Online League Free Agency: Let's Improve It

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Buane

It would be collusion if teams were trying to suppress overall salary in the league

That is excatly what they are trying to do.
A player is demanding a set amount they think is to high so they want to lowball him to suit their needs, but they ignore that fact that it is tied to cash on hand.

Originally Posted by Buane

What the problem IS: handful of players who price themselves out of free agency by rejecting offers the entirety of the league deem reasonable, instead of accepting the offer if it's the best offer they get.

If everyone in MLB got together and decided that from now on the max a player will get is 200$ and that is all the would offer do you honestly think that any player would sign even if that's the best they could get?

How is this reasonable or realistic? Oh wait it's not but that doesn't matter does it.

The highest the player gets offered is 400,000 a season yet he feels he is worth 4,000,000 why should he be forced to accept the 400,000 if that's all the cheap owners want to offer. In RL he would tell you where to put it and go play somewhere else because someone would sign him, but in that league everyone works together so he doesn't sign anywhere, that is how it should work.

The point is the demands aren't how the OP likes it so he wants to change the game to suit his league needs, forget if that's how it works in real life or that is how it works in game.

As to an offering staying on the table, just remake the offer again or is that to much work?

It's not silly to suggest collusion, you just provided a reason, that they can resign their own players to team-friendly contract extensions, forget about if it's realistic just change the whole system to suit their needs.

[rujasu]

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.

Originally Posted by The Wolf

I'm with the SandMan. Wolf out.

You two want to make a dramatic exit rather than having a discussion, go right ahead. But I will say that there's groupthink happening on both sides of this debate, and that fact alone doesn't make either side more or less correct.

Again, no real money, no real players. I'm struggling to see what this sinister ulterior motive here is.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

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

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. It's burned me many times, believe me.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by cockypop

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.

Maybe I'm confusing what was posted in the past couple of pages with older stuff, but I swear some people are still talking about wanting the ability to edit free agent demands.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

It's not silly to suggest collusion, you just provided a reason, that they can resign their own players to team-friendly contract extensions, forget about if it's realistic just change the whole system to suit their needs.

If you'll look back, I already stated that there's NO way that contract extension offers should work like this. When extending a player that player has leverage over the team and should rightly ask for the world. We're just talking about signing Free Agents.


Let me see if I have this right:

Scenario A: A no-defense 1B demands $22 million. Team X wants to pay him $12 million, but he won't listen. Team X signs some other 1B. Nobody else signs the player until Opening Day, when he signs a $4 million contract with Team Y.

Under our suggestion: Player gets paid $12 million
Under the current system: Player gets paid $4 million

COLLUSION



Scenario B: A ridiculously injury-prone SP demands $15 million and a 7-year contract. Nobody is willing to pay more than $6 million for a one-year deal, but he won't listen. Nobody signs the player, and he's a free agent even after the season gets started.

Under our suggestion: Player gets paid $6 million
Under the current system: Player gets paid $0 and doesn't play

COLLUSION!

[rujasu]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

The highest the player gets offered is 400,000 a season yet he feels he is worth 4,000,000 why should he be forced to accept the 400,000 if that's all the cheap owners want to offer. In RL he would tell you where to put it and go play somewhere else because someone would sign him, but in that league everyone works together so he doesn't sign anywhere, that is how it should work.

That's not even close to a valid description of what's going on. We're talking about a guy demanding something like $9M/yr for 6 years, when the going market for that type of player is much lower. Then a team offers him $6M/yr for 3 years, he tells that team to stick it, and then 2 months later he signs with a different team at $4M for 2 years. Where's the collusion?

As to an offering staying on the table, just remake the offer again or is that to much work?

The whole point is that in the game as it is right now, you can't do that.

It's not silly to suggest collusion, you just provided a reason, that they can resign their own players to team-friendly contract extensions, forget about if it's realistic just change the whole system to suit their needs.

Was that in response to me? My point is, if I can re-sign a player at $4M/yr, and the same type of player wants $10M/yr as a free agent, why would I ever even bother trying to sign the FA? That's not a case of collusion, it's a case of not being a stupid owner.

[rujasu]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. It's burned me many times, believe me.

Again, what's with the moral judgment going on here? We're talking about a computer game here. What am I missing?

[McExpos]

Originally Posted by rujasu

That's not even close to a valid description of what's going on. We're talking about a guy demanding something like $9M/yr for 6 years, when the going market for that type of player is much lower. Then a team offers him $6M/yr for 3 years, he tells that team to stick it, and then 2 months later he signs with a different team at $4M for 2 years. Where's the collusion?

More like this.

Player B: "So nobody is willing to pay me the 10 years, $250 million dollar contract I wanted, huh?"

Agent: "Doesn't look like it. Sorry, buddy."

Player B: "Oh well. At least someone offered a 5 year, $100 million dollar contract. That's still pretty good, I should accept that!"

Agent: "... I don't remember."

Player B: "Wait, what? You don't remember?"

Agent: "It seemed silly at the time so I didn't write it down."

Player B: "Jesus... well, what's the best current offer out there?"

Agent: "Uh... looks like, 2 years for $12 million."

Player B: "And you DIDN'T WRITE THE OTHER OFFER DOWN?!"

Agent: "Look, it seemed so small in comparison to the other offer that I didn't even bother to make mention of it! But you should sign this 2 x 12 deal. That's an awesome deal."

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Buane

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.




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.

OK, well if some players end up not signing at all, that is a problem to a certain extent. As for one GM paying significantly more than other GMs are willing to offer, it's rare, but it happens. See Oliver Perez's four-year deal with the Mets that was signed when every other GM and lots of fans knew the Mets were bidding against themselves for Perez.

As for paying free agents what the market things they're worth, who sets the market other than GMs? So if the GMs only want to pay star players $3M a year in a certain offseason, even though comparable players under contract are making $10M per season, then isn't that the GMs colluding to set the market too low?

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Buane

Let me see if I have this right:

Scenario A: A no-defense 1B demands $22 million. Team X wants to pay him $12 million, but he won't listen. Team X signs some other 1B. Nobody else signs the player until Opening Day, when he signs a $4 million contract with Team Y.

Under our suggestion: Player gets paid $12 million
Under the current system: Player gets paid $4 million

COLLUSION



Scenario B: A ridiculously injury-prone SP demands $15 million and a 7-year contract. Nobody is willing to pay more than $6 million for a one-year deal, but he won't listen. Nobody signs the player, and he's a free agent even after the season gets started.

Under our suggestion: Player gets paid $6 million
Under the current system: Player gets paid $0 and doesn't play

COLLUSION!

The current system is realistic how is that wrong? The player makes a demand then ethier signs for what he is willing to accept at that point in time or he sits. Just like how it works in RL. the player is demanding what they think the market is, be it from what other comparable players are making or because they see everyone has boatloads of cash to spend.

Your suggestion The owners can offer whatever they want even if it's a super low offer and that player has to take it or is forced to take it.
So the league dictates the salary and not the market.
Now they league should be able to dictate the market up to a point and it should take years for the market to catch up, start signing players to your low salaries and once the majority of players are at that salary base then they should start demanding the same.

Couldn't you just edit the players contracts to suit your leagues needs?
Don't want to sign that player what he think's he is worth then edit him onto whatever team you want at whatever low offer you like.
Problem solved without changing the whole system so suit your leagues needs.

I'm sorry but under the current system is how it does and should work. Simple as that, ethier accept it or keep banging your head against the wall. Won't change how the system works, nor should it.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

As for paying free agents what the market things they're worth, who sets the market other than GMs? So if the GMs only want to pay star players $3M a year in a certain offseason, even though comparable players under contract are making $10M per season, then isn't that the GMs colluding to set the market too low?

Would you say that if the fans of a baseball team don't show up to a game unless they can purchase tickets for $20, then they are colluding to lower the price of tickets? No, they're paying what they think the tickets are worth, which is what matters in a free market. The owner of the baseball team can claim that the tickets are worth $50, but that means absolutely nothing if nobody buys at that price.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by rujasu

Again, what's with the moral judgment going on here? We're talking about a computer game here. What am I missing?

I don't know why you're attacking me. I'm not making any kind of moral judgement. I was simply saying that I tend to see the good in people and believe that how I'm interpreting things -- if that interpretation is in a negative light -- is incorrect until I know for certain.

If you read back to the original statement that led to me saying I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, I had written that some of the posts in this thread seem to suggest that people want to collude against the players, but that my sense is that even though it reads that way, that's not what they're asking for. That's what I meant by giving people the benefit of the doubt.

[rujasu]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

OK, well if some players end up not signing at all, that is a problem to a certain extent. As for one GM paying significantly more than other GMs are willing to offer, it's rare, but it happens. See Oliver Perez's four-year deal with the Mets that was signed when every other GM and lots of fans knew the Mets were bidding against themselves for Perez.

As for paying free agents what the market things they're worth, who sets the market other than GMs? So if the GMs only want to pay star players $3M a year in a certain offseason, even though comparable players under contract are making $10M per season, then isn't that the GMs colluding to set the market too low?

I feel like you hit it on the nose here, actually. The players should be looking at comparable players under contract. The starting demand should be a little high, but it shouldn't be dramatically higher than what a similar veteran player is getting.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Buane

Would you say that if the fans of a baseball team don't show up to a game unless they can purchase tickets for $20, then they are colluding to lower the price of tickets? No, they're paying what they think the tickets are worth, which is what matters in a free market. The owner of the baseball team can claim that the tickets are worth $50, but that means absolutely nothing if nobody buys at that price.

I don't mean to offend you, but I fail to see the point you're trying to make.

[rujasu]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I don't know why you're attacking me. I'm not making any kind of moral judgement. I was simply saying that I tend to see the good in people and believe that how I'm interpreting things -- if that interpretation is in a negative light -- is incorrect until I know for certain.

If you read back to the original statement that led to me saying I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, I had written that some of the posts in this thread seem to suggest that people want to collude against the players, but that my sense is that even though it reads that way, that's not what they're asking for. That's what I meant by giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry, wasn't meaning to attack you, or single you out even. I did see you saying "it's burned me several times" and wondered, who is potentially getting burned here? No one is going to get hurt, we're just having a discussion. But I didn't mean to single you out, I was more just making a point about the tone this whole thread is taking.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by rujasu

I feel like you hit it on the nose here, actually. The players should be looking at comparable players under contract. The starting demand should be a little high, but it shouldn't be dramatically higher than what a similar veteran player is getting.

I could not agree more. But the way I'm reading some of the requests here, some people are asking to pay free agents lower contracts even if the demands are in range with what current players under contract are making. Am I wrong about that?

[cockypop]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Maybe I'm confusing what was posted in the past couple of pages with older stuff, but I swear some people are still talking about wanting the ability to edit free agent demands.

Totally understandable. Things got kind of nasty there for some reason.

This thread in a nutshell...

1. Online league has concerns that free agent demands seem to be out of whack with expected values, based on comparisons to equivalent players.

2. Comissioner of said league posts concerns and offers some possible solutions for discussion, one of which include ability to edit free agent demands.

3. Some helpful discussion occurs, including explanation of how excess cash on hand is a major factor in demands being made. Great, we're making progress. (I certainly learned something.)

4. Eventually one of the possible solutions that was originally proposed in the first post (option B... keep offers on the table even if they had been previously rejected) is logged as a feature request on the beta boards. Mission accomplished.

In between those points and scattered throughout 9 pages and counting is a lot of posturing, insults, some crazy misunderstanding that the league wants collusion (I'm in the league, I can asure you that's not what we want) and people like The Wolf trying desperately to get the last word in and 'win' a non existent argument.

If more discussion is required around how free agency works, then great I for one hope to learn more about this amazing game. But for the love of god can we please drop this silly collusion meme. It's just not true.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by rujasu

Sorry, wasn't meaning to attack you, or single you out even. I did see you saying "it's burned me several times" and wondered, who is potentially getting burned here? No one is going to get hurt, we're just having a discussion. But I didn't mean to single you out, I was more just making a point about the tone this whole thread is taking.

No worries. And I didn't mean I'd been burnt here. I was referring to real life, but you guys don't wan to hear about that, haha.

[rujasu]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I could not agree more. But the way I'm reading some of the requests here, some people are asking to pay free agents lower contracts even if the demands are in range with what current players under contract are making. Am I wrong about that?

No, what I'm seeing is people asking for the FA's to stop demanding contracts way higher than what similar players are making. I guess that's where the disconnect is here?

[subtle]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

OK, well if some players end up not signing at all, that is a problem to a certain extent. As for one GM paying significantly more than other GMs are willing to offer, it's rare, but it happens. See Oliver Perez's four-year deal with the Mets that was signed when every other GM and lots of fans knew the Mets were bidding against themselves for Perez.

As for paying free agents what the market things they're worth, who sets the market other than GMs? So if the GMs only want to pay star players $3M a year in a certain offseason, even though comparable players under contract are making $10M per season, then isn't that the GMs colluding to set the market too low?

Nobody is talking about trying to lowball legitimate star players. The example Buane keeps giving you (and people here keep ignoring) is a good but not star first baseman asking for more money than similar free agents have ever made.

We're trying to figure out why, for example, a 37 year old batter who had one good but not great season before free agency would come out of the gate demanding $18MM when his previous salaries have been: 8MM, 6MM, 7MM, 8MM in the previous 4 seasons. In real life, if a person was asking for 18MM in every free agency and ended up making 1/3 of that asking price every year, you'd think the logical thing would be to augment their original demand so they'd end up with more money or maybe a multi-year deal. That's reality.

Originally Posted by OutS|der

The current system is realistic how is that wrong? The player makes a demand then ethier signs for what he is willing to accept at that point in time or he sits. Just like how it works in RL. the player is demanding what they think the market is, be it from what other comparable players are making or because they see everyone has boatloads of cash to spend.

Your suggestion The owners can offer whatever they want even if it's a super low offer and that player has to take it or is forced to take it.
So the league dictates the salary and not the market.
Now they league should be able to dictate the market up to a point and it should take years for the market to catch up, start signing players to your low salaries and once the majority of players are at that salary base then they should start demanding the same.

Couldn't you just edit the players contracts to suit your leagues needs?
Don't want to sign that player what he think's he is worth then edit him onto whatever team you want at whatever low offer you like.
Problem solved without changing the whole system so suit your leagues needs.

I'm sorry but under the current system is how it does and should work. Simple as that, ethier accept it or keep banging your head against the wall. Won't change how the system works, nor should it.

Because in reality, baseball players rarely sit out rather than accept a reasonable offer. In major league baseball, it happens every few years with a veteran that teams don't want to take a risk on until they're backed into a corner. In this scenario, it's incredibly wide-spread.