Reserve clause

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

IThe problem, though, is how to handle a player who actually holds out for part or all of the regular season. In real life, the team would carry that player on its reserve list, but he wouldn't count against any limits.

Just to be clear, the reserve list and the 40-man roster are the same thing. A player holding out was on the 40-man roster but obviously was not on the active roster.

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

It's odd that your list doesn't show any year-long holdouts for 1930.

I'd cite the reference source if I could remember it. Could be it wasn't listed for whatever reason, or it could be I transcribed the original data incorrectly.

Either way, there were very few holdouts lasting more than 30 days, which was the point.

[David Watts]

Okay dumb question time. Weren't a lot of players sold to opposing teams back then or was most of the movement the result of trades.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Just to be clear, the reserve list and the 40-man roster are the same thing. A player holding out was on the 40-man roster but obviously was not on the active roster.

I'm not sure that's true, although I'll admit that I don't know when the major leagues adopted the 40-man roster rule. As I understand it, a player was on a team's reserve list for as long as he was covered under a contract with a reserve clause. So, for instance, when Joe Tinker jumped to the Federal League in 1914, he remained on Cincinnati's reserve list until the FL folded in 1915. That didn't stop Cincinnati from signing other players to contracts during 1914-15, and I doubt that Tinker took up a spot on Cincinnati's roster that would have otherwise been filled with a player who was actually willing to play for the Reds. I imagine that holdouts were treated the same. Likewise, any player who entered the military in World War II was still reserved for the duration by the last team that employed him.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Okay dumb question time. Weren't a lot of players sold to opposing teams back then or was most of the movement the result of trades.

Both. In the very earliest days, player transactions were entirely done by sale. I just finished re-reading Harold Seymour's history of early baseball, and I recall him writing that the idea of trading contracts didn't receive official sanction until the 1880s or so.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

I'm not sure that's true, although I'll admit that I don't know when the major leagues adopted the 40-man roster rule.

The 40-man roster limit was adopted in 1910. Prior to then, clubs could keep under reserve as many players as it wanted (and could afford). After the 1909 season, for example, Brooklyn had 61 players reserved, while Cleveland had 60. (At the other end of the scale, Washington had just 29.)

Wealthier clubs could effectively afford to pay a player to not play so as to keep him out of the hands of the competition. As a result, the 40-man limit was agreed upon as a way to prevent that practice and to allow talent to be more even distributed.

The 40-man limit is the reserve limit, that is, the maximum number of eligible players a major league club is allowed to have under contract. Over the years some exceptions have been made, such as players on the 60-day DL not counting against the 40-man roster, and so forth. But in the time period we're talking about when players could hold out, the reserve list and 40-man roster are effectively synonymous. (A player could theoretically be placed on the Ineligible List, which wouldn't count against the 40-man limit, but then a contract can't be offered, nor the player released, until after reinstatement.)

Since the cost of letting a player go was so low, clubs generally found it better to dump troublesome players and bring in a (cheap) replacement, especially since the minors were so extensive.

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Likewise, any player who entered the military in World War II was still reserved for the duration by the last team that employed him.

Players returning from WWII were under special rules adopted in 1945. The roster limits were increased, with five additional active roster spots set aside exclusively for returning military veterans, as well as eight additional spots added to the reserve lists. Returning vets were entitled to at least 15 days' pay before they could be released, and didn't count at all against the reserve limit until after 15 days with his club. These provisions lasted through the 1945 and 1946 seasons. (These rules were modified over the years to account for returning military service players from other conflicts.)

[joefromchicago]

Thanks for that explanation, LGO. So, if a team still needs to keep a holdout on its 40-man roster in order to reserve him, then there really shouldn't be much trouble for OOTP to figure out a way to recreate holdouts in the reserve-clause era. Markus, are you listening?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Thanks for that explanation, LGO. So, if a team still needs to keep a holdout on its 40-man roster in order to reserve him ...

Well, as far as I can tell that'd be the case. But it's hard to track down some of the rules in these sort of things, so I might be wrong.

From a gaming perspective it'd be good though. As a GM you'd have to decide whether you want to keep a 40-man roster spot filled by a player holding out or instead release him and bring in a replacement. How good is the player? Are the demands unreasonable? How long are you prepared to wait before having to make a roster decision? Etcetera and so forth. All interesting conundrums for a GM it seems to me...

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Okay dumb question time. Weren't a lot of players sold to opposing teams back then or was most of the movement the result of trades.

They were sold, mostly to independent minor league teams

But my main beef and one that Joe keeps asking me "what" on is that teams in my league might pickup a guy in FA but it never reflects his contract in the player history tab.

So, say Stan Musial takes big hits to his ratings, and is released...and gets picked up by another team for $8,000.

I can't see that in his history...now I am on 13, maybe it's fixed for 14...or maybe I am doing something wrong, but I wish I could see it for historical history that "Signed a contract with the St. Louis Browns for $8,000"

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Carlton

They were sold, mostly to independent minor league teams

But my main beef and one that Joe keeps asking me "what" on is that teams in my league might pickup a guy in FA but it never reflects his contract in the player history tab.

So, say Stan Musial takes big hits to his ratings, and is released...and gets picked up by another team for $8,000.

I can't see that in his history...now I am on 13, maybe it's fixed for 14...or maybe I am doing something wrong, but I wish I could see it for historical history that "Signed a contract with the St. Louis Browns for $8,000"

I'm currently running a historical replay using the reserve clause. I'm halfway through June 1911. Started the league in 1904. When I get home later I will check to see if what you say is still the same in 14. I do know the player history reports when a player is released by a team and it will report his signing with another team, but I can't remember if a contract value is mentioned or not.

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

That's a function of the average salary figures in the financial settings. Usually, those fluctuate around the average. In my experience, it's unusual for salaries to settle on the same point, but I suppose it's not unheard of. I'm not sure what you can do to change that, but then I don't know why it's such a big deal.

But it shouldn't have all 5 top players as $80,000. And it only happens with top tier, as if their is a player salry cap. There should be Dimaggio with $87,000 because he is Very popular nationally and locally, plus he is on the biggest market. Then a Browns player, say Vern Stephens who is talented should be $78,000. Because even though he is adored locally and say he becomes the #1 player in the league he is with a small market on a crappy team.

I hope I explained better this time.

The mid tier guys are most certainly diverse. Average player salary is $26,435 and I've seen $22,000 to $28,000

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

You can restrict trading under the reserve clause rules, too.

How do you do it?
and again, I am Commish, I want Dimaggio to stay in NY unless he is released. You can put him as untouchable, but teams can change that, so editing his contract as guaranteed and giving him a no trade clause is the best fix I have so that he is not released and not traded

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Depends on what you mean by "extension." As I see it, an extension is adding more years to an existing contract. A contract with a reserve clause, however, already has those years added on -- it's an open-ended term. What you're talking about is when a team actually gave a player a guaranteed contract for a set term of years. That's different. If I have Ty Cobb under reserve and, after a series of one-year automatic renewals, I decide to give him a five-year guaranteed contract, that's not an extension, that's a new contract.

A pay raise extension. If you have Mickey Mantle and he becomes the #1 player, even though his 1st 2 years are ok not eye opening. The team should raise his pay and give him a guaranteed extension. Ty Cobb had 2, one in 1915 and in 1923 IIRC.

That would make it harder for the AI to demote him to AAA or release him.

I had Hank Greenberg spend some seasons in AAA because of this.
I don't know how to fix it, my first inclination is to have guaranteed extensions so that the AI will keep a guranteed contract on the MLB team or release him. I guess what I am 'trying' to say is that Reserve Clause may need a option to refuse demotion depending on contract and 40 man options.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Carlton

But it shouldn't have all 5 top players as $80,000. And it only happens with top tier, as if their is a player salry cap. There should be Dimaggio with $87,000 because he is Very popular nationally and locally, plus he is on the biggest market. Then a Browns player, say Vern Stephens who is talented should be $78,000. Because even though he is adored locally and say he becomes the #1 player in the league he is with a small market on a crappy team.

Well, I suppose I can see how that might be annoying. Still, I'm not sure if your economic analysis is correct. It's true that, historically, Yankee players got some of the biggest salaries, but that wasn't equally true of Giant and Dodger players. Dimaggio's highest salary was $100,000 in 1950 and '51, at the tail end of his career. Willie Mays won the MVP in 1954, and in 1955 he earned the same salary he made the year before: $12,500.

Indeed, a bigger problem is that OOTP automatically bases pay on a player's performance in the previous year. Play well and you get a pay raise, play poorly and you get a pay cut. As Willie Mays could attest, however, that wasn't always true in real life. Enos Slaughter batted .290, drove in 101 runs, and was named to the all-star team in 1950, for which he took a $6,250 pay cut in 1951. The problem, then, isn't that Vern Stephens should be making $78,000, it's that he should be making $20,000.

Originally Posted by Carlton

How do you do it?
and again, I am Commish, I want Dimaggio to stay in NY unless he is released. You can put him as untouchable, but teams can change that, so editing his contract as guaranteed and giving him a no trade clause is the best fix I have so that he is not released and not traded

You can turn off trading entirely. If you're running a historical league, you can enable historical transactions. You apparently want the AI to run the Yankees, but you don't want it to run the team in a way that disappoints you. You're asking too much. Either take over the team or let the AI do its job. There comes a point when you have to realize that the problem isn't the game, it's your expectations.

Originally Posted by Carlton

A pay raise extension. If you have Mickey Mantle and he becomes the #1 player, even though his 1st 2 years are ok not eye opening. The team should raise his pay and give him a guaranteed extension. Ty Cobb had 2, one in 1915 and in 1923 IIRC.

That's not historically accurate, especially with regard to a player who is only in his third year. Cobb got a guaranteed contract in 1915 because of the threat posed by the Federal League, and because Cobb was generally a pain in the ass. He was still a pain in the ass in 1923. On the other hand, there were plenty of players who took whatever they got, without much complaint. Guaranteed contracts were the exception rather than the norm in the reserve-clause era, even for superstar players.

Originally Posted by Carlton

I had Hank Greenberg spend some seasons in AAA because of this.
I don't know how to fix it, my first inclination is to have guaranteed extensions so that the AI will keep a guranteed contract on the MLB team or release him. I guess what I am 'trying' to say is that Reserve Clause may need a option to refuse demotion depending on contract and 40 man options.

Was Greenberg having a bad season? Maybe he should have been sent down.

You can enable guaranteed contracts under the reserve clause rules, but you can't guarantee that the AI will give them to the players that you like. If you don't want the AI to demote Greenberg, then run the Tigers yourself. More than that I cannot say.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Carlton

A pay raise extension. If you have Mickey Mantle and he becomes the #1 player, even though his 1st 2 years are ok not eye opening. The team should raise his pay and give him a guaranteed extension. Ty Cobb had 2, one in 1915 and in 1923 IIRC.

Multi-year contracts were rare. Only about 5% of contracts were multi-year; about the same percentage were guaranteed.

And, really, this makes sense. Since the club had the right to unilaterally renew the contract each year, at whatever salary it deemed reasonable, only the biggest of star players had any sort of negotiating leverage where they could get a multi-year deal or guaranteed deal.

What may need to be added is more bonus clauses. While these days bonus clauses are rather limited in what they can offer, in earlier days direct performance bonus clauses were allowed. For example, a pitcher could receive a bonus upon reaching a certain number of wins. Bonuses were also given for the club reaching a given attendance level, or for a certain position of finish.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Indeed, a bigger problem is that OOTP automatically bases pay on a player's performance in the previous year. Play well and you get a pay raise, play poorly and you get a pay cut. As Willie Mays could attest, however, that wasn't always true in real life.

Indeed. Clubs generally found it better to release an unproductive player rather than cut his salary. About the only time where there was mass cutting of salaries was, unsurprisingly, was during the Depression (there was also a cut in the active roster size).

On average, a player in his fourth year made double what he did in his debut year; by his seventh or eighth year the salary had doubled again.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Carlton

They were sold, mostly to independent minor league teams

But my main beef and one that Joe keeps asking me "what" on is that teams in my league might pickup a guy in FA but it never reflects his contract in the player history tab.

So, say Stan Musial takes big hits to his ratings, and is released...and gets picked up by another team for $8,000.

I can't see that in his history...now I am on 13, maybe it's fixed for 14...or maybe I am doing something wrong, but I wish I could see it for historical history that "Signed a contract with the St. Louis Browns for $8,000"

I just checked and a player that was cut by Louisville team and signed by my team has a entry on his history saying he signed a contract worth $1738 with the New Orleans Gulls organization.

[Carlton]

Thanks David, my file must be corrupted again. If you are getting history file additions, it has to work. I get to about 30 yrs in every historical sim and things pop up like this, makes it frustrating.

and Joe, I was trying to be civil but you seem to want to jump down my throat about "it's not the game, it's you" I have no problems with going in and giving certain players a no trade clause...I asked a specific question you posed. I am NOT expecting OOTP to do something like that.

With what LGO said, and in my Greenberg scenario, why doesn't the team cut him, rather than send him to AAA? If a player not matter who, had 7 great years for you and was a league superstar, and you have better options, cut him or trade him rather than send him up and down to AAA for 3 years. I wouldn't even mind if the team sends a player down for the rest of the season and cuts him afterwards, but to keep him and send him up and down when he is a Veteran, seems the AI should use the 'refuses to be demoted card' but that and waivers are not a part of the Reserve Clause it seems.

I've never seen a player claimed on waivers under reserve clause rules but maybe I'm doing something wrong on that end, even though I have expanded and secondary roster as 40 and waiver length at 5 days

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Carlton

and Joe, I was trying to be civil but you seem to want to jump down my throat about "it's not the game, it's you" I have no problems with going in and giving certain players a no trade clause...I asked a specific question you posed. I am NOT expecting OOTP to do something like that.

I'm sorry if it appeared that I was jumping down your throat. I'm not being hostile, just maybe a little too direct.

As I see it, you want to play by reserve-clause rules but you don't want to play by OOTP's reserve-clause rules. That's going to be a problem, because you're playing OOTP's game. That being said, I agree with you that the rules need improvement, I'm just not sure if the improvements I'd make are the same improvements you'd make. And finally, I get the sense that you want OOTP's reserve-clause rules to emulate your version of what baseball under the reserve clause was like, but I'm not convinced that your version is more accurate than OOTP's.

Originally Posted by Carlton

With what LGO said, and in my Greenberg scenario, why doesn't the team cut him, rather than send him to AAA? If a player not matter who, had 7 great years for you and was a league superstar, and you have better options, cut him or trade him rather than send him up and down to AAA for 3 years.

Probably because the AI is still primarily based on a free-agency model. That's something else that, ideally, OOTP would change.

Originally Posted by Carlton

I wouldn't even mind if the team sends a player down for the rest of the season and cuts him afterwards, but to keep him and send him up and down when he is a Veteran, seems the AI should use the 'refuses to be demoted card' but that and waivers are not a part of the Reserve Clause it seems.

Waivers still apply. They're not really affected by the reserve clause.

Originally Posted by Carlton

I've never seen a player claimed on waivers under reserve clause rules but maybe I'm doing something wrong on that end, even though I have expanded and secondary roster as 40 and waiver length at 5 days

I've seen it plenty of times. In fact, one of the problems with the AI, in my experience, is that it places too many players on waivers.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Indeed. Clubs generally found it better to release an unproductive player rather than cut his salary. About the only time where there was mass cutting of salaries was, unsurprisingly, was during the Depression (there was also a cut in the active roster size).

There were also across-the-board salary cuts in the wake of the Players' League war and the consolidation of the NL and the AA in 1892. And there were times when the owner was in a financial crunch and cut everybody's salaries, as happened when Connie Mack cleaned house in 1915. Home Run Baker sat out the season rather than take the miserly offer that Mack was making.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Carlton

With what LGO said, and in my Greenberg scenario, why doesn't the team cut him, rather than send him to AAA?

What exactly do you mean by sent to AAA? I presume you mean assigned outright to the minors.

Why release the player if you can still retain him?

But do note that OOTP does not recreate many of the financial and rule considerations which were in place in real life during the era. For example, for most of the reserve clause era, players with ten or more years of major league service could refuse an outright assignment. If a player was successfully outrighted (i.e. he passed through waivers unclaimed), the player could not be brought back to that club's major league active roster until after the Rule 5 draft.

Originally Posted by Carlton

If a player not matter who, had 7 great years for you and was a league superstar, and you have better options, cut him or trade him rather than send him up and down to AAA for 3 years.

I don't think it happened with star players, but certainly with more middle-of-the-road major league players they sometimes finished out their pro careers as minor leaguers. (That largely went away in the early 1960s when the minors traded away much of their independence in exchange for greater financial support from the majors.)

[Carlton]

Something must be wrong with my League setup then

I am not seeing waiver claims at all and all superstars have $80,000 a yr

Time to scrap another attempt

and LGO, that is why I don't understand why that cannot be fixed
Under the Reserve Clause area, I have only 10% owed to cut players and guaranteed contracts and multi year contracts are given to Star players. Whatever determines a STAR player in that area, should also migrate to roster moves. In this instance, Hank Greenberg was given a multi year guaranteed contract, in his last year of said contract, he took hits and was sent to AAA in August. I wish OOTP saw "Star player" and released him. I did not check "disable right to refuse minors" and trade veto was checked

So, I guess either that disable right must be fixed and tied into reserve clause as well, or because Joe keeps responding to my questions with a "what are you talking about? It does it" I must have a corrupt game file.