Rule V returns retaining contract

[ronnieh]

Just one more note for anyone looking through. This bug/functionality opens up an ugly exploit. Out of curiosity I picked up a RV guy. Gave him a 10 year $100m extension. Waited until regular season. Released him back to his original team and, sure enough. The original team is on the hook for the $100 million. That is my biggest argument for calling this a "bug"

There is something to be said for playing the game with integrity. If you want to cheat in a solo league like that, knock yourself out right? There are 100 other ways you cheat solo if that's what you are about.

However, this could be a nightmare for commissioners of online leagues. These kind of things can cause huge drama and really destroy leagues.

[BirdWatcher]

I tend to agree with you that there is a bug here.
The question though seems to be what the nature of that bug is. While I see how problematic what you are describing is, it seems to me like the real bug is that you were able to return the player to the original team at all. Not only does that seem to go against what the developers describe as how this works in OOTP (and therefore it should just be an invalid action) but it also does a very poor job of mimicking how this works IRL.

You shouldn't be able to return the player to his original team without
1) putting him through waivers, and
2) the original team having the option of declining to take him back.

It seems like there might be some work to be done on this process in the game. While I can see where the way you previously experienced this is less troubling than what you are experiencing now, neither seems to me to be ideal or particularly realistic.

[hefalumps]

I might be wrong, but I think the manual may be out of date. I've been playing OOTP since version 5. And I do vaguely remember that Rule 5 players could not be offered back - you were just stuck with them all year. At the time, I think this was just a limitation of OOTP - I assume Markus and team always intended to implement the ability to return the player similar to how it's done in MLB, they just hadn't gotten around to it yet. I know I have successfully returned Rule 5 players and had Rule 5 players returned to me in at least the last few versions, and I never had an issue putting them back in my minor league system, which I assume means the game put them back on a minor league contract so that I wasn't forced to put him on my 40-man.

So I think the manual is outdated and that the retaining of the contract is a bug. I'm not sure what happens to a Rule 5 player's compensation when he gets returned to his original team in real life, so I'm not sure how OOTP should be handling it.

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by hefalumps

I might be wrong, but I think the manual may be out of date. I've been playing OOTP since version 5. And I do vaguely remember that Rule 5 players could not be offered back - you were just stuck with them all year. At the time, I think this was just a limitation of OOTP - I assume Markus and team always intended to implement the ability to return the player similar to how it's done in MLB, they just hadn't gotten around to it yet. I know I have successfully returned Rule 5 players and had Rule 5 players returned to me in at least the last few versions, and I never had an issue putting them back in my minor league system, which I assume means the game put them back on a minor league contract so that I wasn't forced to put him on my 40-man.

So I think the manual is outdated and that the retaining of the contract is a bug. I'm not sure what happens to a Rule 5 player's compensation when he gets returned to his original team in real life, so I'm not sure how OOTP should be handling it.

It could very well be that the manual is outdated and incorrect at this time.
But regardless, players should have to go through waivers before you can simply return them to their original team.
As I said above, it does sound like some work needs to be done on this aspect of the game. Don't get me wrong- I love OOTP. But even the best games can use some work to be better.

[hefalumps]

Yep - agreed ideally the player should be put through waivers before getting returned, but that still doesn't address the issue with the contract that is popping up here. If he goes on waivers and gets claimed - fine, he and his contract are someone else's problem and he has to stay on the 25-man roster with the claiming team. But if he goes unclaimed, gets released, and OOTP returns him to his original team, the waiver process won't change the fact that he still has a ML contract and has to be on the 40-man roster.

Like I said, not sure how a returned player's compensation works in real life, but since OOTP requires players with a ML contract be on the 40-man, they need to put it back to the way they did it in 19 - resetting to a minor league contract.

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by hefalumps

Yep - agreed ideally the player should be put through waivers before getting returned, but that still doesn't address the issue with the contract that is popping up here. If he goes on waivers and gets claimed - fine, he and his contract are someone else's problem and he has to stay on the 25-man roster with the claiming team. But if he goes unclaimed, gets released, and OOTP returns him to his original team, the waiver process won't change the fact that he still has a ML contract and has to be on the 40-man roster.

Like I said, not sure how a returned player's compensation works in real life, but since OOTP requires players with a ML contract be on the 40-man, they need to put it back to the way they did it in 19 - resetting to a minor league contract.

Yes, understood and agreed.
I just got to the Rule 5 draft in my fictional league and this is the wording of the rules in the news report:



So nothing there about waivers, just says if you don't keep him on the major league roster the entire season he must be returned to his original team.

So with that in mind, again I totally agree that something is amiss if that puts the original team on the hook for a contract they otherwise wouldn't have agreed to/chosen.

I haven't personally run into this problem as I rarely draft Rule 5 guys (and when I do I intend to keep them) and though at least one of my guys get drafted most years, and they often return to me during the season, I've never had any problems assigning them to minor league teams and I've never noticed a financial hit.
But certainly there is a problem since this is happening to others.

At the very least the original team should have the option of rejecting the player with the drafting team then having the flexibility of removing them from the active roster and placing them in the minors.

[ronnieh]

There is a bug posted here:
https://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boa...d.php?t=305950

As of yet, zero replies.

[Tram2Whitaker]

I saw that this is in fact, a bug, but I would like to point out, that it is possible to draft someone who already has a major league contract...
Such as, a player was out of options, but dfa'd last season, then assigned to the minor league before the off season, where upon they were eligible for the rule 5 draft in December.

[Matt Arnold]

I'm pretty sure if there was one MLB rule I would scrap, it would be rule 5

Some history:
-Previously (pre-XX), I believe when a rule 5 player was returned, they were always returned with a minor league contract.
-That's not technically true, since some rule 5 players could have an MLB contract and have been DFA-ed, in which case they should not have their MLB contract wiped out
-We did make a change so that players would retain their minor contract
-Currently, we don't force teams to waive players before releasing them. Technically speaking, before releasing a player, they should always be placed on release waivers so that someone else could claim them before being released (retaining the same rule 5 requirements)
-Teams should also be allowed to decline to receive back a rule 5 player. That is something we don't currently have the capacity to do.

We will look into the option for a team to decline a rule 5 player, but that will only be able to make it into OOTP21. For now, we can look into having any player returned from a league-min contract probably switch back to a minor league deal, which while technically is not correct, is probably a more reasonable return for the receiving team so that they're not stuck with excess contracts.

[Mat]

Thanks Matt, for the clarification.

[bwburke94]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

For now, we can look into having any player returned from a league-min contract probably switch back to a minor league deal, which while technically is not correct, is probably a more reasonable return for the receiving team so that they're not stuck with excess contracts.

Don't forget the way this exploit works! A league minimum contract with an extension should also switch back to a minor league deal, because the only reason an extended player would ever be offered back is for the exploit.