Online League Free Agency: Let's Improve It

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Some players do have minimum requirements, and I disagree with any free agency system that does not account for that fact and therefore allows for the lowballing of offers. If OOTP Player Awesome J. Slugger gets an offer from a team for a fraction of his value and it's the best offer that he gets and the free agency model requires that he accept it, that's unreasonable when in reality MLB player Awesome J. Slugger would tell the offering team to take their insulting offer and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

I tend to agree with this and wouldn't want it either. I prefer OOTPs wholistic approach to finances. On the other hand, I don't see a problem with choice in the matter. Interesting, though, it led me to another thought which is that of extensions (and get ready -- this goes back to available budget).

How would a player, in a market determined by the GMs, have any idea what he should ask for when negotiating an extension? If the GMs are depressing the market by not using massive amounts of money, what formula or calculations would a player use to determine negotiating points for extensions. If a change, like the one they want is enabled for just free agency, couldn't it mean very few players would be able to be signed to extensions, or every player would sign because they would take his only and lowest offer.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by Isryion

It does seem that this is far different from the thread title and initial, though of "More Broken Than Ever," and I'd suggest that's why things ran up against a bit of a wall here midway through.

I agree. I think things may have proceeded more constructively if the thread title was Online League Free Agency: Let's Improve It. If a forum mod has the ability to change it, I'd be in favor.


Although, the separate problem new to OOTP13 (or possibly 12) that has free agents spending weeks "pending" all offers and then signing with a team without warning seems a bit on the broken side. With any luck we can get someone with some developmental pull to weigh in on that separately.

[kon6749]

Originally Posted by Isryion

I think that's a fair and simplistic way to put it, and I think it would be great if the Dev team to give more control options to commissioners, so if they want more simplistic bidding or whatever, it's available.

I'm a simple person.

Originally Posted by Isryion

It does seem that this is far different from the thread title and initial, though of "More Broken Than Ever," and I'd suggest that's why things ran up against a bit of a wall here midway through.

It just seems sad to think that some of the responses (from some of the experience forum users) can't get past the topic of the post, because the solutions below that were presented from the original poster aren't far off base of my argument.

Originally Posted by Buane

Option A: OOTP AI is improved to the point where it no longer creates unreasonable demands for free agents and prices them in an accurate range so that GMs can feel comfortable submitting offers and including them in their offseason plans.

Option B: An "Online League Free Agency" mode is added that, when enabled, removes the "minimum" that a contract offer must hit before a free agent will consider the contract offer.

Option C: Allow the Commissioner to edit the Free Agent contract demands of players.

Either way, the whole negotiation scenario laid out in one of my previous posts would be avoided with a reasonable demand structure.

Isryion, thanks, I appreciate the good discussion.

[Jontler]

Originally Posted by Isryion

How would a player, in a market determined by the GMs, have any idea what he should ask for when negotiating an extension? If the GMs are depressing the market by not using massive amounts of money, what formula or calculations would a player use to determine negotiating points for extensions. If a change, like the one they want is enabled for just free agency, couldn't it mean very few players would be able to be signed to extensions, or every player would sign because they would take his only and lowest offer.

Were I to go about implementing this (and with zero knowledge for how the system is actually implemented in the code), the absolute only thing I would change is to remove the lower bound on what offers a player would favor in free agency.

I would leave in the player's current demands, as I believe they set at least some kind of expectation as to where the bidding might head.

I would not change anything about extensions. I definitely would have lower bounds set there. Lack of lower bounds only makes sense in free agency, not for extensions.

Finally, if this is wholly unreasonable and unsustainable and unpalatable and so forth, the band-aid solution mentioned in the original post - to allow commissioners to edit player demands - would be acceptable, if not ideal. That way, the underlying system wouldn't even need to be touched. The final number would just have to be editable.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by Isryion

How would a player, in a market determined by the GMs, have any idea what he should ask for when negotiating an extension? If the GMs are depressing the market by not using massive amounts of money, what formula or calculations would a player use to determine negotiating points for extensions. If a change, like the one they want is enabled for just free agency, couldn't it mean very few players would be able to be signed to extensions, or every player would sign because they would take his only and lowest offer.

I think that free agency and contract extensions should, ideally, be two separate animals. In the current system, I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with players shooting for the stars when negotiating an extension. No way should you be able to lowball pending free agents to any kind of degree.

They should certainly require payment at a premium when giving away their right to test the free agent waters. If they ask for too much money and the team has no choice but to let them walk, then that's both realistic, and good for competitive balance as it improves the free agent pool.


It's just that once they are free agents and their leverage over the negotiating team is gone, there needs to be a way for the league to ensure the GMs will be able to set the market for all its free agents.

It's a good point though, and certainly one I've considered. From a development point of view, what if free agent and contract extension logic is too intertwined to simply separate like I'm proposing? That would require extra development work - granted, I would still be in favor of it, and I'd lobby for its inclusion, but I'd recognize the complexity behind its implementation that would prevent it from being considered instantly.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by Buane

I think that free agency and contract extensions should, ideally, be two separate animals. In the current system, I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with players shooting for the stars when negotiating an extension. No way should you be able to lowball pending free agents to any kind of degree.

They should certainly require payment at a premium when giving away their right to test the free agent waters. If they ask for too much money and the team has no choice but to let them walk, then that's both realistic, and good for competitive balance as it improves the free agent pool.


It's just that once they are free agents and their leverage over the negotiating team is gone, there needs to be a way for the league to ensure the GMs will be able to set the market for all its free agents.

It's a good point though, and certainly one I've considered. From a development point of view, what if free agent and contract extension logic is too intertwined to simply separate like I'm proposing? That would require extra development work - granted, I would still be in favor of it, and I'd lobby for its inclusion, but I'd recognize the complexity behind its implementation that would prevent it from being considered instantly.

Hmmm...well, I guess the problem I could envision (and you'll have to bear with me here as it's all of course, hypothesis, and it goes back to the available money for FA). This kind of split system could lead exactly to the problem you have now but worse, with FA tending to get far less than their best offer because of essentially two very different markets, the perceived market (FA money available) and the actual market (money GMs are actually willing to spend). IE, pending FA will have no real ability to guess what they should ask for and extensions will look ridiculous. Does that make sense?

A finer point is that I tend to think that some players ask for less in their extensions than they would in FA, but that would depend on the player.

I can get on board, though, that one day isn't enough to time for online GMs to counter offer. That's one aspect of 13 I haven't been able to see yet.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by Isryion

Hmmm...well, I guess the problem I could envision (and you'll have to bear with me here as it's all of course, hypothesis, and it goes back to the available money for FA). This kind of split system could lead exactly to the problem you have now but worse, with FA tending to get far less than their best offer because of essentially two very different markets, the perceived market (FA money available) and the actual market (money GMs are actually willing to spend). IE, pending FA will have no real ability to guess what they should ask for and extensions will look ridiculous. Does that make sense?

I think (and this is all theoretical, as you point out) the beauty of a free market Free Agent system would be that the supply and demand would be the real driving force behind player prices.

Let's use your example and say that in the new system, some players are able to be signed for a little less money during Free Agency. This opens up more budget room and more cash on hand etc, which in turn could potentially drive up player extension demands. However, because now GMs have more budget room to work with, they have wiggle room to make larger Free Agent offers for guys who they actually really want to get, which will begin to drive prices back up as other GMs feel the pressure to compete with their counterparts. It's all cyclical.


So really I'm NOT looking for this as a way to ultimately control costs of the players, but rather to make sure that the value of players is being determined by the league as a whole.

When Free Agent X signs a contract worth Y Dollars, I'd like itto be because the GMs of the league decided, through their collective bidding, that Free Agent X is worth Y Dollars.

Currently this is only the case with MOST Free Agents. Other Free Agents sign contracts because the GAME decided they can only accept an offer of at least Y Dollars. That forces the league to either sign him at that price or look to another player.


Gamebreaking? Of course not, we've dealt with it for the last several versions. Worth exploring a way to improve things? Hopefully it turns out to be!

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Buane

I think (and this is all theoretical, as you point out) the beauty of a free market Free Agent system would be that the supply and demand would be the real driving force behind player prices.

Let's use your example and say that in the new system, some players are able to be signed for a little less money during Free Agency. This opens up more budget room and more cash on hand etc, which in turn could potentially drive up player extension demands. However, because now GMs have more budget room to work with, they have wiggle room to make larger Free Agent offers for guys who they actually really want to get, which will begin to drive prices back up as other GMs feel the pressure to compete with their counterparts. It's all cyclical.


So really I'm NOT looking for this as a way to ultimately control costs of the players, but rather to make sure that the value of players is being determined by the league as a whole.

When Free Agent X signs a contract worth Y Dollars, I'd like itto be because the GMs of the league decided, through their collective bidding, that Free Agent X is worth Y Dollars.

Currently this is only the case with MOST Free Agents. Other Free Agents sign contracts because the GAME decided they can only accept an offer of at least Y Dollars. That forces the league to either sign him at that price or look to another player.


Gamebreaking? Of course not, we've dealt with it for the last several versions. Worth exploring a way to improve things? Hopefully it turns out to be!

I just have one question - why do you continue to ignore the fact that this is exactly how it works in OOTP now? I made a post in this thread's early stages explaining to you this is what Markus (the developer of OOTP) has stated. It works based on Supply and Demand. If there is lots of supply (money) in your league, players will demand lots. If you lower the revenue so there's not so much supply (money), then player demands will come down. If you're not going to believe what the developer of the game says, then I don't know what else to say. Good luck with your quest.

[Jontler]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

I just have one question - why do you continue to ignore the fact that this is exactly how it works in OOTP now? I made a post in this thread's early stages explaining to you this is what Markus (the developer of OOTP) has stated. It works based on Supply and Demand. If there is lots of supply (money) in your league, players will demand lots. If you lower the revenue so there's not so much supply (money), then player demands will come down. If you're not going to believe what the developer of the game says, then I don't know what else to say. Good luck with your quest.

The thing that you're overlooking is that you're talking about a different supply and demand. You're saying that the supply of money dictates the amount of the free agent demands.

Buane is saying that he'd like a system where the money a free agent gets is a function of the amount that GMs are willing to offer them (among whatever other factors - see Algorithm A above), rather than a function of the amount of money in the league. You may agree or disagree as to whether or not that's a Good Thing (TM), but they are two different things.

In other words, the supply of quality 1Bs will dictate how much a quality 1B gets, not the supply of money in the league. Appropriately extended to the other positions, of course.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

I just have one question - why do you continue to ignore the fact that this is exactly how it works in OOTP now? I made a post in this thread's early stages explaining to you this is what Markus (the developer of OOTP) has stated. It works based on Supply and Demand. If there is lots of supply (money) in your league, players will demand lots. If you lower the revenue so there's not so much supply (money), then player demands will come down. If you're not going to believe what the developer of the game says, then I don't know what else to say. Good luck with your quest.

Well, I think you and I are framing two different kinds of supply and demand.


Your supply and demand:

Supply = money available (cash on hand, budget space, etc.)
Demand = players demands


My supply and demand:

Supply = money available (cash on hand, budget space, etc.)
Demand = what a GM is willing to pay a particular player

[Tavarin]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

I just have one question - why do you continue to ignore the fact that this is exactly how it works in OOTP now? I made a post in this thread's early stages explaining to you this is what Markus (the developer of OOTP) has stated. It works based on Supply and Demand. If there is lots of supply (money) in your league, players will demand lots. If you lower the revenue so there's not so much supply (money), then player demands will come down. If you're not going to believe what the developer of the game says, then I don't know what else to say. Good luck with your quest.

I don't get why the amount of money a team has available would have any effect on player demands, as players shouldn't have any idea of how much money every team has available, just the amount they are offering him.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

I just have one question - why do you continue to ignore the fact that this is exactly how it works in OOTP now? I made a post in this thread's early stages explaining to you this is what Markus (the developer of OOTP) has stated. It works based on Supply and Demand. If there is lots of supply (money) in your league, players will demand lots. If you lower the revenue so there's not so much supply (money), then player demands will come down. If you're not going to believe what the developer of the game says, then I don't know what else to say. Good luck with your quest.

They're zealots on a mission, and they don't really care about facts or reality.

Be warned, o zealots: I will oppose any attempt to remove a lower bound on what free agents will accept with great gusto because it's an incredibly bad, stupid and unrealistic idea.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Tavarin

I don't get why the amount of money a team has available would have any effect on player demands, as players shouldn't have any idea of how much money every team has available, just the amount they are offering him.

That's the way the game works. The game doesn't care if you get why or not.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Tavarin

I don't get why the amount of money a team has available would have any effect on player demands, as players shouldn't have any idea of how much money every team has available, just the amount they are offering him.

Read please - if the LEAGUE is healthy financially, (note the use of the word LEAGUE vice Team) then demands will be higher. And please don't try to tell me players don't know which teams have lots of money and which don't. Even the most casual fan knows the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Phillies are all big spenders when it comes to FA.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by Jontler

Buane is saying that he'd like a system where the money a free agent gets is a function of the amount that GMs are willing to offer them (among whatever other factors - see Algorithm A above), rather than a function of the amount of money in the league. You may agree or disagree as to whether or not that's a Good Thing (TM), but they are two different things.

I definitely agree that this is pretty clear at this point. Correct me if I get this next part wrong, though.

You do see their demands coming down as the FA cycle continues on, right, essentially being dictated by GM demand, correct? It's just that you'd prefer this taken into account sooner (whatever that might mean). Additionally, you feel there's a problem with initial bidders being cut out once the amount goes down as those initial bids are in the ballpark of the final.

I do think that it sounds more like a bidding system would fit for you, whether through a utility or if it were included in another version. It does seem a lot of the issues you guys feel are there with FA would be solved via that method. (FA short notice notwithstanding, of course..).

This discussion has got me very interested in how much all of this is intertwined. Like, how much of the financial engine (and player demands) is set to try and encourage getting rid of extra money in the system? How closely tied is the player's demand to the amount? And, what are the variables/causes in the length a player takes to decide?

[SandMan]

Originally Posted by Jontler

In other words, the supply of quality 1Bs will dictate how much a quality 1B gets, not the supply of money in the league. Appropriately extended to the other positions, of course.

I see an issue if no lower boundries are in place. After the first tier of stars are signed and there are basically mid level starters available they could be forced to take lowball contracts. I see 6-8M players going for 2-3M after the first tier is signed. You may call that supply and demand but no GM is going to offer the 2nd tier players more than tablescraps because they know they can. At least with the game setting a low end boundry this issue may not occur.

I don't believe that GMs will say "well he is worth 6M so I will offer him 6M". I see GMs thinking "well not too many people need this guy so I will low ball him to see if he will take my low offer". If you think this is not what will happen then you are dreaming. I would try to lowball every player until I get one to sign.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Buane

Well, I think you and I are framing two different kinds of supply and demand.


MARKUS supply and demand:

Supply = money available (cash on hand, budget space, etc.)
Demand = players demands


My supply and demand:

Supply = money available (cash on hand, budget space, etc.)
Demand = what a GM is willing to pay a particular player

Fixed that for you.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by SandMan

I don't believe that GMs will say "well he is worth 6M so I will offer him 6M". I see GMs thinking "well not too many people need this guy so I will low ball him to see if he will take my low offer". If you think this is not what will happen then you are dreaming. I would try to lowball every player until I get one to sign.

Isn't the counter-argument to this the fact that if no GM makes a player an offer greater than $3M, is that player really worth more than $3M?

Where should player worth stem from? I'd prefer it to stem from the GMs of the league and not the OOTP AI, in the case of Online Leagues.

Originally Posted by bluenoser

Fixed that for you.

I know that is how the game currently works. That is why I am suggesting this as an alternative.

[Jontler]

Originally Posted by SandMan

I don't believe that GMs will say "well he is worth 6M so I will offer him 6M". I see GMs thinking "well not too many people need this guy so I will low ball him to see if he will take my low offer". If you think this is not what will happen then you are dreaming. I would try to lowball every player until I get one to sign.

Isn't this the idea behind the free market, though? I mean, the 24th best 1B is still the 24th best 1B. If the worst second division players are only attracting league minimum offers, isn't that what they're worth?

I admit there's probably a floor on the scenario I'm presenting, and it probably does break down at the lower tiers of players. Part of me, though, thinks that's not a real problem. I mean, value is value is value. These aren't real people we're talking about, so I really couldn't care less about union/labor concerns.

If the most anybody is willing to pay for my Macbook is 200 bucks but the hardware is really worth 600, does that really matter? Nobody will pay it, so my notion of its worth really has nothing to do with its actual worth.

[subtle]

I'm going to let those last couple posts settle in before I post my comments.