Free Agency and Unrealistic Contracts

[dtizzle]

In my league Harper never made it to free agency. 7 years for 276,400,000. About 40k per year. Wow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peregrine]

I find this happens pretty frequently in my fictional league. Part of it too is the superstar's initial contract demand and willingness to decrease it. I've seen very often where they demand unrealistic money at first, and find themselves on the shelf while teams spend their money on other guys, then they have to sign for much less than "market value" later on.

[dward1]

the AI in the game improves very very slowly and is still pretty horrible at free agency. in leagues where relievers are secondary (no one but top two guys really matter) teams will every year spend big on stockpiling 5-6 relievers for no reason while 2nd starters go for similar cost. the superstar issue is another obvious one and lots of times once a player hits free agency he just starts bouncing around 1 year here, 2 years here, even if he's a very good player. the AI free agency and team building is just something that they don't spend much time on and isn't a priority, I hope it becomes one soon though because it kills immersion in real games and is frustrating in fictional to have to come up with mental reasonings for why teams do stuff like this and so often sign and release players within a few months (or even same day)

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by NoOne

lgo...

Before I respond to the rest of your post, bear in mind I can safely say I have probably done more research on the financial side of the sport than just about anyone else here. I've got plenty of data in various files.

Originally Posted by NoOne

moneyball is about proper distribution not paying less for good talent... valuation change, but money spent remains the same. jsut shifts it around once it's adapted by all teams.

No, it's about getting value for money. It's about not overpaying for players. The crudest metric of this is simply club payroll divided by wins, which illustrates the 'payroll efficiency' of a club. If enough clubs follow this principle, then they are less likely to sign large contracts with larger number of players unless the club is convinced it can recoup that investment with revenue (which is derived, ultimately, from wins).

Originally Posted by NoOne

collusion is difficult to prove in court...

And yet the Players Association was able to do so. It received a $280 million settlement as a result of the collusion in the late 1980s, and saw to it that triple damages was put into every subsequent CBA as a deterrent.

Originally Posted by NoOne

so no reason to file a greivance for an assured loss in court.. but you're naive to think 30 billionaire don't rub elbows and speak to each other about things that they shouldn't. it happens every year... too much money is invovled not to do so.

Speculation and stereotyping. When you have solid data to present, please do so.

Originally Posted by NoOne

a lack of a filed grievance isn't a logical argument for anything... other than they haven't filed a greivance... that they have no way of winning. i.e. a waste of resources.

History demonstrates otherwise. The Players Association has already won three collusion case against the owners. If there is sufficient evidence of collusion, the PA would forge ahead.

Originally Posted by NoOne

they were severely underpaid..

Who was underpaid? Under what definition? Relative to what?

Originally Posted by NoOne

so revenues didn't have to grow as fast initially.

Revenue growth took the first jump forward after WWII, with the sharp rise in the popularity of the sport, along with the first wave of media (primarily broadcast television) contracts. Revenues grew afterward, but slowly. It wasn't until the late 1970s that revenue started to exhibit an almost exponential growth, driven by the rise in cable TV and the sharp increase in national broadcasting contracts. It's been growing almost exponentially ever since, with the exception of the 1994-95 strike which caused a drop, but revenue rapidly recovered.

Originally Posted by NoOne

and they have been strides over time in their CBA deals to get larger chunkgs..with an occasional step back or stagnation here or there i'm sure.

Saying "I'm sure" suggests you are speculating rather that offering commentary based on actual data. Again, I have data I can point to.

Originally Posted by NoOne

don't you know history? labor has been %@%$ on ... forever. you get paid peanuts and expected to be happy about it. we had ~sweatshops and child labor issues in america in the last century, lol.

We are discussing Major League Baseball. Try to tamp down the political commentaries and stick to baseball financial data.

Originally Posted by NoOne

yes, revenues cause higher contracts... and mlb set a record for revenue in 2017 and has had 15 straight years of increased revenue...

MLB revenue has increased every year since 1995.

Originally Posted by NoOne

...yet salaris ahve stagnated for ~5 years now

That is demonstrably and objectively false. The average salary for a major league player in five-year increments, as calculated by the MLBPA itself:

1992: $1,028,667
1997: $1,336,609 (+29.9%)
2002: $2,295,649 (+71.8%)
2007: $2,824,751 (+23.0%)
2012: $3,213,479 (+13.8%)
2017: $4,097,122 (+27.5%)

If 27.5% growth over the last five years is "stagnated", then you have an odd definition of the word.

Originally Posted by NoOne

with virutally no growth compared to the previous decade. *again, 15 straight years of revenue growth.

The data does not agree with your assertion. See reply above.

Originally Posted by NoOne

they deifnitely horde the money, if you know GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) and forget other acronym - you know accounting is the science of hiding money .. whether it was accouting in hs, act3100 or act6100 in grad school it was all the same nonsense of hiding money.

Long on accusation, short on evidence. How many club financial statements do you have on hand? I have a fair number, in varying levels of detail, from different decades. (I even have a few for minor league clubs.) There is MLB financial data out there; not much of it, admittedly, but it does exist.

Originally Posted by NoOne

"The MLBPA has access to the audited financial statements" -- refer back to the fact that "accounting "is one big lie to hide money.

The MLBPA has hired economists to scour the owners' books before. It can do so again if it thinks accounting shenanigans are being used to obfuscate the financial picture.

Originally Posted by NoOne

also, it is not a hotly debated topic that a local pro team in any sport provides economic growth.. any reputable economist has shown it's statisticaly insignificant to revenue growth in an urban area..

There are studies showing both. If you can cite the overall numbers for and against so that we may arrive at a possible consensus view, feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by NoOne

but just like climate change or tickle down economics, only the nutballs disagree with facts.

I note you have not presented any facts, but only allegations. Feel free to provide evidence to support your claims.

Originally Posted by NoOne

so, it's an american phenomenom? we are talking about mlb and not the canadian baseball league.

If you can point to numerous other countries/locales outside the United States which throw public dollars for the construction of building for privately-owned professional sports clubs, then I'll retract the comment. As far as I'm aware, the scenario described occurs mostly in the U.S.

Originally Posted by NoOne

everyhting i stated is reasonable and backed up with facts.

Your statement about player salaries having "stagnated" (your wording) is contradicted by the facts. For all other claims of yours, no substantiated evidence has been cited.

Originally Posted by NoOne

i didn't make anythign up. i even checked out the #'s.

Perhaps next time you should present those numbers so we may check your math. Your calculation vis-a-vis player salaries having "stagnated" over the last five years appears to have gone wrong. (4,097,122 divided by 3,213,479 equals 1.274980... Indeed, when one compares the 2007-12 time period to the 2012-17 time period, the latter saw growth which was double that of the prior five-year period.)

Originally Posted by NoOne

i really know what i'm talking about here. not jsut some angry rant and not liking billionaires..

Your commentaries appear to indicate otherwise.

Originally Posted by NoOne

Well, it is, but backed up with knowledge and expertise in the area.

Your comment vis-a-vis player salaries having "stagnated" (your wording) over the last five years appears to indicate otherwise.

Originally Posted by NoOne

in reality, baeball players are till underpaid..

Underpaid relative to what? Using what metric? It would be an interesting exercise if you would show your math here.


ETA: As if on cue, Forbes two days ago published the 2018 edition of its annual MLB club valuations report. It can be read here. I'll be digging through it myself later and adding its results.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by NoOne

you know accounting is the science of hiding money .. whether it was accouting in hs, act3100 or act6100 in grad school it was all the same nonsense of hiding money.

"The MLBPA has access to the audited financial statements" -- refer back to the fact that "accounting "is one big lie to hide money.

This is insulting and completely false.

[jaguar8311]

Just finished first offseason with new patch.

Josh Donaldson: 1 year $16M, no regression in my scouting
Zach Britton: 1 year 6M deals.

Think this still needs some finetuning

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by jaguar8311

Just finished first offseason with new patch.

Josh Donaldson: 1 year $16M, no regression in my scouting
Zach Britton: 1 year 6M deals.

Think this still needs some finetuning

It still might need further tweaking, but post patch it's MUCH better. Sean Dolittle just held out until the first week of the 2020 season and got a 1YR/19.4M deal. Pre-patch he would have settled for something like 4-5M.

I posted this in the impressions thread, but I'm really happy with all the AI improvements this year. I'm more immersed into my MLB league than any previous OOTP version. Trades make much more sense to me and I see rebuilding teams letting veterans go for prospects.

SP Collin McHugh wins the WS with Houston in 2018, in 2019 his contract year, Houston trades him at the deadline to the Dodgers for a starting catcher and a good prospect. (Houston has a ton of pitching) The Dodgers win the WS (McHugh now has two rings) and then they can't sign McHugh and Houston signs him to a 5YR/85M deal. That was pretty cool to see. Houston has jumped to the top of the league in payroll and snapped up a ton of RP in the offseason.

[jaguar8311]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

It still might need further tweaking, but post patch it's MUCH better. Sean Dolittle just held out until the first week of the 2020 season and got a 1YR/19.4M deal. Pre-patch he would have settled for something like 4-5M.

I posted this in the impressions thread, but I'm really happy with all the AI improvements this year. I'm more immersed into my MLB league than any previous OOTP version. Trades make much more sense to me and I see rebuilding teams letting veterans go for prospects.

SP Collin McHugh wins the WS with Houston in 2018, in 2019 his contract year, Houston trades him at the deadline to the Dodgers for a starting catcher and a good prospect. (Houston has a ton of pitching) The Dodgers win the WS (McHugh now has two rings) and then they can't sign McHugh and Houston signs him to a 5YR/85M deal. That was pretty cool to see. Houston has jumped to the top of the league in payroll and snapped up a ton of RP in the offseason.

I agree it's improved but after 3 off-seasons. I'm still season closers (Britton and Chapman) sign 1 year bargain deals after spring training starts.

I'd accept if this happened once, but it's happening EVERY offseason

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by jaguar8311

I agree it's improved but after 3 off-seasons. I'm still season closers (Britton and Chapman) sign 1 year bargain deals after spring training starts.

I'd accept if this happened once, but it's happening EVERY offseason

Yes I agree, it still needs improvement. I just posted in the beta forum how a few good MR pitchers are still unsigned and asking for a cheap 1YR contract.

[LegalEagle80]

I just re-ran a league, and Harper signed with Padres on a 5-year deal, opt-out after year 2, but in the first two years he made $15 and $17 million. Mind you, this is a couple weeks into free agency where he was still demanding $41 million per year. No reason for him to sign that early and for that little. It's very bizarre.

[moore4807]

LegalEagle - you keep doing the same thing. Harper signed a five year deal for WHAT????? He made $15M yr1, & 17M in yr2 before his options kicked in? It's appropriate $$$ for a traditionally small market team, and who knows, maybe Harper is fascinated with surfing/surfboarding?? While it is rare, it is not unheard of giving a "hometown discount" or knowing that the opt-out gives the player a mulligan to sign elsewhere for Daddy Warbucks money!!! I too have a financial background and know GAAP. GAAP by itself doesn't influence money ###'s, its the handbook of how to do it honestly! I can overlook the $$ issues and play OOTP19 for the most part, because reality is what I'm escaping from when playing, not dragging reality kicking and screaming into my gaming world!!! <grin>

[LegalEagle80]

Yeah, it's true. I like to watch a fictional-yet-realistic universe unfold so it just sticks out like a sore thumb to me. At this point I'm actually most fascinated in figuring out why the AI does what it does. I think a lot of contracts are pretty realistic (in that same offseason, Kershaw got $36 million per year, the Braves filled a big need at 3B by signing Josh Donaldson to a pretty fair contract), but I'm now obsessed with fake Bryce Harper's constant desires to sign bad contracts.

I can't say I wouldn't take $15 million to live in San Diego too, so maybe he's not as crazy as I'm making him out to be!

[Qeltar]

Originally Posted by LegalEagle80

I just re-ran a league, and Harper signed with Padres on a 5-year deal, opt-out after year 2, but in the first two years he made $15 and $17 million.

I dunno, that seems appropriate. I mean, Hosmer only got $20 mil and we all know Harper is no Hosmer.

#snark
#scottborasistherealgoat

[bigd51]

I've seen Harper sign a cheap, short deal in one of my leagues too. He signed a 3-year deal w/ San Francisco w/ an average salary of $19m...

Just a shot in the dark, but I wonder if Qualifying Offers play a part in this.

1. The QO system doesn't seem to reflect real life. IRL:

A. The amount is the mean salary of MLB's 125 highest-paid players, yet, in the game, the dollar amount of a QO is always $15m. I don't recall ever seeing it change to reflect the mean.

B. For a player to receive a QO, he must never have received one previously in his career, yet, in the game, that's not the case. I once offered a player of mine a QO, he accepted it at $15m, but the following offseason, I was given the option to offer him another one. I didn't because I knew he'd likely accept it again, but didn't want to pay him $15m for another year.

2. Considering the QO amount is always a static $15m, it's just too easy for clubs to get compensation for impending FA's, which leaves me speculating if players aren't being signed quicker because a comp is attached to too many of them and teams aren't willing to give up draft picks for them, even for 1 year deals:

A. High quality RP's like Britton, Chapman, Kimbrel, etc. will always have a comp attached because their demands usually exceed the $15m QO. If he's still pretty young, he'll reject it even if his demand is less (i.e. Mark Melancon's 33 w/ a $12m demand and he rejected a QO)

B. Adrian Beltre is currently a FA in my league. He's 39 and demanding $16m a year, but has a comp attached, meaning he obviously rejected the $15m QO from Texas. The way it stands in the game, from what I've seen, any player w/ a contract demand over $15m will almost assuredly reject a QO. Would a 39 year old reject a 1 year, $15m deal IRL? Highly doubtful. So why would I, even as the Braves who need a 3B and a $40m offseason budget, give up a draft pick for a 39 year old?

C. It's the first day of '18 free agency in my league and there are 20 players w/ a comp attached. IRL, only 9 players were offered QO's in November. The year before, 10 were offered QO's and 2 accepted, meaning only 8 hit the market with comps attached.

If all of this is factored into the in-game free agency process, then it's no wonder why there are so many weird FA contracts...

[Calvert98]

Originally Posted by bigd51

The amount is the mean salary of MLB's 125 highest-paid players, yet, in the game, the dollar amount of a QO is always $15m. I don't recall ever seeing it change to reflect the mean.:

I have only been through one FA period in OOTP 19. I expect some inflation factor to kick-in (if based on that mean salary of the league's 125 highest-paid players). If this is not the case, then yea that is an issue.

I am heading into 2021's FA next, so I guess I need to wait and see what happens.

[WIUPIKE]

Originally Posted by Calvert98

I have only been through one FA period in OOTP 19. I expect some inflation factor to kick-in (if based on that mean salary of the league's 125 highest-paid players). If this is not the case, then yea that is an issue.

I am heading into 2021's FA next, so I guess I need to wait and see what happens.

In order to see inflation you need to make sure inflation is set in the financial page I believe. By default it is set to min/max 0%. If you adjust it to 1% to x% you will see inflation and contract demands increase in the league along with league mins.

[Calvert98]

Originally Posted by WIUPIKE

In order to see inflation you need to make sure inflation is set in the financial page I believe. By default it is set to min/max 0%. If you adjust it to 1% to x% you will see inflation and contract demands increase in the league along with league mins.

I didn't realize that, thanks.

I guess trying to guess core inflation, is a bit too crystal ball! Makes sense.

[LegalEagle80]

Originally Posted by bigd51

I've seen Harper sign a cheap, short deal in one of my leagues too. He signed a 3-year deal w/ San Francisco w/ an average salary of $19m...

Just a shot in the dark, but I wonder if Qualifying Offers play a part in this.

1. The QO system doesn't seem to reflect real life. IRL:

A. The amount is the mean salary of MLB's 125 highest-paid players, yet, in the game, the dollar amount of a QO is always $15m. I don't recall ever seeing it change to reflect the mean.

B. For a player to receive a QO, he must never have received one previously in his career, yet, in the game, that's not the case. I once offered a player of mine a QO, he accepted it at $15m, but the following offseason, I was given the option to offer him another one. I didn't because I knew he'd likely accept it again, but didn't want to pay him $15m for another year.

2. Considering the QO amount is always a static $15m, it's just too easy for clubs to get compensation for impending FA's, which leaves me speculating if players aren't being signed quicker because a comp is attached to too many of them and teams aren't willing to give up draft picks for them, even for 1 year deals:

A. High quality RP's like Britton, Chapman, Kimbrel, etc. will always have a comp attached because their demands usually exceed the $15m QO. If he's still pretty young, he'll reject it even if his demand is less (i.e. Mark Melancon's 33 w/ a $12m demand and he rejected a QO)

B. Adrian Beltre is currently a FA in my league. He's 39 and demanding $16m a year, but has a comp attached, meaning he obviously rejected the $15m QO from Texas. The way it stands in the game, from what I've seen, any player w/ a contract demand over $15m will almost assuredly reject a QO. Would a 39 year old reject a 1 year, $15m deal IRL? Highly doubtful. So why would I, even as the Braves who need a 3B and a $40m offseason budget, give up a draft pick for a 39 year old?

C. It's the first day of '18 free agency in my league and there are 20 players w/ a comp attached. IRL, only 9 players were offered QO's in November. The year before, 10 were offered QO's and 2 accepted, meaning only 8 hit the market with comps attached.

If all of this is factored into the in-game free agency process, then it's no wonder why there are so many weird FA contracts...

This is a great point, I bet you're onto something. There were tons of players with QO's in my game as well. Including a bunch of guys who might normally take them (Beltre is a great example) and guys who even initially demanded less than $15 million per year (Brian Dozier and Asdrubal Cabrera in my league).

[bigd51]

Originally Posted by LegalEagle80

This is a great point, I bet you're onto something. There were tons of players with QO's in my game as well. Including a bunch of guys who might normally take them (Beltre is a great example) and guys who even initially demanded less than $15 million per year (Brian Dozier and Asdrubal Cabrera in my league).

Yeah, I definitely have a problem w/ the QO's now...

According to the real life CBA:

Under the new rules, if the team that loses the free agent is a revenue-sharing recipient, based on its revenues and market size, then the selection -- if and only if the lost player signs for at least $50 million -- will be awarded a pick between the first round and Competitive Balance Round A of the 2018 MLB Draft. If the player signs for less than $50 million, the compensation pick for those teams would come after Competitive Balance Round B, which follows the second round.

In my current league, Harper, Britton, and Daniel Murphy became a FA w/ a comp attached. Murphy signed a 4-year, $80m deal w/ Toronto, so the Nationals got a Comp. Balance Round A (1st Round Supplemental) pick, which fits the CBA, but...

- Harper signed a 1-year, $21m deal w/ the Rockies on March 1st
- Britton signed a 1-year, $27m deal w/ the Angles on May 15th

Under the CBA, because the players signed for less than $50m, both teams should've received Comp. Balance Round B (2nd Round Supplemental) picks...

Instead... Baltimore and Washington each received Round A (1st Supplemental) picks. Come draft time, this is what happened:

1. In the first attachment, there is somehow a gap in the 1st round between #19 and #25?

2. In the second attachment, I'm the Braves w/ the 1st overall pick, and because of the screw-up with the CBA detailed above, Washington got a 1st Supplemental for Harper signing a 1-year, $21m contract w/ Colorado when they should've gotten a 2nd Supplemental.. meaning the Nationals got their choice of THREE picks before I even got to make my 2nd round pick when they should've only had 2 (their original 16th pick + the Supplemental 1st for Murphy).

Couple this w/ the fact you're allowed to offer multiple QO's to the same players (when the real life CBA says a player can only be offered one QO their entire career)... then you can only imagine how this would affect the lesser teams like Oakland, who aren't blessed w/ owner changes w/ a bigger budget.

I'm considering turning comps off completely now until this is addressed...

[Calvert98]

Well, they mentioned that they were not able to get all of this year's new rules changes into OOTP 19.

It could be a patch later in the summer or something that is implemented in 20.