E mails with some teeth.

J P Falcon · 04-17-2002, 06:34 AM

Here's a thought. I wonder if down the road we can have some cause and effect possibilities with the way we respond to e mails. Here are a couple of examples:

1. Presently I receive an email from my star pitcher in May stating that he is interested in resigning with the club. I check his extention request and find that he wants 9 million. I ignore the request and when I recheck again in September, he still wants 9 million. My suggestion is that if a player makes a request in May, his offer should be for a lesser amount than if asked again in September. So in the above example, he would ask for 7 or 7.5 in May but since you ignored his request, you would now need to pay 9 million to keep him. There could also be the risk that if you try to resign him in September he may come back back with the response, "You had your chance in May, Adios!" This adds the decision making challenge of resigning a player early, or waiting to see how his season goes.

2. A player fires off an email to you saying that he should be playing more, or a closer, who is in a middle relief role, informs you he should close. If you ignore these requests, then the player will become "disgruntled". A "disgruntled" player would have it's own color code and his performance ratings would drop. So using a disgruntled player in a pinch hitting role should decrease his chances of success in that situation. Similarly a disgrunted closer in a middle relief role will also have a greater chance of performing ineffectively. You would need to give the disgruntled player a certain number of starts in order for him to lose the "disgruntled" tag. Think of it as a tired player resting, but reversed. You would also need to give the middle relief closer some save opportunities to make him content again. This would prevent you from loading up with a number of closer in your pen and using them as middle relievers.
Well, there are a couple of examples of how the emails can have some teeth.

blmeanie · 04-17-2002, 02:27 PM

Release them all! There is no I in team...

sorry, actually your ideas have some merit if done carefully...sometimes winning and good front offices can make a player less likely to complain...

BasicGuy · 04-17-2002, 08:14 PM

I like your first idea. But dont think the other one is a good idea. Yes there Is players like the Big Unit who demand a trade and stink untill traded. But most players are much more perfesinal about It. I mean a lot teams would think twice about signing a player like that.

[WWBL]Batboy · 04-17-2002, 08:14 PM

ilike the idea

J P Falcon · 04-18-2002, 01:58 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BasicGuy:
I like your first idea. But dont think the other one is a good idea. Yes there Is players like the Big Unit who demand a trade and stink untill traded. But most players are much more perfesinal about It. I mean a lot teams would think twice about signing a player like that.<hr /></blockquote>You may hava a point. But I still remember Gary Sheffield admiting that he made errors on purpose when he played in Milwaukee because he was unhappy. That didn't stop teams from wanting him. Perhaps only certain players, who have "don't care" attitudes could become "disgruntled".

WarFisch · 04-18-2002, 07:50 AM

Kind of along these lines, I would like to see players become rusty when they have been out of the lineup for a while. Maybe it would take a couple of games for them to get back into the zone. (This would be the opposite of tired

)

Warfisch

BasicGuy · 04-18-2002, 07:59 AM

J P Falcon I was thinking maybe It could work but we'd need new types of contracts to make It seem more realistic. That way you could put In the contract Starter\Platoon\Bench Warmer.

That way I dont get a player I hired for 200k getting mad at me cause he thinks he should start(when I hired him as a Bench Warmer). This wouldnt affect there salarys though(becuase If It did people could take advantage of It).

J P Falcon · 04-18-2002, 11:39 AM

Basic...tying it into contracts would make alot of sense. It would also prevent you from assembling an all star bench, forcing you to be creative in balancing starters with subs...good idea.

hellfrozeover · 04-18-2002, 12:41 PM

I would say Operation Shutdown....but I don't think he can play any worse than he already is.

Scott Vibert · 04-18-2002, 01:25 PM

I don't like the idea of tying it into contracts. That just seems way to unrealistic to me. You don't sign a contract to start, you sign a contract to play baseball.

Perhaps the player should indicate to you during negotiations that he feels he should be a starter on your team or be more selective, not negotiating with a team if he thinks he should be a starter and there is a player that he recognizes as better on the team. This way you could have the realism of a players percieved role coming into the negotiations, without having to determine if the guy you signed to a "scrub" contract really should be playing over the guy with a "starter" contract since he developed into a decent platoon player and you don't want to make the "starter" contract player mad. I just see this as being an issue when you go into free agency and you have a player who's deteriorated rapidly, but you're stuck with him on a starter contract for 2 more years, so you can't upgrade, especially if you've already used your alotment of "starter" contracts.

(For example if Jeter was a free agent, even if Texas made him a huge offer, somthing tells me he woudln't sign there as long as there was a player named Alex Rodriguez playing SS in Arlington)

Jason Moyer · 04-19-2002, 03:34 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ScottVib:
I don't like the idea of tying it into contracts. That just seems way to unrealistic to me. You don't sign a contract to start, you sign a contract to play baseball.<hr /></blockquote>I agree.

One thing in this area that would be interesting would be a base salary/incentive idea, although I imagine this would be several versions in the future. People could sign a base salary based on their real performance (say, an average of their last 2-3 years) and then ask for incentives based on their talent/ratings. So someone who has been constantly injured or has underperformed or been on the bench for awhile might ask for a contract that is $500,000/year but may demand to have incentives for games played and other stats be thrown in if the player has a high ceiling (good talent and/or ratings).

Jason

GiantsRule · 04-19-2002, 05:56 AM

I agree with Vib on this one

c-man · 04-19-2002, 06:19 AM

i definitely like the idea of emails actually carrying some weight--

It seems to me in real life the negative consequence of unhappy players is a distracted clubhouse (think bosox 2001)--more so than reduced performance of that particular player (though i'm sure that does sometimes happen). I know many people don't like the "psychological" aspects of the game (clutch and leadership) but perhaps the result of disgruntled players over time could be reduced performances by the rest of the team. Just a subtle shift, as the leadership rating is meant to give.

And maybe whether a player becomes disgruntled depends on his age and talent ratings. Players with a certain amount of talent younger than 30 could become disgruntled when not playing much more easily than someone with less talent or over age 35 for example.

not sure about this one, but players could also have a reputation rating as being team players or being more selfish, and this could also affect the clubhouse "mood" and likelihood of complaints.

just some thoughts...

04-17-2002, 06:34 AM	#1
J P Falcon Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NJ Posts: 406	E mails with some teeth. Here's a thought. I wonder if down the road we can have some cause and effect possibilities with the way we respond to e mails. Here are a couple of examples: 1. Presently I receive an email from my star pitcher in May stating that he is interested in resigning with the club. I check his extention request and find that he wants 9 million. I ignore the request and when I recheck again in September, he still wants 9 million. My suggestion is that if a player makes a request in May, his offer should be for a lesser amount than if asked again in September. So in the above example, he would ask for 7 or 7.5 in May but since you ignored his request, you would now need to pay 9 million to keep him. There could also be the risk that if you try to resign him in September he may come back back with the response, "You had your chance in May, Adios!" This adds the decision making challenge of resigning a player early, or waiting to see how his season goes. 2. A player fires off an email to you saying that he should be playing more, or a closer, who is in a middle relief role, informs you he should close. If you ignore these requests, then the player will become "disgruntled". A "disgruntled" player would have it's own color code and his performance ratings would drop. So using a disgruntled player in a pinch hitting role should decrease his chances of success in that situation. Similarly a disgrunted closer in a middle relief role will also have a greater chance of performing ineffectively. You would need to give the disgruntled player a certain number of starts in order for him to lose the "disgruntled" tag. Think of it as a tired player resting, but reversed. You would also need to give the middle relief closer some save opportunities to make him content again. This would prevent you from loading up with a number of closer in your pen and using them as middle relievers. Well, there are a couple of examples of how the emails can have some teeth.

04-17-2002, 02:27 PM	#2
blmeanie All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,044	Release them all! There is no I in team... sorry, actually your ideas have some merit if done carefully...sometimes winning and good front offices can make a player less likely to complain... __________________ blmeanie email me at blmeanie Above link works for some email client programs but not all, email me at blmeanie33@earthlink.net

04-18-2002, 01:58 AM	#5
J P Falcon Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NJ Posts: 406	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by BasicGuy: <strong>I like your first idea. But dont think the other one is a good idea. Yes there Is players like the Big Unit who demand a trade and stink untill traded. But most players are much more perfesinal about It. I mean a lot teams would think twice about signing a player like that.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You may hava a point. But I still remember Gary Sheffield admiting that he made errors on purpose when he played in Milwaukee because he was unhappy. That didn't stop teams from wanting him. Perhaps only certain players, who have "don't care" attitudes could become "disgruntled".

04-18-2002, 12:41 PM	#9
hellfrozeover All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,130	I would say Operation Shutdown....but I don't think he can play any worse than he already is. __________________ FBA Chicago Syndicate Former Owner: WBL Minnesota Twins 2004 - 2007 AL Central Division Champs OOL Chicago Whales 2006, 2009 UL East Champs; 2006, 2009 United League Champs IBA Lehigh Valley Diamonds 2006 Governor's Cup Champions VSLB New York Yankees 2001, 2002 AL East Division Champs ILBL Commissioner/Chicago Cubs 2002 NL Central Division Champs; 2002 National League Champs ASBL New York Yankees 2006 AL East Division Champs

04-19-2002, 03:34 AM	#11
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,111	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ScottVib: <strong>I don't like the idea of tying it into contracts. That just seems way to unrealistic to me. You don't sign a contract to start, you sign a contract to play baseball.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree. One thing in this area that would be interesting would be a base salary/incentive idea, although I imagine this would be several versions in the future. People could sign a base salary based on their real performance (say, an average of their last 2-3 years) and then ask for incentives based on their talent/ratings. So someone who has been constantly injured or has underperformed or been on the bench for awhile might ask for a contract that is $500,000/year but may demand to have incentives for games played and other stats be thrown in if the player has a high ceiling (good talent and/or ratings). Jason __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

04-17-2002, 08:14 PM	#3
BasicGuy Major Leagues Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: ND Posts: 478	I like your first idea. But dont think the other one is a good idea. Yes there Is players like the Big Unit who demand a trade and stink untill traded. But most players are much more perfesinal about It. I mean a lot teams would think twice about signing a player like that.

04-17-2002, 08:14 PM	#4
[WWBL]Batboy Major Leagues Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Atlanta, Ga Posts: 485	ilike the idea

04-18-2002, 07:50 AM	#6
WarFisch Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 150	Kind of along these lines, I would like to see players become rusty when they have been out of the lineup for a while. Maybe it would take a couple of games for them to get back into the zone. (This would be the opposite of tired ) Warfisch

04-18-2002, 07:59 AM	#7
BasicGuy Major Leagues Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: ND Posts: 478	J P Falcon I was thinking maybe It could work but we'd need new types of contracts to make It seem more realistic. That way you could put In the contract Starter\Platoon\Bench Warmer. That way I dont get a player I hired for 200k getting mad at me cause he thinks he should start(when I hired him as a Bench Warmer). This wouldnt affect there salarys though(becuase If It did people could take advantage of It).

04-18-2002, 11:39 AM	#8
J P Falcon Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NJ Posts: 406	Basic...tying it into contracts would make alot of sense. It would also prevent you from assembling an all star bench, forcing you to be creative in balancing starters with subs...good idea.

04-18-2002, 01:25 PM	#10
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,267	I don't like the idea of tying it into contracts. That just seems way to unrealistic to me. You don't sign a contract to start, you sign a contract to play baseball. Perhaps the player should indicate to you during negotiations that he feels he should be a starter on your team or be more selective, not negotiating with a team if he thinks he should be a starter and there is a player that he recognizes as better on the team. This way you could have the realism of a players percieved role coming into the negotiations, without having to determine if the guy you signed to a "scrub" contract really should be playing over the guy with a "starter" contract since he developed into a decent platoon player and you don't want to make the "starter" contract player mad. I just see this as being an issue when you go into free agency and you have a player who's deteriorated rapidly, but you're stuck with him on a starter contract for 2 more years, so you can't upgrade, especially if you've already used your alotment of "starter" contracts. (For example if Jeter was a free agent, even if Texas made him a huge offer, somthing tells me he woudln't sign there as long as there was a player named Alex Rodriguez playing SS in Arlington)

04-19-2002, 05:56 AM	#12
GiantsRule Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Fargo,ND Posts: 85	I agree with Vib on this one

04-19-2002, 06:19 AM	#13
c-man Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 130	i definitely like the idea of emails actually carrying some weight-- It seems to me in real life the negative consequence of unhappy players is a distracted clubhouse (think bosox 2001)--more so than reduced performance of that particular player (though i'm sure that does sometimes happen). I know many people don't like the "psychological" aspects of the game (clutch and leadership) but perhaps the result of disgruntled players over time could be reduced performances by the rest of the team. Just a subtle shift, as the leadership rating is meant to give. And maybe whether a player becomes disgruntled depends on his age and talent ratings. Players with a certain amount of talent younger than 30 could become disgruntled when not playing much more easily than someone with less talent or over age 35 for example. not sure about this one, but players could also have a reputation rating as being team players or being more selfish, and this could also affect the clubhouse "mood" and likelihood of complaints. just some thoughts...