Contract Extensions make NO sense!

[Viridel]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

On (b), first, when you choose the option to offer an extension, the player actually provides an opening demand (in the case of your initial example, $2M for one year). So I'm not understanding why you say the game isn't giving you an indication of the type of contract that the player will sign. He just gave you that indication.

But the counter to that is that the player (let's say decent RP asking 2M for a 1-year deal for the sake of argument) WILL sign a 2-year 20M deal, or WILL sign a 3-year 30M annual. These escalations are embedded somewhere. I just signed my top pitcher to 6Y @ 97M after he continually refused anything longer than 1Y... So the mechanic is ultimately there to work beyond "1st choice" - I just want it a bit more transparent (which would be realistic) to have what that value needs to be... It's a place to start negotiations - which is what contracts and salaries are all about, and IMO are the weakest part of this sim.

I get that nothing is going to change for little-old-me... It just means that this game isn't perfect, for me.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Viridel

Missed the point. He wanted 1.87 on a 1Y. I offered longer-term, he said no, and asked for 3+ on a 1Y. I said no and offered 1.87 1Y. He took it.

What's the point in even coming back with a counter (escalated or otherwise) if the player is just going to take what they originally offered? It's an absurd scenario that ultimately shows nothing more than poor programming.

I can't understand what you're saying. The player asks for $1.87m on a one year deal, and you find it "absurd" that he accepts that when you offer it? It would be absurd if he did not accept that offer.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Viridel

Yes, but no. Depends when you're trying to do it. I was trying to do it immediately after the arbitration award, but still during the offseason. In this scenario, the extension overwrites the existing (arbitration) contract. It appears that the game doesn't know how to differentiate the two scenarios.

And as byzeil confirmed above, this just isn't true. You are offering an extension for the year after the arb award, so it makes sense the player wants more than his arb awarded salary.

[Viridel]

Duplicate response - Why is there no option to delete?

[Viridel]

Originally Posted by injury log

...so it makes sense the player wants more than his arb awarded salary.

Which is what I'm offering. Try literacy, as I've said this several times.

Originally Posted by injury log

I can't understand what you're saying. The player asks for $1.87m on a one year deal, and you find it "absurd" that he accepts that when you offer it? It would be absurd if he did not accept that offer.

No, what is absurd is that he's asking for one thing - increases his request on the same term (by almost double) - then takes the initial offer. It's just really sloppy programming.

Clearly I'm in the minority when it comes to how the game handles contracts, and if everyone else is happy with a complete "guess & test" system, then who am I to ask for better realism. Feel free to lock the thread.

[Anyone]

The big thing, and it's a long-standing issue, is that the player should be working on reaching an agreement as well.

It should be something like:

Player offers: 1 year, $2 million.
I offer: 5 years, $15 million.

One of two things then happen: Rarely, the player is unwilling to sign for longer than a year, so he might come back with:

1 year, $1.9 million (because he wouldn't have opened with his bottom line, so he compromises a little because he's insisting on only one year).

Or, the second thing happens, and this should be more common, which is the player thinks, "Okay, the team wants a longer term contract, what do I want to take one?" So then perhaps he comes back with:

4 years, $20 million.

That sort of thing.

Never should he get angry that you offered something longer, even if he didn't want it, and just insist on his length but with the cost going up. At most, he insists on his length and almost as much money as his original offer.

If he comes back a couple of times with a 1 year after that with small money concessions and you keep bugging him with longer term deals, then eventually it should reach the point that it annoys him and his price starts going up...but it should take a while, so we can try to negotiate to see what a player is willing to accept.

[WIUPIKE]

In my opinion i think he negotiated back... you tried to buy years of free agency with an annual value of 3 mil ish, why wouldn't he respond if only wanting one year at the average value of that contract. If you agree he wins, you counter back he is happy to accept what he initially asked for.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Viridel

Which is what I'm offering. Try literacy, as I've said this several times.

If you're going to post on this forum that the game works a certain way, and be wrong about it, please don't call others 'illiterate' when they point that out.

You're complaining about a feature when you don't understand how it works. I don't have any interest in helping you understand it if this is how you carry on conversations, and I suspect your wish that this thread be locked will be granted soon enough.

[Viridel]

Originally Posted by injury log

If you're going to post on this forum that the game works a certain way, and be wrong about it, please don't call others 'illiterate' when they point that out.

Yeesh - I even point out specifically what part you got wrong in your reply, and you can't even read that. To repeat, you said "so it makes sense the player wants more than his arb awarded salary."

Whereas in several places, I had pointed out that his current (arbitration-awarded) salary was 1.5, and his next arbitration was 1.7. The first year I was offering him was 2.0, with an escalator every year.

And just for abundant clarification, 2.0M is greater than both 1.5M and 1.7M. Therefore, just for final clarification, I WAS offering more than his arbitration contract.

Now nod your head and say "I understand".

[Viridel]

Originally Posted by Anyone

The big thing, and it's a long-standing issue, is that the player should be working on reaching an agreement as well.......

My only regret is that I have but one Like to give.

[injury log]

You claimed your contract offer would overwrite his arb-awarded salary. You misled a lot of people who believed you, and wasted my and others' time posting here to correct you. And now you're just acting like a patronizing jackass. Enjoy the game.

[slugger922cubs]

Originally Posted by WIUPIKE

In my opinion i think he negotiated back... you tried to buy years of free agency with an annual value of 3 mil ish, why wouldn't he respond if only wanting one year at the average value of that contract. If you agree he wins, you counter back he is happy to accept what he initially asked for.

^^This^^ A long-term extension was offered. He didn't want to be locked up. Not odd behavior. he countered back with a 1 year deal near the AAV or max year of the contract. I still don't find that odd behavior. From the player/agent perspective if you value the player that much in one year why not offer that every year or next year. You're getting feedback that the player wants a short deal and feels valuable enough to get paid. You can try to work back down to a lower number or offer more in the long term deal. how much do you want the player.

[Viridel]

Originally Posted by injury log

You claimed your contract offer would overwrite his arb-awarded salary. You misled a lot of people who believed you, and wasted my and others' time posting here to correct you. And now you're just acting like a patronizing jackass. Enjoy the game.

Actually, once it was pointed out a few times that I was likely wrong about that, I dropped it. I only once disagreed with the point, and when I was told I was incorrect again, I didn't bring it up again; because I had moved past that point in the season, and did not have the chance to verify (either way). It's entirely possible-to-likely that I was incorrect, and confusing an extension the day before the 'hearings' and the day after. I fully accept that probable error. In the grand scheme, that is largely irrelevant since the foundation of my issue is around contract demand transparency.

... So, how long do we have to wait for you to acknowledge that you weren't as thorough in your understanding of the issue?

[Viridel]

Originally Posted by slugger922cubs

^^This^^ A long-term extension was offered. He didn't want to be locked up. Not odd behavior. he countered back with a 1 year deal near the AAV or max year of the contract. I still don't find that odd behavior. From the player/agent perspective if you value the player that much in one year why not offer that every year or next year. You're getting feedback that the player wants a short deal and feels valuable enough to get paid. You can try to work back down to a lower number or offer more in the long term deal. how much do you want the player.

And you would be exactly right IF the player didn't turn around and accept the exact same thing as he was asking for the first time. There's no good faith being presented, and he's not actually "feel(ing) valuable enough to get paid" for the simple reason that he is on no way sticking to his revised personal valuation.

I just did a 10 year deal with a 25yo will-be-all-star pitcher this year. He wanted 4.4M for 1 year - I offered him 6M with a 500k escalator for 10 (which comes out to an average of ~8.25). He came back with a 7.5M salary for ONE YEAR... So I did a 7.5M 1st year, 500k escalator - and he took it. Worked on the SP, not on the RP - and still doesn't show any sense of 'negotiating in good faith' since clearly a 10-year deal was possible, even if he just wanted 1 a few times.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by Viridel

And you would be exactly right IF the player didn't turn around and accept the exact same thing as he was asking for the first time. There's no good faith being presented, and he's not actually "feel(ing) valuable enough to get paid" for the simple reason that he is on no way sticking to his revised personal valuation.

When you're negotiating with arbitration eligible players who, by definition, you have under your control for next year regardless of whether you choose to offer them an extension or not, it seems reasonable to expect the player to act like he has less leverage than you. He can't walk away. And you have to assume his agent is telling him that his expected contract in arbitration is about the same as your estimate.

(This is why, in real life, players and teams actually going to arbitration is the exception, rather than the rule.)

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by slugger922cubs

^^This^^ A long-term extension was offered. He didn't want to be locked up. Not odd behavior. he countered back with a 1 year deal near the AAV or max year of the contract. I still don't find that odd behavior. From the player/agent perspective if you value the player that much in one year why not offer that every year or next year. You're getting feedback that the player wants a short deal and feels valuable enough to get paid. You can try to work back down to a lower number or offer more in the long term deal. how much do you want the player.

Obviously, it's more valuable to the team in a case like that (given that usually during arbitration players' salaries tend to go up each season) to lock a player up for more years. So if I'm willing to pay $2 million for one year, I'll probably pay $20 million for 5 ($4 million/year), if the player is fairly young-- especially since that likely locks him up beyond arbitration, which is why as the GM I'll want that.

It's insane then for the agent, if he wanted $2 million for one year and gets that offer to say, "So, you're willing to pay $4 million a year? How about $4 million for one year then?" If a GM wanted to sign the player to a one year contract he'd just have accepted the original offer (or, much more likely, come back with 1 year/$1.6 million, trying to figure what he'd shave off his opening demand-- and my experience is, if you accept the player's length they always will accept a bit less than they opened with, which makes sense; you don't open the negotiation with your bottom line).

But in this case the counter-offer was multi-year and in some cases the player won't take that, especially when buying free agent years. Still then, the player at the least says, "Look, I won't tie myself up over a year, but I still want an agreement so let's say $1.9 million for one year." Given there's a good chance he'd accept about $1.6 million if he opened with $2 million, that's actually trying to reach an agreement.

More likely, he says, "So you want me long term? Well, $4 million a year isn't enough for me to do that, and 5 years is a little long...so how about instead of $4 million a year for 5 years, why not $5 million a year for 4 years, plus a bonus for making the All-Star team so if I improve enough I get paid extra for it?" Or maybe he accepts the 5 year/$4 million per year framework (maybe asking for $4.2 mil a year just to get a bit more) but with an opt-out after the 3rd season (maybe when he could go free agent). That might work for him because if he gets hurt or declines for some other reason he's got the team locked in for 5 full years, but if he improves and thus his market value increases or he decides he wants to leave the team due to chemistry, bad team performance, or playing time he gets a chance to do so.

Any of those is negotiating, trying to reach an agreement. A free agent, or a free agent eligible player, sometimes may not want to reach an agreement (though I tend to think almost anyone should sign if you overpay enough), but a player in his arbitration years should be looking to reach an agreement as long as he thinks he wouldn't do better just going to arbitration each year, taking into account the security he has from a long term deal (but also, of course, that in arbitration his salary will likely increase each year so long as he doesn't get worse and that once one buys out free agent years, the player is losing freedom of movement, so that should obviously cost extra).

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by Anyone

It's insane them for the agent, if he wanted $2 million for one year and gets that offer to say, "So, you're willing to pay $4 million a year? How about $4 million for one year then?" If a GM wanted to sign the player to a one year contract he'd just have accepted the original offer.

This is logical, and obviously where OOTP's contract negotiation logic and presentation is breaking down/could use refinement. I would just point out that in real life, GMs "overpay" good players all the time, even increasing their salaries while they are still only eligible for the minimum, on the theory that if you show them good will while they are under your control, they will be happier campers and maybe more amenable to extensions.

I don't think OOTP models things to that depth. Just offering it in case it helps with anyone's suspension of disbelief as they play with their fictional world.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by Viridel

Yeesh - I even point out specifically what part you got wrong in your reply, and you can't even read that. To repeat, you said "so it makes sense the player wants more than his arb awarded salary."

Whereas in several places, I had pointed out that his current (arbitration-awarded) salary was 1.5, and his next arbitration was 1.7. The first year I was offering him was 2.0, with an escalator every year.

And just for abundant clarification, 2.0M is greater than both 1.5M and 1.7M. Therefore, just for final clarification, I WAS offering more than his arbitration contract.

Now nod your head and say "I understand".

The $1.7 is his expected arbitration after next season. It can go up based on performance, it can go down based on performance.

And just for abundant clarification, stop being an asshat.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Viridel

Which is what I'm offering. Try literacy, as I've said this several times.



No, what is absurd is that he's asking for one thing - increases his request on the same term (by almost double) - then takes the initial offer. It's just really sloppy programming.

Clearly I'm in the minority when it comes to how the game handles contracts, and if everyone else is happy with a complete "guess & test" system, then who am I to ask for better realism. Feel free to lock the thread.

but, even though he upped his demand, you still know his initial demand..

you were speaking of understanding how it behaves.. this is one of those wrinkles..

so you offer multi, he then demands more at the same initial length... but you can still typically meet the initial demand and safely sign the guy at that point... the more you poke and prod the less likely you can do that... and eventually they just stop negotiating... if you can get them to change the length, you better jump on that immediately... doesn't happen each time... sometimes they will counter with a change in # of years from initial. even +/-1 year from that new demand length is a risk at that point.

they start bluffing more, for lack of a better pharse, becasue it does have ramifications, it's not empty bluff. get a bit greedier /unhappiers etc.

the first few tries you can be a bit creative.. but before that smiley face goes away you better start getting back to initial demand and length or be willing to lose them / pay more than you want.

the feedback you get is not 100% perfect... it's up to you to recognize when you can undercut them more/less. there is some fog of war, like real life

[Matt Arnold]

The only thing I'll say on this is that I agree that contract negotiations could use some improvements. It's on our list to get to eventually