Declining Backloaded team options

[xr21]

In my save I run the A's and the only way I can extend players long term and stay under budget is to give them middle of the road salaries and then tack on a team option that is absurdly high, i.e. first 4 years $50m and then a team option of $50m etc...

Obviously I have no intention of ever paying that option, but if you decline it and then immediately try to re sign the player, do the players usually allow you to negotiate or are they salty that you declined it in the first place?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[jimmysthebestcop]

Originally Posted by xr21

In my save I run the A's and the only way I can extend players long term and stay under budget is to give them middle of the road salaries and then tack on a team option that is absurdly high, i.e. first 4 years $50m and then a team option of $50m etc...

Obviously I have no intention of ever paying that option, but if you decline it and then immediately try to re sign the player, do the players usually allow you to negotiate or are they salty that you declined it in the first place?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Generally no. Their asking price will usually be high as well. Signing long term free players is very problematic for small market teams. You want constant roll over from your farm system.

Then usually last couple years of arbitration you decide when to trade that person for more prospects to maximize your gain. It is really all about assets. The more assets you can get the better.

The other thing that will help is turning off owner controls budget. In my universe Oakland jumped from 23rd at 130 million to 18 at 186 million. Their owner is awful and the more money your team makes. The more he will keep for himself. Seems rather pointless unless your after the difficulty factor.

And it not just for the A's but for all the teams basically. Brewers owner kept 100 million!!!!

[ThePride87]

Originally Posted by jimmysthebestcop

Generally no. Their asking price will usually be high as well. Signing long term free players is very problematic for small market teams. You want constant roll over from your farm system.

Then usually last couple years of arbitration you decide when to trade that person for more prospects to maximize your gain. It is really all about assets. The more assets you can get the better.

^^^ this right there. Using the Tigers, my mindset is to act like the Rays (with a WS victory eventually, of course). Focus on optimal drafting/development, pay attention to how many control years remain, dump players via trade before they hit the FA market, never resign a player with the exception of if they're a Mike Trout type and I actually have the room. Always have someone in the minors preparing to take over for the last guy. Keep payroll low. Maybe the Rays aren't the best example....A's maybe? Act small market, focus on fiscal efficiency. Never put the team in a Miggy situation where a guy is crippling you for half a decade because we didn't think ahead.

[thklein]

Originally Posted by xr21

In my save I run the A's and the only way I can extend players long term and stay under budget is to give them middle of the road salaries and then tack on a team option that is absurdly high, i.e. first 4 years $50m and then a team option of $50m etc...

Obviously I have no intention of ever paying that option, but if you decline it and then immediately try to re sign the player, do the players usually allow you to negotiate or are they salty that you declined it in the first place?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

If this works, the AI needs to be tweaked, unless you are including generous buy-outs. Players shouldn't be falling for such obvious tricks. I always thought players viewed team options as a negative unless the buy-out was large. They should, if they don't.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by thklein

If this works, the AI needs to be tweaked, unless you are including generous buy-outs. Players shouldn't be falling for such obvious tricks. I always thought players viewed team options as a negative unless the buy-out was large. They should, if they don't.

Right

A "player" should see, for example, a 5 year $100 million contract as equivalent to a 5 year $99 million contract with a team option for X dollars and a $1 million buyout.

[thklein]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Right

A "player" should see, for example, a 5 year $100 million contract as equivalent to a 5 year $99 million contract with a team option for X dollars and a $1 million buyout.

That deal is actually worse for the player because he loses control of the 6th year. If he out performs the contract he's stuck playing for $20 million in year six instead of becoming a free agent.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Right

A "player" should see, for example, a 5 year $100 million contract as equivalent to a 5 year $99 million contract with a team option for X dollars and a $1 million buyout.

Not following your thinking here. Are you talking about a 5-year contract with the fifth year being a team option? Or a six-year contract with the sixth being a team option? But either way, I'm still not seeing why the player would view it that way.

[thklein]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Not following your thinking here. Are you talking about a 5-year contract with the fifth year being a team option? Or a six-year contract with the sixth being a team option? But either way, I'm still not seeing why the player would view it that way.

I think he's talking about a 5 year contract with a 6th year team option. The only money guaranteed the player is the 5 year salary and the buy out. Anything beyond that is completely out of his control. Other than the buyout, the team option represents no benefit to the player. The only way it gets exercised if if the player is playing well. And if the player is playing well, he'd likely rather become a free agent than get what is essentially a one year deal. So, if anything, that team option year is a negative to the player.

[ALB123]

Originally Posted by jimmysthebestcop

The other thing that will help is turning off owner controls budget. In my universe Oakland jumped from 23rd at 130 million to 18 at 186 million. Their owner is awful and the more money your team makes. The more he will keep for himself. Seems rather pointless unless your after the difficulty factor.

And it not just for the A's but for all the teams basically. Brewers owner kept 100 million!!!!

Well, this is a "simulator" isn't it? Sure sounds like real life to me. Seriously, I agree, that's pretty lame. Starting as the 1981 Yankees, I was shocked to learn my team owner is a bit stingy too. I mean, for the market size, fan loyalty, and a losing World Series trip in 1982 I expected a bigger budget. Right now, I'm sitting on the 7th highest Budget. I don't know what the heck I would do with a team and the 25th highest payroll. I'll find out when I get bored of this Saved Game as I plan to start again in the same general era with a small market team. Almost every contract I agree to now has a Team Option to protect the team.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Not following your thinking here. Are you talking about a 5-year contract with the fifth year being a team option? Or a six-year contract with the sixth being a team option? But either way, I'm still not seeing why the player would view it that way.

A 5 year contract worth $100 million
vs a 6 year contract worth $99 million over the first 5 years + a $1 million buyout and X dollars for the 6th year

But, as Klein rightly pointed out, the 6 year deal is worse, for the player, than the 5 year deal

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

A 5 year contract worth $100 million
vs a 6 year contract worth $99 million over the first 5 years + a $1 million buyout and X dollars for the 6th year

But, as Klein rightly pointed out, the 6 year deal is worse, for the player, than the 5 year deal

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.