free agent decision making?

[bombboy85]

Does anyone have any insight into what the game makes free agents take into account? This offseason every single player I offered a contract to asked for more money and then signed somewhere for anywhere from a little less to far less after saying I didn't offer enough. My team has made the playoffs in recent years etc big fan base so not a bad team.

Example Clayton Kershaw turned down $21.5 million a year saying not enough then signed with Boston for average of $15 million a year.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Were the contracts the same length?

[D-BacksJosh]

Shane Victorino just turned down a $44 million contract offer from Cleveland to play in Boston for $39 million. Players don't always take the highest bid.

Edit: Missed where he said you weren't offering enough money. Maybe there is an issue or maybe the players have team preferences that influence their decisions somehow.

[olivertheorem]

It's not nearly this simple in reality, but the summary version to me seems to be like this:

Different teams take different amounts of money to sign a given player, based on the team's status and player personality. So $44 million wasn't enough to convince Victorino to play in Cleveland, but $39 million was enough to convince him to go to Boston.

It's not all about the money.

[Fyrestorm3]

The Victorino example isn't really appropriate, because nobody wants to play in Cleveland.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

The Victorino example isn't really appropriate, because nobody wants to play in Cleveland.

I've played (not lived) in Cleveland for a lot less than $39M.

[Ts-Rock]

there is a lot that goes into FA signings

- AGE
A younger player normally wants shorter contracts while older vets a lot of times ask for stupid long contracts in their early to mid 30's

- Contact Length
If you are offereing a 1-3 yr deal with Option nears compared to the AI offering guaranteed contract at near or long deals than yea you will lose that battle

- Pos Depth
FA now take into account your depth on your team. Example, if you have a crowed OF then Victorino wouldn't want to go to your team even at more money, especially if Boston was offering a starting job

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by Ts-Rock

- Pos Depth
FA now take into account your depth on your team. Example, if you have a crowed OF then Victorino wouldn't want to go to your team even at more money, especially if Boston was offering a starting job

I beg to differ on this one. I don't have any hard evidence, merely anecdotal, but from everything I've seen, the AI doesn't care if you have 2 outfielders or 7. There is currently no way to tell a player that you're giving them the starting job during contract negotiations, so if a guy expects a spot in the starting lineup, as indicated on his profile page, he's going to assume that's the job you're offering him. Even if you have 6 other outfielders who all expect to start. You'll quickly have a morale issue on your hands, but I do not believe it affects a player signing - something that really should be added to the game for realism purposes.

[Ts-Rock]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

I beg to differ on this one. I don't have any hard evidence, merely anecdotal, but from everything I've seen, the AI doesn't care if you have 2 outfielders or 7. There is currently no way to tell a player that you're giving them the starting job during contract negotiations, so if a guy expects a spot in the starting lineup, as indicated on his profile page, he's going to assume that's the job you're offering him. Even if you have 6 other outfielders who all expect to start. You'll quickly have a morale issue on your hands, but I do not believe it affects a player signing - something that really should be added to the game for realism purposes.

You mean like this......

[Ts-Rock]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

I beg to differ on this one. I don't have any hard evidence, merely anecdotal, but from everything I've seen, the AI doesn't care if you have 2 outfielders or 7. There is currently no way to tell a player that you're giving them the starting job during contract negotiations, so if a guy expects a spot in the starting lineup, as indicated on his profile page, he's going to assume that's the job you're offering him. Even if you have 6 other outfielders who all expect to start. You'll quickly have a morale issue on your hands, but I do not believe it affects a player signing - something that really should be added to the game for realism purposes.

I'm just going off my personal experience in the game. In my online lg (BSA) one of the best teams would constantly offer good FA (mid season) contracts and kept losing them to other teams who were a little to a lot worst and for less money. One of the things that stood out was the really good team was loaded up at 1B (3 Deep, 4 Stars) and several FA kept NOT signing with him and choose lesser teams for lesser money but instantly become starters.

so while I don't have anecdotal evidence, (much like does protection in a lineup actually help hitters) I do believe it is a factor, not a HUGE factor, but a factor none the less

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by Ts-Rock

You mean like this......

How in the hell... I knew that was there, too. Sorry for my temporary bout of insanity. My personal experience with being able to sign someone to a loaded position still stands, but I think I'm going to run a test and check.

[Fyrestorm3]

UPDATE: In two separate tests, using Commish mode to both edit players and offer contracts above budget limits, I had no problem signing a player to a team with great talent at his position.

Here's how I went about it: I set all teams to be controlled by myself, and edited one of those teams to have 4 superstar catchers (first test) or closers (second test), then edited another team to have a single mediocre player able to play that position. I acted as the team with the scrub and offered a star free agent catcher/closer an absurd amount of money, which would have made him the highest paid player in history. Then, acting as the stacked team, I offered the same guy the exact same contract, but upped the yearly salary by $1M.

In both cases, the guy took the money, barely even glancing at the other offer. Both teams had finished atop their division the year before (this is a league I keep around to run these kinds of tests, so it has a history), so it's not a matter of wanting to play for a winner. I did not promise a starting role in either contract. The league does not have the DH rule in effect. I'm fairly certain I eliminated pretty much every other variable by controlling all the teams myself, and it simply did not matter. The guy took the money, regardless of the fact that the team he was going to had 4 players at his position that were much better than him.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

UPDATE: In two separate tests, using Commish mode to both edit players and offer contracts above budget limits, I had no problem signing a player to a team with great talent at his position.

Here's how I went about it: I set all teams to be controlled by myself, and edited one of those teams to have 4 superstar catchers (first test) or closers (second test), then edited another team to have a single mediocre player able to play that position. I acted as the team with the scrub and offered a star free agent catcher/closer an absurd amount of money, which would have made him the highest paid player in history. Then, acting as the stacked team, I offered the same guy the exact same contract, but upped the yearly salary by $1M.

In both cases, the guy took the money, barely even glancing at the other offer. Both teams had finished atop their division the year before (this is a league I keep around to run these kinds of tests, so it has a history), so it's not a matter of wanting to play for a winner. I did not promise a starting role in either contract. The league does not have the DH rule in effect. I'm fairly certain I eliminated pretty much every other variable by controlling all the teams myself, and it simply did not matter. The guy took the money, regardless of the fact that the team he was going to had 4 players at his position that were much better than him.

Cool exercise, however, I am not going to discount the observation of TS as being casual and, therefore, without a basis.

We know player popularity has place of birth as a factor and "local boy" is a bit more popular (ok, I don't have the citation handy...smack me if I am wrong about this...but for now, play along, for fun). It would not be inconceivable that the bad teams that gained the desired FAs in the league TS is in had this factor come into play and your test did not take this into account. Perhaps switching the location of the team with the need at C or Cl to the player's town of birth will yield a different result.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Cool exercise, however, I am not going to discount the observation of TS as being casual and, therefore, without a basis.

We know player popularity has place of birth as a factor and "local boy" is a bit more popular (ok, I don't have the citation handy...smack me if I am wrong about this...but for now, play along, for fun). It would not be inconceivable that the bad teams that gained the desired FAs in the league TS is in had this factor come into play and your test did not take this into account. Perhaps switching the location of the team with the need at C or Cl to the player's town of birth will yield a different result.

Ah, I didn't even think of the hometown factor; I'll run that test tomorrow, since I just shut down OOTP to go to bed (it's ridiculously late here). If there's any other variables I missed, folks should feel free to point them out.

And, for the record, I'm not throwing out TS's claims, either. There's no doubt in my mind that he's seen what he claims to have seen. But I've also seen the inverse, and when personal accounts differ, a test is in order.

[mpejkrm]

Originally Posted by Ts-Rock

You mean like this......

Unrelated, but that looks like an awesome quickstart. Do you have a download or something?

[Ts-Rock]

Originally Posted by mpejkrm

Unrelated, but that looks like an awesome quickstart. Do you have a download or something?

still testing it out....I will upload a QS when I hammer out the bugs, so stay tuned.

[Ts-Rock]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

Ah, I didn't even think of the hometown factor; I'll run that test tomorrow, since I just shut down OOTP to go to bed (it's ridiculously late here). If there's any other variables I missed, folks should feel free to point them out.

And, for the record, I'm not throwing out TS's claims, either. There's no doubt in my mind that he's seen what he claims to have seen. But I've also seen the inverse, and when personal accounts differ, a test is in order.

I think this is one of the things makes OOTP great is that there is no true and hard exact path that everyone follows. It's what makes everyone's universe so unique.

With that said I would also go out of commish mode when offering too. maybe set it up so that both teams are under Human control and do it that way just to take away any "doubt" that commish modes comes into the equation (not that I think it does, but less variables the better)

Also, the type of players on the roster plays into affect somewhat too. If team "A" has 5 1B's but they are all 1-2 stars and the FA is 4 stars then it might not be a factor in his starting role decision, but if Team "B" has 3 4 star 1Bs then that would (in theory).

So I would run multiple test:
1) one with same number and type of depth players at a position
2) one with one team having less depth and less talented depth

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by Ts-Rock

With that said I would also go out of commish mode when offering too. maybe set it up so that both teams are under Human control and do it that way just to take away any "doubt" that commish modes comes into the equation (not that I think it does, but less variables the better)

I WOULD, but the issue here is the fact that I'm offering above budget constraints. I don't want to deal with editing financials or having a guy turn down offers based on the number alone - in both cases, I offered exorbitant contracts to negate that variable. I suppose I could back out of Commish mode after the contracts are offered, though.

Originally Posted by Ts-Rock

Also, the type of players on the roster plays into affect somewhat too. If team "A" has 5 1B's but they are all 1-2 stars and the FA is 4 stars then it might not be a factor in his starting role decision, but if Team "B" has 3 4 star 1Bs then that would (in theory).

The "stacked" team had 4 players at the FA's position that were rated better than him (Scouting off), while the other team had a single, 2-star player. I took the four best players on the "stacked" team's roster and edited them to make them competent catchers/closers, and then took away their ability to play any other position. So, when I say stacked, I mean it.



I should also note that player personalities were off - going to turn that system on this time around, just in case that has anything to do with hometown signings.

[soxfan34]

Maybe Kershaw was saying its not enough money for him to play for YOUR team...

[mpejkrm]

You know, stuff like this happens in real life, especially in the NBA. Like so:

Kershaw obviously didn't think you were paying him enough money, and he thought he could get more on the open market, so he turned you down. After a few months, when he realized he wasn't going to get more on the open market, he had to settle for a lesser deal.