Owner Wants Me to Resign 41 Year Old

[BKL]

The owner of my fictional team wants me to resign my 41 year-old closer. We have a team options to resign him for $6 million. I was going to void the option because his performance has been just average. What implications are there if I specifically go against the owner's wishes and do not resign?

[Whoofe]

my guess: probly won't fire you for that alone, but if your performance is near the firing zone, it would tip the scales beyond

[Silfir]

He'll complain about it. I've yet to be fired in OOTP, so I'm not sure how unhappy you have to make your owner so he'll fire you. Probably has to do with his personality anyway. But I frequently ignore requests to re-sign players if I think they're dumb, and so far it's resulted in complaints and nothing else.

I imagine that if you're on the verge of being fired already because of a poor season record or for failing other goals, and if your owner is the particularly insane type, this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. You'll have to make that judgment call.

[rudel.dietrich]

6 million is not that high of a contract. I would pick up his option and then place in a non critical bullpen role.
At his age he might be willing to accept a non closer role and pitch 30-50 innings as a middle reliever or 2nd setup pitcher.


The owner asked you to sign him, not necessarily give him lots of innings.

[ThatSeventiesGuy]

I recently had a guy win Best Pitcher at 41, so it's not ALWAYS a bad idea. Never give anybody over 40 more than a two-year contract, though. Preferably one.

[Charley575]

Just turn it off. It would be a great feature if it was there for the purpose of adding to the immersion in the game, but it seems to be there for the purpose of making the game harder by asking you to do dumb things and penalizing you if you don't.

[The Yurpman]

If you win the owner will pretty much let you do as you please.

[Ty Cobb]

again...

[Raidergoo]

Every dime you save goes towards your owner's Gulfstream.


X-Hangar.com

[Number4]

You're not the owner, he is. Maybe he likes this guy? Maybe that guy sleeps with his daughter (or son, it is the 21st century)? Maybe that guy sells jerseys like no other and brings assets into seats due to a huge local popularity?

You can ignore your owner at your peril. I do not know if resigning him without taking the option would count as a failed goal, it shouldn't. What I would do: Backup the game before the option runs out and he becomes a free agent. Then, offer him a good but near market value contract, which should be less than 6 million.
If then he signs and the goal counts as achieved, play on.
If he does not sign, play on - you failed your goal, face the owners wrath. If he signs and the goal is wrongly displayed as failed, reload the backup, take the option, and edit it to the market value contract he took in your prior try.

[Kronos]

Ignore him, a good owner just signs the checks.

[MrBojangles]

I ignore my owner all the time and have lived to tell. Just win baby.

[TNCubsFan]

What does your owner hold to be most important? Winning, or Money? I have been fired twice. Both times were not for winning. Both were first year in a franchise.

Had an owner that wanted money at the end of the year.

Give your owner what they want the most, and the rest is water under the bridge.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by Charley575

Just turn it off. It would be a great feature if it was there for the purpose of adding to the immersion in the game, but it seems to be there for the purpose of making the game harder by asking you to do dumb things and penalizing you if you don't.

Seems realistic to me, some teams are just run by idiot owners across various pro sports.

The larger question becomes this - is there any real value to the OOTP gamer in having this particular kind of realism? Petty, stupid, ignorant owners are as old as professional sports, but we already see pushback on "it makes the game harder by asking you to do dumb things and penalizing you if you don't." Well, what do we think happens to GMs/Managers in real life who ignore what their idiot owner tells them to do, unless they win a ton of games?

It would be like having full information on why a reliever who normally would be rested not being available one day. In a real world environment, he might be hungover, he might be dealing with an STD, or he might just have the flu, but does the OOTP user really need to see more than the %rested data to know what really matters on the field - that pitcher's potential availability and presumed effectiveness that day?

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by JMDurron

Seems realistic to me, some teams are just run by idiot owners across various pro sports.

The larger question becomes this - is there any real value to the OOTP gamer in having this particular kind of realism? Petty, stupid, ignorant owners are as old as professional sports, but we already see pushback on "it makes the game harder by asking you to do dumb things and penalizing you if you don't." Well, what do we think happens to GMs/Managers in real life who ignore what their idiot owner tells them to do, unless they win a ton of games?

It would be like having full information on why a reliever who normally would be rested not being available one day. In a real world environment, he might be hungover, he might be dealing with an STD, or he might just have the flu, but does the OOTP user really need to see more than the %rested data to know what really matters on the field - that pitcher's potential availability and presumed effectiveness that day?

My issue specifically is that I suspect the game is programmed to have the owner ask you to do things like this regardless of which settings you choose related to the personality of the owner.
I've been playing this game since STB2K3, and have been on these boards almost as long. There is a small "cult" of people on these boards constantly complaining about the game being too easy. I believe those people have been successful in bending the direction of the game towards making it "harder", but without making it smarter in the process.

The game now contains many such "Features". Owner demands is one.
Another is the coaching system. No ratings just reputation. What are these reputations based on? Near as I can tell, it's just team record. So we got rid of visible coach ratings and replaced them with reputations based on nothing but whether the team they were coaching for won games. I suppose for managers this is ok, but for hitting and pitching coaches, I would like to see it based on the cumulative development of hitters and pitchers under their instruction. Net positive? Net negative? For the Scout, reputation based on the accuracy of his ratings projections and draft suggestions. We don't get these things. We get something which adds a "fog of war" without providing any other tangible value. It seems to me like these things are done simply to quiet the cult of "too easy".
Edit: I almost forgot...
Having managers ignore you completely is another. I like the idea of being just the GM and not managing all the lineups and depth charts. I like managers that have their own in game strategy preferences and manage the game that way. That said, I want some input. I don't think it's very "realistic" that my manager will not take my phone call just because he has a reputation of "Good" or better and thinks this makes him some sort of Lord who does not have a boss in the front office. I want to be able to say "This guy starts". "Try this guy out at second base in Spring Training". So on. No. We don't get that. What we get seems like a system that says you can have a mediocre manager who will listen to you, or you can have a good manger who won't.

[pgjocki]

When my manager won't listen he has an accident and his career is over.

The best feature was the GM Legacy mode because I want front office control and limited pre-game action.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by JMDurron

Seems realistic to me, some teams are just run by idiot owners across various pro sports.

The larger question becomes this - is there any real value to the OOTP gamer in having this particular kind of realism? Petty, stupid, ignorant owners are as old as professional sports, but we already see pushback on "it makes the game harder by asking you to do dumb things and penalizing you if you don't." Well, what do we think happens to GMs/Managers in real life who ignore what their idiot owner tells them to do, unless they win a ton of games?

It would be like having full information on why a reliever who normally would be rested not being available one day. In a real world environment, he might be hungover, he might be dealing with an STD, or he might just have the flu, but does the OOTP user really need to see more than the %rested data to know what really matters on the field - that pitcher's potential availability and presumed effectiveness that day?

it's realistic to have a 3 hour-flight but we don't simulate that either...

that's not the metric we should use for a video game all the time. it's supposed to be entertaining, not a chore. some people liek the owner, some dont - that's exactly how it should be. i turn it off completely. i alreay dislike entitled billionaires. have you ever met one? they are mostly terrible people, lol.

your last paragraph is covered though... the basis for their ratings is their historical perfomance in real life... those bad days caused by drinking and parting too much on road trips is already in the numbers. same can be though of for fictional players... i mean that more in reference to how they get to their resutls... if it's part of the engine somewhere, then it needs to be removed before implemented a 2nd time.

if it were a separate force, i think that would be cool, though. definitely somethign to model... mlb players are perpetual teen-agers when it comes to maturity, lol. it's most likely a real influence in real life, but how to quantify it is tough.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by NoOne

it's realistic to have a 3 hour-flight but we don't simulate that either...

that's not the metric we should use for a video game all the time. it's supposed to be entertaining, not a chore. some people liek the owner, some dont - that's exactly how it should be. i turn it off completely. i alreay dislike entitled billionaires. have you ever met one? they are mostly terrible people, lol.

your last paragraph is covered though... the basis for their ratings is their historical perfomance in real life... those bad days caused by drinking and parting too much on road trips is already in the numbers. same can be though of for fictional players... i mean that more in reference to how they get to their resutls... if it's part of the engine somewhere, then it needs to be removed before implemented a 2nd time.

if it were a separate force, i think that would be cool, though. definitely somethign to model... mlb players are perpetual teen-agers when it comes to maturity, lol. it's most likely a real influence in real life, but how to quantify it is tough.

You and I are in agreement.

I'd just as well assume that all of these effects are baked into the numbers for player performance, so any additional management of or attention to the specific root causes of the numbers already being used by the system is just asking for trouble. It shouldn't really change any outcomes notably, but it will get people frustrated by adding realism in an area that detracts from the experience for the average user (just win, baby!) more than it adds immersion for those who want every detail and/or an additional challenge. We can't even agree on players dying, nevermind realistic off-field behavior!

Reminding people that our favorite teams and leagues are run by narcissistic sociopaths who happen to be too wealthy to need to run for public office strikes me as borrowing trouble, but the types of requests they might make do seem to be included in the goals.