Looping DFA Endlessly

[PSUColonel]

I think it might be a good idea to require a GM to either trade or release a player once their time on the DFA list has expired. Currently you can DFA a player, and seven days later re-assign them to a minor league roster, only to immediately DFA them again.

This essentially means you never need to actually make a decision on a player(s) and can build up an almost endless "reserve list" of minor league players.

This just does not seem right or sit well with me. I know people here are going to say "just don't do it", but I still feel the need to close holes in the game where I see them. This is obviously an exploit and a great example of a way to "game" the AI...but it's also a great example of a simply ways to close some of these types of loopholes.

[PSUColonel]

I will say this...if you have service time limits enabled, the player may not be allowed at a certain level...but that appears to be the only restriction currently.

[Bobfather]

I would like to see eligible DFA'd players choose to become free agents.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Bobfather

I would like to see eligible DFA'd players choose to become free agents.

Yea…this is an area of the game which could use some work (roster rules)

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I think it might be a good idea to require a GM to either trade or release a player once their time on the DFA list has expired. Currently you can DFA a player, and seven days later re-assign them to a minor league roster, only to immediately DFA them again.

This essentially means you never need to actually make a decision on a player(s) and can build up an almost endless "reserve list" of minor league players.

This just does not seem right or sit well with me. I know people here are going to say "just don't do it", but I still feel the need to close holes in the game where I see them. This is obviously an exploit and a great example of a way to "game" the AI...but it's also a great example of a simply ways to close some of these types of loopholes.

Maybe I'm a bit confused but why would you need to DFA them again? You just took them off the 40 man when you did the DFA. I mean, unless you are recycling them back onto the 40 man? IE using DFA as a cheat to manipulate your roster by rotating Joe Baseball and Kirby Bagofballs in a continual loop? Damn, that sounds like a lot of grunt work to me. Note to self: "make sure every 7 days to get Joe back on the 40 man and DFA Kirby. Then rinse and repeat". If that's the way it's done all I can say is "I wouldn't waste my time". If it's something else please explain as I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the subject at hand.

I do think the AI does this to some degree but, not as a cheat. The AI does a fairly good job of keeping some 40 man spots open but can get caught with it being full. I think this has resulted in some DFA looping in my game but, it's not a big issue overall. It's normally one team with a roster management issue. This could be tightened up and, frankly, when I read the thread title was expecting to find as the premise.

Back to the OP..

To require trade or release defeats the purpose of DFA and hurts a player that plays within the spirit of the rule. The idea is to clear a 40 man spot and give the player the option of keeping his contract or voiding it and becoming a FA. If we require trade or release we just as well take DFA out of the game and do the release after running a "shop player"

I'm not sure what Markus or Matt can do to take it away if you are using it as a cheat without making it unrealistic for other players? IE me for sure, and many others, I hope. IOW I DFA a player because I need the spot. He doesn't go back on the 40 man unless I need him and, him being a player I DFA'd, means he's a marginal filler and not much more.

Does this "exploit" work if you are DFA-ing players that have MLB skill sets? More on that below as we move onto Bobfather's suggestion.

Originally Posted by Bobfather

I would like to see eligible DFA'd players choose to become free agents.

This would be preferable and in line with the real world. The trouble is how many players actually do this? They've passed through waivers for seven days and nobody jumped at getting them and their current contract. Now they're going to void their contract and hope to catch on with one of the teams that already passed?
If they are a min-sal guy anybody could have already had them at that price. "As is" they at least have a contract and are in an organization. If they void it they take the risk of not catching on with anybody and being out of baseball. I think most marginal players take the demotion.

If they have a contract that pays more they are losing money by going FA. I believe once they are above min-sal, even if they take demotion, they still receive their MLB salary. IOW their contract is guaranteed. I think OOTP does that too and only uses the "OOTP MiLB salary" for those with min-sal contracts.


What about if you try to "stack your minors" by using the exploit with "good" players that have MLB skill sets? How does OOTP handle that? I have no idea since I've never taken the chance of throwing guys like that out there on 7 day DFA waivers. Here is a case where OOTP should be having the player evaluate themselves compared to the league and, yes, if they have the skills to play at the MLB level they could\should be declaring FA. But they also need to code in said player was passed on during the DFA period and should not be looking for a payday but rather a MLB job. Again, this would(?) or should(?) be limited to guys on min-sal contracts for the reasons listed above. IE once you're making above min-sal voiding your contract is a huge risk. And I can still go back to even min-sal guys are taking a huge risk, arguably a bigger risk as they could end up out of the game.

IRL DFA is designed to give a player a chance to move on if he has MLB talent and is stuck on a team that doesn't need him. IE it's in the CBA for the players to benefit from. They are on waivers for 7 days so all teams have plenty of time to make a decision. After 7 days I believe anyone not claimed is fairly secure in thinking there isn't another job out their for them, all teams had a chance and passed. In the real world, I think, this player takes the demotion most of the time though I have no data to back it up.

Could OOTP be more aggressive in taking players off the DFA list (or even normal waivers for that matter?) and more importantly do we want that? Would AI teams be making claims just to make claims and then follow up by either DFAing the player themselves or starting an even bigger claim\release loop? Food for thought

[oldfatbaldguy]

This is interesting. When I DFA, it's because the player has refused an assignment to the minors or because I need to open a spot on the expanded roster. In the first case I usually end up releasing him, in the second he usually clears waivers and gets assigned to the minors. I allow myself to shop a DFA player if he qualifies for shopping under the restrictive house rules I have about that, but if I'm DFAing him, he probably doesn't.

I hadn't thought about ways to game this system. Agree with the OP that house rules (just don't do it) are an inferior substitute for having the bad thing blocked by the game. Also agree with Bobfather and Sweed that allowing a DFA player to drop the D and keep the FA is a good solution.

[PSUColonel]

I don’t have time at this moment to give an in depth response, but…these are minor league players I am DFAing and they aren’t on the 40 man roster. I am doing it so I can keep them in my organization without having to release them. I am using RL roster limits, so I can’t keep an unlimited number of players on my minor league teams. So I DFA a player (in stead of releasing him) and see if another opportunity opens up (injuries or whatever). If not and the seven days expire I can assign him to a team, only to immediately DFA him again.

Rinse, repeat

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I don’t have time at this moment to give an in depth response, but…these are minor league players I am DFAing and they aren’t on the 40 man roster. I am doing it so I can keep them in my organization without having to release them. I am using RL roster limits, so I can’t keep an unlimited number of players on my minor league teams. So I DFA a player (in stead of releasing him) and see if another opportunity opens up (injuries or whatever). If not and the seven days expire I can assign him to a team, only to immediately DFA him again.

Rinse, repeat

Now I'm really lost The whole purpose of DFA is to remove a player from the 40 man, isn't it? DFA, as far as I know, shouldn't have anything to do with minor league players that do not have MLB contracts.

Well, I looked at my game and the option is there to DFA a minor league player that has never had a MLB contract also meaning never on the 40 man. The question I have is why? Seems to me having DFA available for minor league player on a minor league contract is a bug? It shouldn't be an option, there is no purpose, is there? He's already in the minors. Either he's a minor league FA or he is not. The only way to stop him from being a minor league FA is to offer a minor league extension and have him accept or, put him on the 40 man. As far as I know DFA shouldn't be an option at all. Maybe I'm missing something?

FWIW while the option was there to DFA a minor leaguer I DID NOT DO IT. I did not feel like experimenting with my saved game so have no idea what happens if one does?

Unless I'm missing something I don't think you need a "force trade or force release" at all. I think you need to ask them to remove DFA as an option for MiL players or any players for that matter that do not have an MLB contract.

[Palaaemon]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I don’t have time at this moment to give an in depth response, but…these are minor league players I am DFAing and they aren’t on the 40 man roster. I am doing it so I can keep them in my organization without having to release them. I am using RL roster limits, so I can’t keep an unlimited number of players on my minor league teams. So I DFA a player (in stead of releasing him) and see if another opportunity opens up (injuries or whatever). If not and the seven days expire I can assign him to a team, only to immediately DFA him again.

Rinse, repeat

This is from MLB.com/glossary

Designate for Assignment (DFA)
Definition
When a player's contract is designated for assignment -- often abbreviated "DFA" -- that player is immediately removed from his club's 40-man roster. Within seven days of the transaction (had been 10 days under the 2012-16 Collective Bargaining Agreement), the player can either be traded or placed on irrevocable outright waivers.

If the player is claimed off said waivers by another club, he is immediately added to that team's 40-man roster, at which point he can be optioned to the Minor Leagues (if he has Minor League options remaining) or assigned to his new team's 26-man roster. If the player clears waivers, he may be sent outright to the Minor Leagues or released. Players with more than three years of Major League service time or who have been previously outrighted may reject the outright assignment in favor of free agency.

Clubs may utilize this option to clear a spot on the 40-man roster -- typically with the intention of adding a newly acquired player (via trade or free agency), a Minor Leaguer or a player being activated from the 60-day injured list.

As you can see the player's contract is designated for assignment, then the player is immediately removed from that teams 40-man roster (meaning of course you cannot play the shenanigans with minor league players like you have been doing even though the game has allowed you to do so as a bug evidently.)

If I am not mistaken (I have been before ) this next sentence from the DFA information might also take care of the other concern.

Players with more than three years of Major League service time or who have been previously outrighted may reject the outright assignment in favor of free agency.

I hope this information helps.

Have a great morning everyone!

[BIG17EASY]

Sweed and Palaaemon are correct. The ability to DFA minor leaguers who are not on the 40-man should not exist. DFA should not be available for those players or we should get a message that says something like, "This player is not on the 40-man roster and cannot be DFA'd."

[MathBandit]

If I had to guess, the reason the game allows non-40man players to be DFA'd is that the game requires players not on your 40-man to be able to be placed on your DFA (for example when you trade for them).

[Bluenoser]

Is the AI doing this, using it as an exploit?

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

If I had to guess, the reason the game allows non-40man players to be DFA'd is that the game requires players not on your 40-man to be able to be placed on your DFA (for example when you trade for them).

Yes, if they have a MLB contract they will go to DFA so you can decide how you want to assign them. But if they do not they should be going directly to a minor league club. Every minor leaguer I have ever traded for, that has a minor league contract, has gone directly to a minor league club in my game. The only quibble one ever has is sometimes you don't like the level they were put at. Simple enough to always check and move them where you want. No DFA needed.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Is the AI doing this, using it as an exploit?

That's the thing, what exploit? DFA has no effect unless the player has a MLB contract but, PSU says he's doing it to keep minor league players, that are not on MLB contracts, in his organization and on one of his minor league clubs. At least that's the way I read it.

Hell, I'm having trouble trying to figure out how one would abuse the current DFA model with MLB contracts. Exploiting DFA to keep minor leaguers on minor league contracts? uhh?

I could write another paragraph or two speculating but there's no point until PSU comes back and clarifies what exactly is going on.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Sweed

That's the thing, what exploit? DFA has no effect unless the player has a MLB contract but, PSU says he's doing it to keep minor league players, that are not on MLB contracts, in his organization and on one of his minor league clubs. At least that's the way I read it.

Hell, I'm having trouble trying to figure out how one would abuse the current DFA model with MLB contracts. Exploiting DFA to keep minor leaguers on minor league contracts? uhh?

I could write another paragraph or two speculating but there's no point until PSU comes back and clarifies what exactly is going on.

Agree 100%

The reason I ask about the Ai is because if it's something the AI abuses, maybe it needs looking at. If not, then there is no problem.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Agree 100%

The reason I ask about the Ai is because if it's something the AI abuses, maybe it needs looking at. If not, then there is no problem.

I read the full transactions log in my league every day and I have never seen a listing for an AI team DFAing a minor leaguer. Maybe it happens and isn't listed in the transactions log for some reason, but I kinda doubt that.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by Sweed

That's the thing, what exploit? DFA has no effect unless the player has a MLB contract but, PSU says he's doing it to keep minor league players, that are not on MLB contracts, in his organization and on one of his minor league clubs. At least that's the way I read it.

Hell, I'm having trouble trying to figure out how one would abuse the current DFA model with MLB contracts. Exploiting DFA to keep minor leaguers on minor league contracts? uhh?

I could write another paragraph or two speculating but there's no point until PSU comes back and clarifies what exactly is going on.

Seems pretty clear to me.

If your MiLB system has (for example) 150 roster spots combined, you're limited to 150 MiLB players (obviously). Currently, though, you can have 150 MiLB players, DFA say 10 of them, and sign 9 new players. Every X days (depending on how long DFA lasts in your save) you take each of the 10 players and assign them to the last spot then immediately DFA them again. Essentially letting you keep a system of *more* than the 150 roster spots you have in your MiLB org, with some number of players sitting in eternal DFA in case of injury/call-up/trade/etc.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

Seems pretty clear to me.

If your MiLB system has (for example) 150 roster spots combined, you're limited to 150 MiLB players (obviously). Currently, though, you can have 150 MiLB players, DFA say 10 of them, and sign 9 new players. Every X days (depending on how long DFA lasts in your save) you take each of the 10 players and assign them to the last spot then immediately DFA them again. Essentially letting you keep a system of *more* than the 150 roster spots you have in your MiLB org, with some number of players sitting in eternal DFA in case of injury/call-up/trade/etc.

Does OOTP even use or enforce the new 150 man rule? IDK, I don't have it in my league but maybe missed a new setting when importing my league? Doesn't really matter either way as my game has 5 levels of minors and I don't average 30 per team anyway.

If it does enforce the 150 man rule then I think that verifies DFA being there is a bug\oversite in OOTP. It needs to be disabled for minor league player that do not have MLB contracts. Again, unless I'm missing something else?

In any case if I had to think that much about how to game the system to keep minor leaguers in my system? Well I think counting the pile in my living room carpet would be more fun and more productive.

I know, we're all different but, I'll never understand how one can't discipline themselves to not take advantage of something like this as it only hurts the validity of their game (IMHO). Report it and suggest closing the hole is fine.
Saying it has to be done to stop oneself? That boggles my mind.

There are so many ways for one to game the system. I mean why not ask for rookie leagues to be age locked to stop the user from taking advantage?
As is I can set rookie to no age limit and fill it up especially if I use this minor league DFA hole. The game allows me to set the ages to whatever I want so, I should be able to unless the developer "helps me out" by closing that hole.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Now I'm really lost The whole purpose of DFA is to remove a player from the 40 man, isn't it? DFA, as far as I know, shouldn't have anything to do with minor league players that do not have MLB contracts.

Well, I looked at my game and the option is there to DFA a minor league player that has never had a MLB contract also meaning never on the 40 man. The question I have is why? Seems to me having DFA available for minor league player on a minor league contract is a bug? It shouldn't be an option, there is no purpose, is there? He's already in the minors. Either he's a minor league FA or he is not. The only way to stop him from being a minor league FA is to offer a minor league extension and have him accept or, put him on the 40 man. As far as I know DFA shouldn't be an option at all. Maybe I'm missing something?

FWIW while the option was there to DFA a minor leaguer I DID NOT DO IT. I did not feel like experimenting with my saved game so have no idea what happens if one does?

Unless I'm missing something I don't think you need a "force trade or force release" at all. I think you need to ask them to remove DFA as an option for MiL players or any players for that matter that do not have an MLB contract.

I should also be clear I am DFAing the players without putting them on waivers (since they don't have a major league contract). I am essentially using the DFA area as an endless "holding pen" or "minor league reserve roster". That's what is going on here, and it doesn't seem this would have or should have been an intended loophole. Teams' simply don't do this IRL. I know I have the option to not do it, but I figure we should try to close as many loopholes as possible. You guys need to remember that I often look at things through the lens of a BETA tester.

So the way I see it, yes, the best option here would be to NOT allow non-40 man roster players to be DFA. That should seem simple enough?? I'll have to bring this to the developer's attention, but I wanted to see what others thought first.

I assumed MLB rules allowed for it (and thus my original fix proposal) but now that I realize MiLB players simply cannot be DFA, so then the game rules should just reflect that. It's probably an easier fix anyway.

[PSUColonel]

One bit of speculation I have is that since the developers originally never had (and still don't by default) roster size limits at the MilB level...this hasn't come up for them. For those of using roster size limits, it's most definitely a loophole...and could also be an exploit in online leagues.