Online League Free Agency: Let's Improve It

[cockypop]

Originally Posted by 21C

If someone could type out a clear and concise version of what they are requesting then I will add it to the Beta Board as a Suggestion.

From there, it will be up to Markus to decide if it is an easy (or valid) thing to add or not.

There are many other things that have come up in this thread, but I believe there is at least one core game mechanical issue as follows:

Current Situation:
When a team submits an offer to a free agent that is rejected as not being high enough, that offer effectively dissapears and is never considered again. Even when the player eventually drops their demands low enough that the offer should be considered, it is as if that offer never existed or was never made. The player does not consider that offer even if it would be the best one for them.

Desired Situation:
Once a free agent's demands drop to a level where a previous offer *that has not been withdrawn* is suddenly viable the player takes that offer into consideration, along with any new offers that are being made.

Why This is an Issue:
It is not an issue for anyone who sims a day at a time, because the player will let the original bidding owner know that he is 'back in play' so to speak when he receives an offer from someone else that he will consider. At that point the original bidding owner can re-submit his original offer now that it falls within the players demands.

However for online leagues where simming a day at a time in the offseason is not practical, the repsonse occurs mid sim and the original bidding owner has no opportunity to respond before the new (and often lower) offer is accepted by the player.

Short Version:
If I make an offer to a free agent that is rejected for being too low, unless I actively withdraw it it should never be taken off the table. The current game mechanics don't behave this way.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by 21C

If someone could type out a clear and concise version of what they are requesting then I will add it to the Beta Board as a Suggestion.

From there, it will be up to Markus to decide if it is an easy (or valid) thing to add or not.

I'd be happy to outline most of my points as concisely as I can and shoot you a PM. Thanks for jumping in.

[21C]

Originally Posted by cockypop

There are many other things that have come up in this thread, but I believe there is at least one core game mechanical issue as follows:

Current Situation:
When a team submits an offer to a free agent that is rejected as not being high enough, that offer effectively dissapears and is never considered again. Even when the player eventually drops their demands low enough that the offer should be considered, it is as if that offer never existed or was never made. The player does not consider that offer even if it would be the best one for them.

Desired Situation:
Once a free agent's demands drop to a level where a previous offer *that has not been withdrawn* is suddenly viable the player takes that offer into consideration, along with any new offers that are being made.

Why This is an Issue:
It is not an issue for anyone who sims a day at a time, because the player will let the original bidding owner know that he is 'back in play' so to speak when he receives an offer from someone else that he will consider. At that point the original bidding owner can re-submit his original offer now that it falls within the players demands.

However for online leagues where simming a day at a time in the offseason is not practical, the repsonse occurs mid sim and the original bidding owner has no opportunity to respond before the new (and often lower) offer is accepted by the player.

Short Version:
If I make an offer to a free agent that is rejected for being too low, unless I actively withdraw it it should never be taken off the table. The current game mechanics don't behave this way.

I have added this as a Request/Refinement and appears as PT3753. If Markus responds to this then I will post his remarks.

If there is anything else to add to this then let me know. There are no guarantees that the desired refinements will get done but at least it has been posted in the relevant section for his attention.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by subtle

Maybe you should tell the Toronto Blue Jays, Seattle Mariners, or Chicago Cubs about this?

Wait a few years. Most clubs' local media contracts are coming up for renewal, and look set for a considerable increase. (That was why Anaheim was willing to pay what it did to acquire Pujols—it had just concluded a new local broadcasting deal which was worth double the annual value of the previous agreement.) MLB's national broadcasting contracts expire after next season, and those too look set for a hefty increase.

If revenue goes up, salaries will follow.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Buane

Wow. You did it. You figured it out, OOTP Development forums poster The Wolf.

The online league that I run, the league that I have run for the last 4+ years, that I have poured countless hours into creating, improving, shaping, and researching...an online league where I've paid $400 dollars on plane tickets to attend cross-country meetups with its members and spark new friendships, a league that's allowed me to become friends with people on different continents - this online league where I have never even taken charge of any team so that I'd be able to better gauge the direction and the needs of the league as its Commissioner...this league is now at the point where my only goal, MY SUPREME GOAL is just to FINALLY have a system that allows ALL my league members to LOWBALL ALL THE FREE AGENTS and collude with one and other to screw over the imaginary players union! You cracked the case! Xanadu!


Kindly take your smug, condescending, internet-know-it-all attitude to some other thread where nobody has the composition skills to call you on your bull****. Grownups are talking in this one.

Are these the grownups you are talking about?

Originally Posted by MrGreenGenes

Epic troll job, The Wolf. It's very impressive.

Jealous? i see you are trying for your own troll job. Good work.

Originally Posted by stevew

What is the acceptable level of trolling that is permitted around here?

I don't know but i'm sure if you keep posting you will find out.



The Wolf has it right. You want to lowball the players but the game doesn't let you so you want the whole system changed to suit YOU.
Good for you that you travel to see your league members and that you are such a great person that you just manager it for them.
Maybe take your smug, condescending, internet-know-it-all attitude to another thread as well because FA works the way it is supposed to not how YOU and ONLY YOU want it.

So thanks for comming out the grown ups can handle it now.

[MrGreenGenes]

I'm a douchebag, no denying that, but let's not kid ourselves... The Wolf hasn't had a useful thing to contribute to this thread since the first page.

While others have actually shown an interest in offering new points of discussion and actually having a dialogue about a flawed aspect of OOTP, The Wolf has merely thrown gas on a fire to try and aggravate us "crusaders" to the point where the thread's discourse became sloppy. To that point, he was successful.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

The Wolf has it right. You want to lowball the players but the game doesn't let you so you want the whole system changed to suit YOU.

If you really believe this, then why would I not just set the expected Superstar salaries to something like $100,000 in the league settings? Then all my GMs could lowball everybody they wanted. Is it so hard to believe that we 1) enjoy our OOTP league, and 2) are legitimately trying to improve Free Agency by making a suggestion and sharing our league experiences?

And, for the dozenth time, we're AWARE that it's working as intended. But just because something is designed one way does not preclude the possibility that there is a superior alternative - we can agree on this one conceit, yes?


When all is said and done, I even said way back in my first post that simply adding the ability for the commissioner to edit a player's demands would allow me to keep the handful of players we experience this issue with each offseason in check. Then the free agency system you think so much of would go untouched, and we'd have ourselves a workaround!

But instead of discussion and compromise we're getting "our way or the highway" from a couple posters and it's not very apparent what we've done to deserve that reaction. There is a constructive way to disagree, and then there is calling the opposition zealots. I'm in no way a forums regular, but I appreciate those of you in this thread that have opted for the former.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Buane

Wow. You did it. You figured it out, OOTP Development forums poster The Wolf.

The online league that I run, the league that I have run for the last 4+ years, that I have poured countless hours into creating, improving, shaping, and researching...an online league where I've paid $400 dollars on plane tickets to attend cross-country meetups with its members and spark new friendships, a league that's allowed me to become friends with people on different continents - this online league where I have never even taken charge of any team so that I'd be able to better gauge the direction and the needs of the league as its Commissioner...this league is now at the point where my only goal, MY SUPREME GOAL is just to FINALLY have a system that allows ALL my league members to LOWBALL ALL THE FREE AGENTS and collude with one and other to screw over the imaginary players union! You cracked the case! Xanadu!


Kindly take your smug, condescending, internet-know-it-all attitude to some other thread where nobody has the composition skills to call you on your bull****. Grownups are talking in this one.

No, a league full of spoiled children were talking and got called on it by a grown-up.

Have fun convincing Markus that you should be able to lowball free agents.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

Are these the grownups you are talking about?



Jealous? i see you are trying for your own troll job. Good work.



I don't know but i'm sure if you keep posting you will find out.



The Wolf has it right. You want to lowball the players but the game doesn't let you so you want the whole system changed to suit YOU.
Good for you that you travel to see your league members and that you are such a great person that you just manager it for them.
Maybe take your smug, condescending, internet-know-it-all attitude to another thread as well because FA works the way it is supposed to not how YOU and ONLY YOU want it.

So thanks for comming out the grown ups can handle it now.

Ah, someone else has figured them out. Yes, let's change the entire game so that they can lowball players! NOT.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Buane

When all is said and done, I even said way back in my first post that simply adding the ability for the commissioner to edit a player's demands would allow me to keep the handful of players we experience this issue with each offseason in check. Then the free agency system you think so much of would go untouched, and we'd have ourselves a workaround!

"If we can't lowball the players one way then we'll happily settle for the ability to lowball them a different way!"

Somewhere George Steinbrenner is smiling at you.

[The Wolf]

Markus can give you want you want, or not. It's up to him. But trying to get the game changed in order to be able to lowball players is just sad.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Buane

If you really believe this, then why would I not just set the expected Superstar salaries to something like $100,000 in the league settings? Then all my GMs could lowball everybody they wanted. Is it so hard to believe that we 1) enjoy our OOTP league, and 2) are legitimately trying to improve Free Agency by making a suggestion and sharing our league experiences?

And, for the dozenth time, we're AWARE that it's working as intended. But just because something is designed one way does not preclude the possibility that there is a superior alternative - we can agree on this one conceit, yes?

When all is said and done, I even said way back in my first post that simply adding the ability for the commissioner to edit a player's demands would allow me to keep the handful of players we experience this issue with each offseason in check. Then the free agency system you think so much of would go untouched, and we'd have ourselves a workaround!

But instead of discussion and compromise we're getting "our way or the highway" from a couple posters and it's not very apparent what we've done to deserve that reaction. There is a constructive way to disagree, and then there is calling the opposition zealots. I'm in no way a forums regular, but I appreciate those of you in this thread that have opted for the former.

I've been reading this thread for the past few days, but have lost track of all the different things that have been said/suggested, so if you've already answered the question I'm about to ask, I apologize.

With respect to the bold part above, are the players who are making the "outrageous" demands all eventually signing, or are some of them going unsigned and essentially sitting out a year? I'm guessing no, based on what I remember reading. Assuming that's correct, do you really need to edit the original demands, or would it solve your problem to have all offers remain on the table so they're still valid when the players lower their demands?

Also, not to flame the fires here, but regardless of his tone and choice of words, Wolf does have a point. Some of the posts being made do sound like some people are asking for the ability to collude against the players. I have a strong sense that that's not really what you're asking for, but some of the posts over the past eight pages do read that way.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by MrGreenGenes

I'm a douchebag, no denying that, but let's not kid ourselves... The Wolf hasn't had a useful thing to contribute to this thread since the first page.

While others have actually shown an interest in offering new points of discussion and actually having a dialogue about a flawed aspect of OOTP, The Wolf has merely thrown gas on a fire to try and aggravate us "crusaders" to the point where the thread's discourse became sloppy. To that point, he was successful.

Your false assumption that the game is "flawed" because you can't lowball free agents negates your entire position. The game is working exactly as designed - WAD, as they say - and the design is getting in the way of your desires.

This has been educational. Steinbrenner's body may be moldering in his grave, but his spirit goes marching on.

[SandMan]

I agree pretty much to what The Wolf has to say. I said it in another post that lowballing would become an issue. The response I got was it is not lowballing if that is the highest offer the player received. This is BS. This is my last post in this thread I think my point of view on this matter has been expressed. It appears that the only people agreeing with your suggestions for changes are people in your league that want to get the option to lowball players.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I've been reading this thread for the past few days, but have lost track of all the different things that have been said/suggested, so if you've already answered the question I'm about to ask, I apologize.

With respect to the bold part above, are the players who are making the "outrageous" demands all eventually signing, or are some of them going unsigned and essentially sitting out a year? I'm guessing no, based on what I remember reading. Assuming that's correct, do you really need to edit the original demands, or would it solve your problem to have all offers remain on the table so they're still valid when the players lower their demands?

Also, not to flame the fires here, but regardless of his tone and choice of words, Wolf does have a point. Some of the posts being made do sound like some people are asking for the ability to collude against the players. I have a strong sense that that's not really what you're asking for, but some of the posts over the past eight pages do read that way.

"Read that way"? Heck, they come right out and say it.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by SandMan

I agree pretty much to what The Wolf has to say. I said it in another post that lowballing would become an issue. The response I got was it is not lowballing if that is the highest offer the player received. This is BS. This is my last post in this thread I think my point of view on this matter has been expressed. It appears that the only people agreeing with your suggestions for changes are people in your league that want to get the option to lowball players.

Bingo.

[cockypop]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

would it solve your problem to have all offers remain on the table so they're still valid when the players lower their demands?

Yup, that's the issue. Got lost in a lot of noise and distractions.

Was succesfully logged and filed away like 3 pages ago.

This thread has pretty much been finished for a while now.

[rujasu]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

No, a league full of spoiled children were talking and got called on it by a grown-up.

Have fun convincing Markus that you should be able to lowball free agents.

Making a moral judgment of the other posters in this thread because of their opinion on how a baseball league simulator should work... that doesn't seem particularly mature of you, either.

Furthermore, I don't see anything from you addressing the actual arguments in the thread -- for example, the fact that these "lowball" offers you keep talking about are often accepted by the same player when another team offers the same deal (or even a much worse deal!) later in the offseason. In fact, the game is tuned to reward owners for waiting out and only making offers very late in the offseason.

Additionally, I'd like to remind you of some of the issues raised ITT:

- Injured, older players coming off terrible seasons often demand long-term deals which are far out of proportion with what a real-life MLB player would demand in the same situation.
- Players at roughly the same level of value often have wildly different demands, rather than asking for something in the vicinity of their expected market value. It's like they don't have agents, or the agents aren't paying attention to any of the other deals in the league. It's not realistic.

Finally, let's back off on this whole "collusion" thing. It's silly to suggest, given that there is no real money involved, nor real players, so there is no incentive for owners to just hoard money randomly. Personally, I'd suggest that part of the reason for teams having large cash stockpiles is that it's so easy to sign in-house players to team-friendly contract extensions. But I haven't studied that enough to show any hard data, at least not yet.

BIG17EASY: I've seen multiple decent players sit out a season on numerous occasions in various OOTP versions. I'm not sure how frequent it is with OOTP13, but it happens.

It would be collusion if teams were trying to suppress overall salary in the league, but again, that's moot because Buane, or any other commissioner, can already influence league salaries. For that matter, he can revert baseball to the reserve clause if he wants to. The point here isn't "demands are too high" but "demands are not consistent." That's how I'm reading this.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by SandMan

This is BS. This is my last post in this thread I think my point of view on this matter has been expressed. It appears that the only people agreeing with your suggestions for changes are people in your league that want to get the option to lowball players.

I'm with the SandMan. Wolf out.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

With respect to the bold part above, are the players who are making the "outrageous" demands all eventually signing, or are some of them going unsigned and essentially sitting out a year? I'm guessing no, based on what I remember reading. Assuming that's correct, do you really need to edit the original demands, or would it solve your problem to have all offers remain on the table so they're still valid when the players lower their demands?

It depends.

Sometimes the player eventually signs for, say, $5 million, which then frustrates the GM or GMs of different teams who had spent a previous part of Free Agency trying to pay the player $8 million but couldn't get him to listen.

Some players used to sit out for an entire season. Even once their demands had dropped to an acceptable range, the teams that had begun Free Agency as interested parties had already filled the hole in their roster with another player. To fix the "storyline" aspect of this problem we added foreign leagues so that these players that were now without suitors at least had a place to go play baseball. This also fixed the issue where players would just retire after not playing anywhere for an entire year. (this was OOTP9 I guess?)

Other times, the GMs would have to step up and meet the player's minimum demand. This led to plenty of instances where the team who signed the player had to pay him, say, $18 million even though there was no other GM in the league willing to pay more than $10 million. Not exactly a free market system.


To answer the second part of your question, no, the ability to edit player demands was just a suggestion in case actually making development changes to the free agent demand system was too difficult. Knowing nothing about what suggestions are feasible or not, I came prepared with as many solutions as I could.

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Also, not to flame the fires here, but regardless of his tone and choice of words, Wolf does have a point. Some of the posts being made do sound like some people are asking for the ability to collude against the players. I have a strong sense that that's not really what you're asking for, but some of the posts over the past eight pages do read that way.

I guess the problem I have with calling it "collusion" is accepting the negative connotations that come along with the word. We want the option to pay Free Agents what the market thinks they are worth instead of blindly accepting what the game sets their worth at. In a world without a players union and where the GMs/Owners of teams make no real money profits, labeling this as "collusion" is tantamount to libel.

To me this would be the same as calling a GM a "dirty tanker" because he refused to start a player that the game's scouting reports called "a superstar who could anchor any lineup" despite that player hitting .273/.313/.457 over the last two seasons.

The game is certainly not infallible when it comes to its evaluations.