Free Agency and Unrealistic Contracts

[Timofmars]

I just wrote another post about this kind of problem with the AI. I think the AI needs a robust way to measure the value of players. When they look at a player, one of the major factors needs to be how much value that player adds to their team. So the better a team is currently in a position, the less valuable another player in that position would be, since the benefits are more marginal.

The other things that need to be considered are the value of money for the team, and the value of talent available at each position.

For valuing the talent at each position, teams could basically judge each free agent (and players who can be offered extensions) by how much value they would add to their team, and then offer them all a contract where the offer amount is based on how much value they add to the team. Then as soon as one of the offers falls into the acceptable range for the player to agree, the other offers made are essentially withdrawn and everything is reassessed to reflect the new situation, including the fact that the team is now better in that position and has less money on hand to offer players.

Regarding the value of money, the teams can allocate their available money across all available positions based on how much value each player adds to their team, and the offered contract money is divided up to each position based on the relative improvement each player in each position offers. So for example, if a team is already quite stacked with good players but just has a weakness in SS, they would see that the best SS available offers them a large improvement to their team (let's call it 60 points of improvement), while all the best players in other positions offer a rather marginal improvement (lets call it 5 points of improvement on average). So they would allocate their contract offers so that they would be willing to pay the SS an amount that is proportional to his value to the team compared to the cumulative values of the tops players in the other positions. If those other top players were to be acquired by other teams, it would cause an increase in the proportion of money this team would offer to the SS (and very slight increases to the other positions that still offer an improvement to the team).

For a weak team that needs improvement everywhere, their offered money would be spread out a lot more evenly to all positions. That means they would not pay high prices for superstars. Instead, they would be picking up bargains that offer them a lot improvement for little cost. Sure, they would offer the superstars a lowball offer, but that won't win the contract.

Determining the improvement a player offers should probably involve just placing the player into the team to see where the AI would put him and who would be removed from the lineup. Where he is put would be what the AI considers his position to be (it's how the AI wants to use him in that team). Ideally, the AI would then be able to calculate how much the team has improved because of the change.

This is just a starting point. Other factors need to be added in bit by bit.

[Calvert98]

I’m seeing big contracts.

I signed Manny early, but still ended-up having to pay him $34 million per year for 7 years; and that was in OOTP18, so IRL year 2017.

Default settings (except trade AI on very difficult, favor prospects).

I was out-bid on Britton.

[jaguar8311]

This is a known issue. Matt and Lukas are looking into it.

See the thread about the relievers.

Until then, I'm not playing OOTP 19

[LegalEagle80]

I did another 2018 sim yesterday and oddly, this time Harper signed a big contract with the Phillies -- so a realistic team with a realistic contract. Still no action on RPs though, and Donaldson signed a 5 year, $55 million contract with Atlanta not even a week into free agency even though his initial demand was $40 million a year. Maybe he wanted to move closer to home.

So really the only thing that needs major tweaking is the RPs, although I would like a bit more transparency as to the superstar signing process. It seems like they're still listed in the menu as demanding a ton of money and then magically they've signed with a team for a completely random amount -- sometimes close to their demand, sometimes half of it. I still can't figure out what causes the player to sign when they do.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by jaguar8311

This is a known issue. Matt and Lukas are looking into it.

See the thread about the relievers.

Until then, I'm not playing OOTP 19

That's too bad. There is so much you can do with the game where this issue doesn't have an impact. Hopefully they fix it soon.

[fredjstanley]

Shame to see this in OOTP 19. I'm still playing OOTP 17 and the contracts I've seen have generally been good in terms of AAV. Length leaves a bit to be desired but it actually seems realistic after the last couple of off-seasons where 7+ year deals haven't featured. The opt outs are perhaps a tad overused too. FWIW I signed Harper in OOTP 17 for $400m over 10 years, including an opt out after 7 and the final year being a player option.

[Orcin]

So what's the issue? I see people complaining about contracts that are too big and contracts that are too small. Which is it?

[LegalEagle80]

Originally Posted by Orcin

So what's the issue? I see people complaining about contracts that are too big and contracts that are too small. Which is it?

Seems like it's both, based on context. I've seen superstars like Harper get close to $40 million a year with the Phillies and also $16 million a year with the Brewers. There's no real rhyme or reason that I can see which determines it.

And for star relievers, they either go unsigned into spring training because their demand is too high, but then when the season starts I'm seeing them all get 1 year deals for a truly insane amount of money (like $25 million).

[Orcin]

So the AI is making decisions on contracts that don’t match your expectations or agree with the way that you would do it. And that is seen as a game-breaking bug? If you and I disagree on a contract, am I wrong? If the Cardinals give Holland a one-year deal at $14 million that costs them a draft pick, is that a bug?

I am just trying to understand what you think the developers need to fix.

[Calvert98]

Originally Posted by Orcin

So the AI is making decisions on contracts that don’t match your expectations or agree with the way that you would do it. And that is seen as a game-breaking bug? If you and I disagree on a contract, am I wrong? If the Cardinals give Holland a one-year deal at $14 million that costs them a draft pick, is that a bug?

I am just trying to understand what you think the developers need to fix.

I have only been through one off-season, but I haven't noticed much of what is being noted here.

Anyway, after reading this thread, I'm starting to have the same question Orcin.

[Timofmars]

Check the first post. They say that the AI seems to blow all their money on expensive free agents, then have no money left for the other high quality players remaining, until their asking price falls really low.

Though personally, my main issue is about the trade logic of the AI, especially how it doesn't do that great of a job especially when considering cash or salaries, among other things.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by Orcin

So what's the issue? I see people complaining about contracts that are too big and contracts that are too small. Which is it?

Orcin, Do you play with finance off?.............Z

[Calvert98]

Originally Posted by Timofmars

Check the first post. They say that the AI seems to blow all their money on expensive free agents, then have no money left for the other high quality players remaining, until their asking price falls really low.

Though personally, my main issue is about the trade logic of the AI, especially how it doesn't do that great of a job especially when considering cash or salaries, among other things.

Well, I'm still wondering the same thing as Orcin, but if enough folks feel that something is off, the great thing about this development team is that they will check into it.

For me however, I'm seeing what looks like decent signings and management at this point. What remained in FA after some teams either made their moves prior or signed at a good clip once guys hit FA, did not leave a lot value on the table.

I've also noticed some good mid-level guys that were picked-up at value.

Overall, it just seems like the AI teams are being better managed in 19.

Again however, I'm sure the development team will check, and if they think there is an issue, they will to address it.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Zorro

Orcin, Do you play with finance off?.............Z

No.

[LegalEagle80]

I don't see it as a bug. I don't even know if it can be "fixed" really because there's only so much programming one can do before the AI makes their own decisions.

I just want the offseason stuff to somewhat mirror real life. In real life, superstars don't sign with small market, non-contending teams on the cheap, and stud relief pitchers never get ignored into the next regular season. For small teams to contend, they have to do with through the draft and small contract free agents, and big budget teams usually take the chance on the higher-priced guy.

So from an immersion standpoint, it's unrealistic and I wondered if the AI valued players in a way that might need some tweaking.

[Orcin]

I understand your point now. Thanks for being patient.

Referring to your first post, it will be interesting to see if Kershaw, Harper, Machado, and Donaldson all get AAV of $25-40 million for the appropriate number of years in real life this coming offseason (assuming no extensions before they file).

I think the problem in OOTPB is that there is not enough money and demand to handle all of those guys at once. Any one of them would be the biggest guy out there in a normal year. In reality, there will probably be four teams that have positioned themselves to get one of these guys. I am not sure OOTP 19 set the budgets correctly to account for this bounty of great free agents.

This doesn’t address the other point you raised about players, particularly top relievers, taking one year contracts late, but we saw some of that in real life this year too.

[jaguar8311]

Originally Posted by LegalEagle80

I don't see it as a bug. I don't even know if it can be "fixed" really because there's only so much programming one can do before the AI makes their own decisions.

I just want the offseason stuff to somewhat mirror real life. In real life, superstars don't sign with small market, non-contending teams on the cheap, and stud relief pitchers never get ignored into the next regular season. For small teams to contend, they have to do with through the draft and small contract free agents, and big budget teams usually take the chance on the higher-priced guy.

So from an immersion standpoint, it's unrealistic and I wondered if the AI valued players in a way that might need some tweaking.

This is a big point. Manny Machado signed for 17M/5 year in my game with Tampa. Zach Britton went unsigned until 2 days before regular season and then I picked him up for 5.2M/2 years. Neither of these scenarios make any sense on so many levels.

[NoOne]

lgo

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.

collusion is difficult to prove in court, 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.

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.

they were severely underpaid.. so revenues didn't have to grow as fast initially. 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.

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.

yes, revenues cause higher contracts... and mlb set a record for revenue in 2017 and has had 15 straight years of increased revenue... so, i agreee totally and it sitll bakcsup what i said. revenues keep increasing, yet salaris ahve stagnated for ~5 years now with virutally no growth compared to the previous decade. *again, 15 straight years of revenue growth.

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.

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


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.. it's merely regurgitated a lot that it is true... but just like climate change or tickle down economics, only the nutballs disagree with facts. it is just a ploy used by the team to get more money or politicians to get people behind it, when not one shred of reputable evidence supports that statement, whatsoever.

so, it's an american phenomenom? we are talking about mlb and not the canadian baseball league. and, it's wrong for nhl, nba and nfl to do the same thing... if everyone jumps off a bridget, you should not follow them. i never intimated that it was only MLB doing it... these last two things are just made up arguments from thin air..

everyhting i stated is reasonable and backed up with facts. i didn't make anythign up. i even checked out the #'s. 2 made up arguments and multple instances of fallacious reasoning in your retorts.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ -- i used to keep that as my desktop wallpaper.

i have an mba in finance and accounting is easy stuff froma broad perspective - you only need a GED to be a bookkeeper, for example - any monkey can do the rudiments, let along taking a grad-level class on it. i really know what i'm talking about here. not jsut some angry rant and not liking billionaires.. Well, it is, but backed up with knowledge and expertise in the area.

in reality, baeball players are till underpaid.. not saying anyone should feel bad for a 20m/year player when they should be making more... how much does 1 person need?

these owners all mingle with each other.. the most dangerous collusion they engage in has nothign to do with the MLB... mlb is just entertainment.. if it was gone somethign else would fil the vacuum.. it's not even that popular.. only about ~20% of people are engaged in professional spectator sports in general.

just look up how boards work.. lol holy $^@$ it's mind boggling how many different ways they can cirvumvent well-intended laws. insider trading is so common it's screwy.... dr. korth argued that with me about that, but there's so many ways to circumvent prosection.. oyu ahve to be mildly retarded liek martha stewart to not have some propped up research so that she wouldn't go to jail for it.. she was a former trader too! she knew better and was just lazy AF.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I understand your point now. Thanks for being patient.

Referring to your first post, it will be interesting to see if Kershaw, Harper, Machado, and Donaldson all get AAV of $25-40 million for the appropriate number of years in real life this coming offseason (assuming no extensions before they file).

I think the problem in OOTPB is that there is not enough money and demand to handle all of those guys at once. Any one of them would be the biggest guy out there in a normal year. In reality, there will probably be four teams that have positioned themselves to get one of these guys. I am not sure OOTP 19 set the budgets correctly to account for this bounty of great free agents.

This doesn’t address the other point you raised about players, particularly top relievers, taking one year contracts late, but we saw some of that in real life this year too.

The issue of good players, especially RP's taking a low, one year offer has been in the game for years.. it needs addressed at some point.

AI teams do have money, which is why I don't understand why it seems to happen every year. I forget the player, but a 4.5 star closer is now demanding $5.5 million because nobody has picked him up yet and I'm into the 2019 season now. I've also seen several 3.5-4 star RP's going for $2-$3 million the past few days. You could build a top bullpen if you just hold off.. but I do try to have some sort of house rules for this particular issue.

I also still see the occasional AI team sign two top tier players for a ton of money who play the same position, so one guy continues to come off the bench getting $30 million/year. Atlanta signed Machado and Donaldson, so Donaldson is sitting the bench, now I figured the AI would put Machado at SS and start Donaldson at 3B, but they continue to put Swanson at SS.

I love the game and all.. but I hope they continue to look at/fix these legacy issues that have been around for several versions. The game has made strides with AI trading, so I'm hopeful.

Edit: Follow up.. that CL was a 5 star player and did sign for 1 year/$18 million, so that makes me feel better.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I also still see the occasional AI team sign two top tier players for a ton of money who play the same position, so one guy continues to come off the bench getting $30 million/year. Atlanta signed Machado and Donaldson, so Donaldson is sitting the bench, now I figured the AI would put Machado at SS and start Donaldson at 3B, but they continue to put Swanson at SS.

I would like to see the explanation for this one also.