Online League Free Agency: Let's Improve It

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by cockypop

Or forget about lawnmowers for a minute... is Nick Punto worth $15 mil per season just because the Dodgers have that much money to spend? Because if OOTP ran MLB that's what he would be asking for.

There is a distinct difference between the financial particulars of OOTP and MLB. The latter exists in the real world, an inflationary one where the numerical amounts of revenue and salaries grows over time, and has exhibited almost exponential growth since the mid-1970s. The average MLB player salary in 2011 was about $3 million; the average club revenue, about $220 million. If you take the growth rate over the last two decades and project ahead you end up with some remarkable numbers in even just ten years' time. (When I get back home to my regular computer in a couple of days I can post some numbers for you if you like.)

This illustrates some of the difficulty with comparing OOTP results to real life because OOTP's financial model isn't really equipped currently to deal with some of the factors of what happens in the real world.

Originally Posted by cockypop

However in the OOTP 'market many $150 lawnmowers that WON'T bring in $75K in additional revenue are put on sale for $500 NOT because it is worth that much, but because the pool of available funds for lawnmowers is so large.

In real life revenue grows over time, which means the cash on hand clubs have to spend on players grows, and that competition drives up salaries. So in that regard cash on hand does matter. If MLB was still generating the same level of revenue it was twenty years ago, salaries would be at about the same level as twenty years ago.

In short: if clubs have more money to spend, it tends to get spent.

[kon6749]

Originally Posted by Isryion

I'd argue that the system Markus implemented (wherein FA understand the available money in the system) is there because it's trying to simulate an environment like real baseball and adapt to various league's financial situation, where GMs usually use up their allotted payroll and don't leave hundreds of millions of dollars floating around. It's not because it's some kind of control on money in the game. Like I said many times,

Which might make sense in solo leagues (which I can't comment on), however online leagues have human owners making offers and driving up the player prices and market themselves, so why does the game code (that seems to be a bit wacky) have to dictate a starting point for this? (again, I haven't seen a post asking for this to be changed, but only some sort of an option if an online league deems it necessary)

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

In short: if clubs have more money to spend, it tends to get spent.

I think you're dead on. However, in online leagues with human owned teams, why should the game code, to a certain extent, dictate this? Whereas, teams that are human owned will drive the price up on players that are deserving (or equal to their counterparts) because there will be more money to spend.

As a whole, in all the online leagues that I have played in, the majority of owners spend nearly all of their budgeted money in the off season in attempts to improve their team, so the lack of spending, no matter what the budget room or cash on hand, is not a concern.

Now in solo leagues, maybe this all makes sense, but I can't comment on that as I don't play solo leagues.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by cockypop

Or forget about lawnmowers for a minute... is Nick Punto worth $15 mil per season just because the Dodgers have that much money to spend? Because if OOTP ran MLB that's what he would be asking for.

It (the program) has nothing to do with how much money an individual team has, but the league as a whole.

Interesting that you bring this up, too as a couple teams this year Miami, LA, and maybe one other that I'm forgetting increased their payroll by various means. They have both now spent exorbitantly, and whether you look at that as responsible or not, they've done it because that's what happens when teams have payroll money available. You could argue that Boston cut their payroll and might actually keep it low, but for how long?

Or as Le Grand Orange put it:

In short: if clubs have more money to spend, it tends to get spent.

Point is, I'll argue that you should be able to offer money to free agents and I even think it would be a good feature to allow leagues to essentially implement a bidding type system. However, arguing that the league that discovered these issues have realistic financial system going isn't accurate, imo.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by kon6749

Which might make sense in solo leagues (which I can't comment on), however online leagues have human owners making offers and driving up the player prices and market themselves, so why does the game code have to dictate this? (again, I haven't seen a post asking for this to be changed, but only some sort of an option if an online league deems it necessary)



I think you're dead on. However, in online leagues with human owned teams, why should the game code, to a certain extent, dictate this? Whereas, teams that are human owned will drive the price up on players that are deserving (or equal to their counterparts) because there will be more money to spend.

As a whole, in all the online leagues that I have played in, the majority of owners spend nearly all of their budgeted money in the off season in attempts to improve their team, so the lack of spending, no matter what the budget room or cash on hand, is not a concern.

Now in solo leagues, maybe this all makes sense, but I can't comment on that as I don't play solo leagues.

In answer to your question, there are online leagues looking for a realistic experience as well. What you describe (owners spending nearly all their budgeted money and driving up FA prices) doesn't seem to be the case with the league discussed in this thread (in fact the opposite seems to be the case for most players) which is why this issue has come up.

[kon6749]

Originally Posted by Isryion

In answer to your question, there are online leagues looking for a realistic experience as well. What you describe (owners spending nearly all their budgeted money and driving up FA prices) doesn't seem to be the case with the league discussed in this thread (in fact the opposite seems to be the case for most players) which is why this issue has come up.

Someone posted at the beginning of this thread stating they looked at the league website and made the assumption that the owners don't spend all their money, however I don't necessary believe that to be true. If you take a closer look at the league finances and transactions, it shows the finances of all teams after arbitration, which is the time of year (right before free agency begins) that all teams will have the highest budget room all season. That is a very blind assumption without being part of that actual league.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by kon6749

Someone posted at the beginning of this thread stating they looked at the league website and made the assumption that the owners don't spend all their money, however I don't necessary believe that to be true. If you take a closer look at the league finances and transactions, it shows the finances of all teams after arbitration, which is the time of year (right before free agency begins) that all teams will have the highest budget room all season. That is a very blind assumption without being part of that actual league.

Blind assumption? Please.

I'll admit it's tough not being in the league as I only can look at the report, but it wasn't a blind assumption, and I'll look at it again. The league is currently on 12/16 still in FA so teams likely still have a lot of money available (more than they would during the season), but post arbitration (and I have no idea of the exact date when I looked before). There are still hundreds of millions of dollars available.

There are, by my count 6 teams with less than 10M available. 3 teams with just over $10M and everyone else has at least $25M available to sign FA (15 teams). Of those 15, 5 have over $30M, and 5 have $58M-$69M. I'm not sure how many or what type of FA are remaining, but this is a ton of money. Arbitration wouldn't have even put a dent in it.

Looking at last year's player expenses, I think I can put to rest the idea that this was a blind assumption. There are a few teams that have obviously cut a decent amount of salary, but there are also several that were low last season and are still low.

Perhaps your assumption that it was a blind assumption was actually blind?

[cockypop]

Originally Posted by Isryion

Perhaps your assumption that it was a blind assumption was actually blind?

If you really want to get into an analysis of league financials, the reports will be updated in a few days to reflect the free agency period which is just ending. I can tell you teams have dropped a lot of cash on a lot of lawnmowers.

Also worth noting that the 4 lowest payroll teams were all AI controlled for the majority of the season. A couple of them have taken on human owners recently, and immediately became the bigest spenders off the offseason. Miami alone added $93 million in annual salaries, to move from last place to 3rd place in payroll in one offseason.

And the 5th lowest payroll team, the lowest payroll run by a real human - which happens to be me - had a $150 million payroll 3 seasons ago. So it's all part of the ebb and flow.

All that being said... after all that spending... even though the league is about to start spring training... there are still a handful of Nick Punto's left over who insist on asking for Pujols level money. So something still seems off.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Isryion

There are, by my count 6 teams with less than 10M available. 3 teams with just over $10M and everyone else has at least $25M available to sign FA (15 teams). Of those 15, 5 have over $30M, and 5 have $58M-$69M.

That actually points out a core issue I have with the game's financial system: real-life clubs don't need cash on hand to sign players (other than perhaps for any signing bonuses which the team has agreed to pay upfront). What stops the Tampa Bay Rays from spending like the New York Yankees is not cash on hand. What stops them is the fact that the club knows it will not be making the amount of revenue during the season needed to cover that amount of player payroll. Why did the Angels pay out as much as they did for Pujols? Because they signed a nice new local media contract which will significantly bump up their future revenue, and thus the club felt it will now be making an income sufficient to pay that salary.

So what clubs in OOTP really ought to be doing is looking at their financial projections for next season and then determine the amount of payroll the anticipated revenue can support, then sign players according to that. Cash on hand should not really enter into it at all.

There ought to be nothing stopping a club from taking on as much payroll as it wants - if the owner is willing to subsidize the loss for a season or two. If the owner expects a profit each season, then payroll will obviously need to be set in accordance with the revenue the club expects to make. (If it winds up doing better than expected then it can take on additional salary; if it's doing worse than expected then perhaps it'll have to dump salary.)

But obviously this topic goes into the more fundamental aspects of the game's financial model...

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by cockypop

That's what the withdraw offer button is for. If I think the offer will eventually be accepted I can choose to leave it on the table and tie up finances, or not. If I decide the money can be better spend somewhere else, I can withdraw the offer and reallocate.

If anything a system like this discourages lowball offers... should I risk a lowball offer which I eventually have to withdraw and thereby pissing the player off? Probably not, instead I will make sure my offers are appropriate value for money.

EDIT: Though in thinking a bit more about this... if an offer is made and rejected as being too low, I reckon I should be able to withdraw that offer to free up cash if I choose to without pissing the player off. Leaving me the choice to (a) leave the offer on the table and gamble that his demands will drop, or (b) withdraw the perceived 'lowball' offer without penalty allowing me to make another offer later.

And keep in mind, this probably isn't relevant at all to anyone who sims the offseason a day at a time. When you do it daily you have time to respond to changes in the market for a player. But when you sim a week at a time online you lose that chance.

And this is where we differ vastly.

It's my opinion that, if you offer a player a contract and he rejects it, then that offer is null and void, gone, no longer exists, off the table. It was rejected, it's no longer valid. It doesn't stay on the table "in case" the player changes his mind later on down the road.

If the players demands drop later on, then you as the GM have to submit a new offer.

Remember - if a player changes his mind 3 or 4 weeks later and lowers his demand, well my needs/requirements for my team may well have changed by then too, just like his did, and I may not want this guy anymore.


There is no need to use "withdraw", because your initial offer was rejected, then it's dead.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

And this is where we differ vastly.

It's my opinion that, if you offer a player a contract and he rejects it, then that offer is null and void, gone, no longer exists, off the table. It was rejected, it's no longer valid. It doesn't stay on the table "in case" the player changes his mind later on down the road.

If the players demands drop later on, then you as the GM have to submit a new offer.

Remember - if a player changes his mind 3 or 4 weeks later and lowers his demand, well my needs/requirements for my team may well have changed by then too, just like his did, and I may not want this guy anymore.


There is no need to use "withdraw", because your initial offer was rejected, then it's dead.

I agree with your viewpoint, although I would be in favor of having the ability to leave an offer on the table if we so choose. I said earlier in this thread that it could work just like when we get a trade offer and can react to it right in the e-mail. At the bottom right of the e-mail there would be a place to choose to leave it on the table or withdraw it. If you delete the e-mail without making a choice, the offer is automatically withdrawn.

I don't like offers being rejected but automatically remaining on the table because, as you said, your team's needs could change in a few weeks. Then all of a sudden your original offer is accepted and you end up with too many players at a certain position. I know some will make the argument that we should remember to withdraw the offer once we sign a different player, but do we all really think everyone who plays OOTP is that diligent?

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by cockypop

If you really want to get into an analysis of league financials, the reports will be updated in a few days to reflect the free agency period which is just ending. I can tell you teams have dropped a lot of cash on a lot of lawnmowers.

Also worth noting that the 4 lowest payroll teams were all AI controlled for the majority of the season. A couple of them have taken on human owners recently, and immediately became the bigest spenders off the offseason. Miami alone added $93 million in annual salaries, to move from last place to 3rd place in payroll in one offseason.

And the 5th lowest payroll team, the lowest payroll run by a real human - which happens to be me - had a $150 million payroll 3 seasons ago. So it's all part of the ebb and flow.

All that being said... after all that spending... even though the league is about to start spring training... there are still a handful of Nick Punto's left over who insist on asking for Pujols level money. So something still seems off.

Fair enough and thanks for the details. It was still a ton of cash to have for available FA, regardless of how it occurred, but good to know. I'd be curious to see the players you refer to that are asking for a lot of money. Can you link a couple?

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

So what clubs in OOTP really ought to be doing is looking at their financial projections for next season and then determine the amount of payroll the anticipated revenue can support, then sign players according to that. Cash on hand should not really enter into it at all.

Woah. This isn't about cash on hand.

Payroll in this game is determined exactly as you mention -- it's determined by the overall "budget." When I'm discussing this, I'm talking about available budget room which is what determines payroll. It's why est. extension money is the way it is -- it's a projection of the next year's available payroll. Cash on hand has nothing to do with it, as you say (take a look at the league in question, their payrolls would be even higher). I'm really not sure where you've misread this both here and in-game. Maybe people have used the terms interchangeably too much. Available payroll is very different from cash on hand, both in real life AND in the game.

FA make estimated demands based on the money available in the league (by payroll) not cash on hand.

[cockypop]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

If the players demands drop later on, then you as the GM have to submit a new offer.

Except that when you sim 7 days at a time you don't usually get a chance to do that.

[olivertheorem]

I think that may be the first time I've seen that anyone said LGO didn't understand something about OOTP. Not that it means Isyrion is wrong by default. Just sayin'.

In any event, wasn't it the position of many in the earlier pages of this thread that the issue the league in question was seeing was as a result of large amounts of cash available in the league? In fact, hasn't that been a known source of high FA demands in both online and solo leagues for some time now?

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I agree with your viewpoint, although I would be in favor of having the ability to leave an offer on the table if we so choose. I said earlier in this thread that it could work just like when we get a trade offer and can react to it right in the e-mail. At the bottom right of the e-mail there would be a place to choose to leave it on the table or withdraw it. If you delete the e-mail without making a choice, the offer is automatically withdrawn.

I don't like offers being rejected but automatically remaining on the table because, as you said, your team's needs could change in a few weeks. Then all of a sudden your original offer is accepted and you end up with too many players at a certain position. I know some will make the argument that we should remember to withdraw the offer once we sign a different player, but do we all really think everyone who plays OOTP is that diligent?

You know what - I don't mean to be rude at all, and in no way is this directed at you in specific, but give me a F'kin break. Do you want to be a GM or do you want OOTP to read your mind and do everything for you?

Make up your mind, cause the arguement here is bordering on total laziness.

"I want to play OOTP Basaball but I want OOTP baseball to read my mind and do things exactly the way I would.

Get off your lazy freakin ass and do your job as a GM. PERIOD!!!

If you make offers, then remember what you offered. That's part of your job as a GM.

If you want OOTP to remember everything you do for you, go find a game that actually can read your mind. OOTP isn't advanced enough to do that yet.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by cockypop

Except that when you sim 7 days at a time you don't usually get a chance to do that.

Well gee, then don't sim 7 days at a time.....DUH!!!!

And don't give me some bs excuse like well, not all online leagues can do that. SO the developer should adapt OOTP to meet your needs? BS!

This whole debate/thread/and suggestuions are bs. Let's see, we have what, aprox 100 online OOTP leagues? Out of that 100 there is one (1) league that has decided that off season FA doesn't work right and the whole thing needs to be changed.

I'll tell you one thing, I've had wolf on ignore for a long time but seeing his quotes I agree with his thoughts (not his method of conveying them) You guys need to learn what it means to be a GM. Right now you're crying like a bunch of little babies because OOTP isn't programmed to do things exactly as you think they should be done. How about you try this - adapt to the parimeters the game is capable of meeting instead of demanding the game adapt to your perimeters.

Why is it every other online league has no problems with FA, but because yours does then the whole thing should be changed? Did the thought ever occur to you that not everything in life is going to be like you want it to be or expect it to be or think it should be. Did the thought ever cross your minds that "gee, maybe I should try adapting to the situation as it is."


Again, I apoloigize if this sounds rude, but I spent 30 years in the armed forces adapting to situations and it just irks me to no end when people come on here and whine because OOTP doesn't do things exactly as they think it should. Get a grip on reality people, life will never be easy for you and if all you can do is whine (and yes you whined big time about this FA thing) everytime things don't go the way you think they should.

I've always call a spade a spade, and I'll never stop doing that. Right now, I'm calling spade.

[cockypop]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

I've always call a spade a spade, and I'll never stop doing that. Right now, I'm calling spade.

Ok. I do respect your opinion and appreciate that for the most part you've been pretty civil about it, but in the end I just disagree with your interpretation of the scenario. That shouldn't make me a spoiled kid.

All that's happened is based on my personal experience in this league I think we have exposed a somewhat flawed game mechanic regarding how offers are handled. You disagree and think the game is fine as is. Ok, duly noted. Some people agree with you, some don't.

It has been raised as a feature request and will be evaluated by the beta team. We'll see what happens. I honestly thought this thread was done at that point, but found the continuing discussion about economics of baseball and OOTP pretty interesting. I love learning about this stuff. I hope others did too.

So please can we get past this whole spoiled kids thing. I honestly don't beleive the game should change to suit one online league. That's crazy.

Instead, I like to think we're trying to be the canary in the coal mine. "Hey guys, this looks broken... what do you think?"

Maybe there really is no issue to worry about. But maybe there is a flaw. What's the harm in asking if in the end we're able to make the game better for everybody?

[cockypop]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Well gee, then don't sim 7 days at a time.....DUH!!!! And don't give me some bs excuse like well, not all online leagues can do that. SO the developer should adapt OOTP to meet your needs? BS!

And in the spirit of calling a spade a spade, this is actually a pretty ridiculous statement. Yes, actually, I think any product developer should and does adapt to meet customer needs.

[olivertheorem]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Well gee, then don't sim 7 days at a time.....DUH!!!!

I think one of the league members (might have been Buane, maybe someone else) said in some detail several pages back why that was not a practical option. If I remember correctly, the primary reason was that it would take at least 2 months to make it through the offseason, if not quite a bit longer.

[rujasu]

Originally Posted by cockypop

And in the spirit of calling a spade a spade, this is actually a pretty ridiculous statement. Yes, actually, I think any product developer should and does adapt to meet customer needs.

Indeed. "Customer needs" is the primary thing you concern yourself with as a software developer. Business software development is about 70% customer requirements, 30% system design & programming. Game development works a bit differently, but you're still aiming to satisfy the customer.

Are there really online leagues that sim FA a day at a time? I can't even fathom that. In the SCMLB, we sim a week a day, and even that seems a bit too slow for owners -- by the end I'm simming two weeks a day, and no one is complaining about it. I'm not saying FA should take a week, but having an OOTP offseason take as long as a real offseason just isn't going to fly for me, or for most owners I know.