More realistic arbitration

O-Man · 08-21-2004, 04:27 PM

It would be interesting if we could add more realistic arbitration to OOTP7. The way OOTP5/6 handles it is much better than when we didn't have it at all, but it would be kind of interesting to expand on this a bit.

Dan Theman · 08-21-2004, 04:48 PM

I whole-heartedly agree with you, but ...

... some people would be put off by the minutiae of handling individual arbitrations with each eligible player. From the outside, it actually looks fairly easy to code into the game which in turn makes me wonder if this was a design decision by Markus.

Maybe if we asked kindly and gently (pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease), at some point this might be included as an option that we could enable or disable. Or rather, where we now have the ability to turn arbitration on or off, we could have a third option: "negotiations."

Ah, well - just a thought. Good idea, however.

crackpott · 08-23-2004, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Theman

I whole-heartedly agree with you, but ...

... some people would be put off by the minutiae of handling individual arbitrations with each eligible player. From the outside, it actually looks fairly easy to code into the game which in turn makes me wonder if this was a design decision by Markus.

Maybe if we asked kindly and gently (pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease), at some point this might be included as an option that we could enable or disable. Or rather, where we now have the ability to turn arbitration on or off, we could have a third option: "negotiations."

Ah, well - just a thought. Good idea, however.

I want to see arbitration for impending free agents with compensation. This would require a negotiation process anyway, so... i'm all for this idea.

crackpott · 11-25-2004, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crackpott

I want to see arbitration for impending free agents with compensation. This would require a negotiation process anyway, so... i'm all for this idea.

bump due to current OOTP7 hype.

Spindel · 11-26-2004, 04:15 AM

I like this idea.

It would be extremely cool to me if we could have a more realistic arbitration setting.

Perhaps something that actually takes place in the beginning of the next year. (for instance, if 2008 was just completed, the first thing in the 2009 season could be arbitration, though it would be best if it took place in 2008, datewise.)

Perhaps have it so that you can see what the player wants, or tell you he wants. Maybe he is willing to take less, maybe not.

You could of course, offer him a low ball number, and he could refuse or take it. Maybe get a few chances depending on how the player views you and your franchise. (For instance "I don't think that is a very fair offer." or "I'd rather go to arbitration." or something) You could offer him a multi year deal, or a one year deal, etc. After he stops wanting to talk, you can either offer him arbitration or let him become a free agent.

If he accepts arbitration, you submit a one year offer and the player does as well. Maybe have a schedule of arbitration hearings over a ten day period or whatnot. You could see when your hearings are, and of course continue trying to get the player to sign with you if he'll listen. If he signs, no hearing takes place. If he doesn't the computer decides on which contract is better. (Or fair. Or whatever.)

Of course, I'd like to see some players decide not to accept arbitration. (While of course, giving you a conpensation pick in the draft at the expense of another team signing him. Free Agents who did'nt accept arbitration should have some sort of warning, of course, in the signing screen.)

That's my two cents, at least.

Filthy Slider · 11-26-2004, 09:37 AM

If Markus was once trying to keep roster management and contract rules simple I think that waivers' rules, DFA, rule 5, minor league option years, and minor league free agency kindof already put an end to that...lol

So, why not? If we can handle all those other new things (and I think that most of us have really been enjoying those new parts of the game) then why not add more realism and strategic options by taking off the arbitration "kid gloves"?

kdawg · 11-26-2004, 02:58 PM

I would prefer to simple add the option to offer a player abritration or let the player go to free agency. A more detail abritration system would be great but just getting the option would be an upgrade.

jmm8356 · 11-26-2004, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kdawg

I would prefer to simple add the option to offer a player abritration or let the player go to free agency. A more detail abritration system would be great but just getting the option would be an upgrade.

You can already do this now... To "refuse to offer arbitration", just release the player at the end of the season.

notareus · 12-07-2004, 06:07 PM

i too like the idea of handling arbitration more realistically. I don't think it should be too hard to have the team offer oarbitartion to eligible players and have each side put a $# forward. then the "arbitrator" picks one a set # of days later. teams could try to cut a deal in the interim to buy out of their risk.

ctorg · 12-08-2004, 02:09 PM

I'd love this, but only as an option. Sometimes I just wouldn't want to deal with it, particularly in one of my faster moving leagues.

08-21-2004, 04:27 PM	#1
O-Man Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 231	More realistic arbitration It would be interesting if we could add more realistic arbitration to OOTP7. The way OOTP5/6 handles it is much better than when we didn't have it at all, but it would be kind of interesting to expand on this a bit.

11-26-2004, 04:15 AM	#5
Spindel All Star Reserve Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 763	I like this idea. It would be extremely cool to me if we could have a more realistic arbitration setting. Perhaps something that actually takes place in the beginning of the next year. (for instance, if 2008 was just completed, the first thing in the 2009 season could be arbitration, though it would be best if it took place in 2008, datewise.) Perhaps have it so that you can see what the player wants, or tell you he wants. Maybe he is willing to take less, maybe not. You could of course, offer him a low ball number, and he could refuse or take it. Maybe get a few chances depending on how the player views you and your franchise. (For instance "I don't think that is a very fair offer." or "I'd rather go to arbitration." or something) You could offer him a multi year deal, or a one year deal, etc. After he stops wanting to talk, you can either offer him arbitration or let him become a free agent. If he accepts arbitration, you submit a one year offer and the player does as well. Maybe have a schedule of arbitration hearings over a ten day period or whatnot. You could see when your hearings are, and of course continue trying to get the player to sign with you if he'll listen. If he signs, no hearing takes place. If he doesn't the computer decides on which contract is better. (Or fair. Or whatever.) Of course, I'd like to see some players decide not to accept arbitration. (While of course, giving you a conpensation pick in the draft at the expense of another team signing him. Free Agents who did'nt accept arbitration should have some sort of warning, of course, in the signing screen.) That's my two cents, at least. Last edited by Spindel; 11-26-2004 at 04:17 AM.

11-26-2004, 09:37 AM	#6
Filthy Slider Major Leagues Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 467	If Markus was once trying to keep roster management and contract rules simple I think that waivers' rules, DFA, rule 5, minor league option years, and minor league free agency kindof already put an end to that...lol So, why not? If we can handle all those other new things (and I think that most of us have really been enjoying those new parts of the game) then why not add more realism and strategic options by taking off the arbitration "kid gloves"? __________________ a.k.a.: Obscene Change-up, Wicked Heater, Nasty Knuckler What is the sound of one light bulb turning itself? Crash Test Yankees!

11-26-2004, 02:58 PM	#7
kdawg Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Bedford, MA Posts: 63	I would prefer to simple add the option to offer a player abritration or let the player go to free agency. A more detail abritration system would be great but just getting the option would be an upgrade. __________________ Your Friend in Plastics "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes "I will find humor in my everyday life by looking for people I can laugh at"

12-08-2004, 02:09 PM	#10
ctorg Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 9,848	I'd love this, but only as an option. Sometimes I just wouldn't want to deal with it, particularly in one of my faster moving leagues. __________________ My music "When the trees blow back and forth, that's what makes the wind." - Steven Wright Fjord emena pancreas thorax fornicate marmalade morpheme proteolysis smaxa cabana offal srue vitriol grope hallelujah lentils

12-07-2004, 06:07 PM	#9
notareus Minors (Double A) Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Somewhere in Red Sox Nation: "Baseball is Life; the rest are just details" Posts: 132	i too like the idea of handling arbitration more realistically. I don't think it should be too hard to have the team offer oarbitartion to eligible players and have each side put a $# forward. then the "arbitrator" picks one a set # of days later. teams could try to cut a deal in the interim to buy out of their risk.