchecked, no player contract could be bought out by these means.

To actually purchase a player contract, one would right click on a player. An option would be listed as "Purchase Player's Contract" and would take you to a screen very similar to the Trade screen wherein a set amount of money (five times the player's current annual salary?) is offered in exchange for the player. The amount of money would need to be large enough to make such offers routinely beneficial for the player's original team.

Once the purchase has been completed, the player is placed in the minors/reserve roster and automatically gets a new minor league contract until he is added to the active roster.

[Dr. P.R. Park III]

Sounds perfect. Although, I think technically, once the players contract has been purchased, and he is with the new team, he will be DFA, then the GM will decide where the player goes, but he will automatically receive minor league contract.

[Nutlaw]

Originally Posted by Dr. P.R. Park III

Sounds perfect. Although, I think technically, once the players contract has been purchased, and he is with the new team, he will be DFA, then the GM will decide where the player goes, but he will automatically receive minor league contract.

If you sign players to minor league contracts, they get directly placed in the lower level of the minors, so I figured that we'd be consistent. Online commishes, for instance, don't want to deal with DFA if they don't have to (after a GM misses a sim or two).

Lemme see if I can flag down Markus with this.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

Could we simplify it even further by taking the negotiating process out of it and replacing it with a standard fee? Something like five times the player's current yearly salary, or the standard superstar salary in the independent league, or the league minimum salary in the major league or something along those lines?

I like the negotiating aspect. Standard salaries oftenbear no relation to what the player is worth, especially for young players.

Using the Superstar category makes more sense to me, but it would keep player teams from buying players to stock their minor system. Of course, that may be what you're looking for.

By including the negotiating aspect you tie the cost of the player into the trade bias system ('easy'/'normal'/'difficult'/etc.), which seems to me a good thing. It would (or at least should) also take into account how valuable the player is to the team that would lose him. Is he merely the best starting pitcher on the team with the best rotation in the league? In that case he might go cheaper. Is he the only viable option at shortstop? In that case his price goes up.

It seems to me that by establishing a flat fee or scale (five times his current salary) you are in effect making these supposedly independent leagues into de facto vending machines to be raided whenever you feel a touch hungry.

[Nutlaw]

Originally Posted by Curtis

I like the negotiating aspect. Standard salaries oftenbear no relation to what the player is worth, especially for young players.

Using the Superstar category makes more sense to me, but it would keep player teams from buying players to stock their minor system. Of course, that may be what you're looking for.

By including the negotiating aspect you tie the cost of the player into the trade bias system ('easy'/'normal'/'difficult'/etc.), which seems to me a good thing. It would (or at least should) also take into account how valuable the player is to the team that would lose him. Is he merely the best starting pitcher on the team with the best rotation in the league? In that case he might go cheaper. Is he the only viable option at shortstop? In that case his price goes up.

It seems to me that by establishing a flat fee or scale (five times his current salary) you are in effect making these supposedly independent leagues into de facto vending machines to be raided whenever you feel a touch hungry.

I'd have no problem with this method. I just worry that the more complex you make the system, the less likely that it will be coded. Given that the AI isn't currently very involved in considering its financial situation, this might be a bigger deal that you'd think.

Independent leagues do exist to feed into the major league system. Every single guy playing in them wants to get noticed and signed by the big guys. I looked at a few websites the other day, and these leagues don't brag about how great their leagues are. They brag about how many of their players later went on to play in the majors. If you'd want the league itself to be a destination of choice, you wouldn't use this feature in your league setup. You'd allow trading between leagues or some such instead.

[Nutlaw]

Of note, an ideal independent league wouldn't have a draft or any means of generating its own new players. It ought to be a place to give guys from another league's massive free agent pool something to do and a chance to prove themselves worthy of being given an opportunity in a major league organization.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

Of note, an ideal independent league wouldn't have a draft or any means of generating its own new players. It ought to be a place to give guys from another league's massive free agent pool something to do and a chance to prove themselves worthy of being given an opportunity in a major league organization.

They should maybe generate one or two free agents a year to represent local try outs and other things.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

I just worry that the more complex you make the system, the less likely that it will be coded.

This is true. On the other hand, I'd rather not see the feature debut to cries of, 'It doesn't work the way it should!' A lot of posters (not me) already complain about how easy it is to dominate the AI teams. It seems to me that a flat rate system would be an extension of the current ability to sign players 'for free' (ie. for a minor league contract), which is easily abused.

{Granted this is a seperate issue, since it involves affiliated minors, but two of the players the Mets are inviting to spring training are guaranteed $600,000+ for one season, even if they never make it out of the minors. I'm hoping for something like that. I should be having to pay my minor leaguers a salary.}

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

Independent leagues do exist to feed into the major league system. Every single guy playing in them wants to get noticed and signed by the big guys.

I don't deny that, but every league also exists to turn a profit. There's not a single independent who has altruistic motives; they want to promote themselves as a transient destination in order to attract more fans ('Come see the veterans of yesteryear and the superstars of tomorrow! Look who's already passed through our doors. Who could be next?') and a higher caliber of player. They would charge whatever the market would bear. If the second coming of Ty Cobb walks into their locker room, they're not letting go of him for five times his salary.

[No Pepper]

Interesting discussion everyone. I think Nutlaw and Curtis hit the nail on the head. For this to even begin to work, an improved AI acknowledgement of its own finances (Am I in the red? Yes, I need to sell a contract) and the requirement/option of having to pay for minor league contracts are needed.

Trades, free agent signings are allowed between leagues, but are the specific leagues selectable? That is, the majors can purchase Dominican contracts, but not Cuban?

But in effect, aren't you guys asking for what is essentially more "make this happen now, trade for cash" transactions than what is currently happening? I'm not familiar with how the current version handles this so I could be way off. Or, isn't this similar to the game's waiver system? In essence, you're picking up a 'free agent' with contract in-season, with some restrictions, but provide the other team with no monetary compensation (fee). I'm trying to grab at a feature already there but adding a tag or two to give it some more nuance.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

Of note, an ideal independent league wouldn't have a draft or any means of generating its own new players. It ought to be a place to give guys from another league's massive free agent pool something to do and a chance to prove themselves worthy of being given an opportunity in a major league organization.

To me, this goes to the argument that there should only be one player pool from which all the leagues in a given OOTP universe draw their players. This is how it is in the real world—there is only one pool of players. It's the various league rules and relationships, and individual league prestige, which determines whether a player ends up in one league or another.

Originally Posted by Curtis

{Granted this is a seperate issue, since it involves affiliated minors, but two of the players the Mets are inviting to spring training are guaranteed $600,000+ for one season, even if they never make it out of the minors. I'm hoping for something like that. I should be having to pay my minor leaguers a salary.}

This goes to my oft-repeated remark that a financial system overhaul is much needed in the game, one which would also see every league become a fully separate and unique entity. It wouldn't matter whether a league is major or minor, it'd have its own rules and options settings, and its own league totals.

[Nutlaw]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

To me, this goes to the argument that there should only be one player pool from which all the leagues in a given OOTP universe draw their players. This is how it is in the real world—there is only one pool of players. It's the various league rules and relationships, and individual league prestige, which determines whether a player ends up in one league or another.

Much, much easier said than done, my friend. You'd need to really improve the player AI so that each one would know which league he "ought" to be signing with. If you start talking about players being drafted by multiple teams in multiple leagues ... well, it would be fun, but it would be a headache to implement properly.