This has to be fixed

Mike D · 06-22-2017, 09:25 PM

I don't recall ever seeing something like this, but this is not an ideal result

endgame · 06-22-2017, 09:33 PM

Having trouble understanding the issue. Help me out. You don't want career-enders?

Mike D · 06-22-2017, 09:34 PM

No, I don't want players to sign a massive contract while injured to get the injury changed to a career ended 13 days later

pstrickert · 06-22-2017, 09:35 PM

The Mets needed to do a more thorough medical on the guy. I see the OP's point. Not realistic.

bjohn13 · 06-22-2017, 09:35 PM

There is a whole lot of messed up going on in that history. What needs to be fixed?

Matt Arnold · 06-22-2017, 11:12 PM

He may have been fine, and then when Feb rolls around he picks up a ball and then suddenly something else pops. The career ending setback may not have been apparent the month before.

endgame · 06-23-2017, 01:21 AM

Yeah, I may be in the minority, but offering a contract to an injured player comes with risk. This time it didn't pay off. Now "he who shall remain nameless" may chime in here with the necessity to accurately reflect insurance coverage in this instance, but I'm not sure OOTP would gain a whole lot from such an addition. As it is, IIRC, there is no ongoing penalty for a CEI, so all that's lost is the use of the player. In RL, and I'm not expert here, but I think Fielder and Wright come to mind from what minimal reading I've done, saddling their teams with major expenditures covering whatever clauses were in effect.

Is what it is, IMHO.

Lordofbrewtown · 06-23-2017, 08:28 PM

Well, it was the Mets who signed him/missed the injury. Seems pretty realistic to me.

Painmantle · 06-24-2017, 02:12 PM

The player was less than a month away from the full 6 month listing of the injury, that, to me, is within the window of opportunity of "realistic". Maybe if the guy was injured in late Sept for 12 months and signed in late October then retired I'd see it as an issue. But in this particular scenario, I don't see the issue!

RchW · 06-24-2017, 02:19 PM

Also the team is not on the hook for money. Let it ride.

Mike D · 06-24-2017, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Painmantle

The player was less than a month away from the full 6 month listing of the injury, that, to me, is within the window of opportunity of "realistic". Maybe if the guy was injured in late Sept for 12 months and signed in late October then retired I'd see it as an issue. But in this particular scenario, I don't see the issue!

Realistic that a team would sign a pitcher to a 3 year contract coming off a shoulder injury without watching him throw? No, it's not.

endgame · 06-24-2017, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D

Realistic that a team would sign a pitcher to a 3 year contract coming off a shoulder injury without watching him throw? No, it's not.

Oh, they could watch him throw. They'd just reach a wrong conclusion.

thehef · 06-24-2017, 02:47 PM

I think the key here is if the frequency of this type of thing is realistically rare in OOTP. If so, then the the only thing missing are the details that have it make perfect sense. These details would explain (among other things) 1) the teams's thinking at the time ("full confidence that he'll experience a full recovery"), 2) then the team's and player's utter shock when the injury became career-ending, 3) the resulting settlement/buyout or whatever, and 4) the firing of the medical staff

. (Note that I'm not necessarilly expecting OOTP to include all of these details; just pointing out what they are. You may need to use your imagination - perhaps write the news articles if you're into that sort of thing - so it makes sense.)

Mike D · 06-24-2017, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by endgame

Oh, they could watch him throw. They'd just reach a wrong conclusion.

GM: So what do you think?

Head Trainer: Well, watching him throw and reviewing his medical, I would say he's good to go?

GM: You sure? I don't want to find out 11 days from now he'll never pitch again...

Head Trainer: 11 days, nah he'll be good to go. I'd bet my career on it.

12 days later...

GM: ...

endgame · 06-24-2017, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D

GM: ...

"You lost that bet. You're fired."

I would have done exactly that.

Edit: Of course, I'd never have offered the contract in the first place. Maybe the GM should be fired as well.

GunnyB · 06-24-2017, 03:45 PM

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is.
Crap happens...I've taken chances on guys before. Sometimes you win....sometimes you loss.
In my current solo league, I signed a guy coming off a major injury and sadly he's my ace. That's a story for another day lol. Running an expansion team can be hard.

Anyways, put on a helmet and eat a cookie. Life goes on man.

Jamee999 · 06-24-2017, 03:46 PM

I had a similar problem - but in my case the AI signed a guy whose injury would keep him out for the whole season to a one-year contract. I suspect the AI may not be correctly accounting for injuries.

Mike D · 06-24-2017, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by endgame

"You lost that bet. You're fired."

I would have done exactly that.

Edit: Of course, I'd never have offered the contract in the first place. Maybe the GM should be fired as well.

Which is my point. The contract shouldn't have been offered.

Mike D · 06-24-2017, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunnyB

Anyways, put on a helmet and eat a cookie. Life goes on man.

Thanks for your valuable input

thehef · 06-24-2017, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by endgame

"You lost that bet. You're fired."

I would have done exactly that.

Edit: Of course, I'd never have offered the contract in the first place. Maybe the GM should be fired as well.

Well, what if the team's medical staff and also 2nd & 3rd opinions all concurred that there was a extremely-high likelihood of full recovery? While that's not a guarantee, it's certainly enough to sway a GM & owner into going for it - perhaps among a sea of other teams lining up to pitch offers, too.

And then of course since that extremely-high likelihood isn't 100% certainty, by definition it is possible the highly-unexpected happens. In that case, a mass-firing of the GM and medical staff would be more of a lash out, Steinbrenner-type of move. (Doc: "I told you that it is highly-likely he recovers - and my collegues plus the 2nd and 3rd opinions agreed. But there's no guarantee in medicine.")

The specifics vary, but IRL, things that seem like nearly sure bets don't always work out. Nobody is to blame except for the guy with the crystal ball who kept his mouth shut.

06-22-2017, 09:25 PM	#1
Mike D Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: In a van, down by the river Posts: 2,786	This has to be fixed I don't recall ever seeing something like this, but this is not an ideal result __________________ Sometimes the best laid plans will never get you laid the way you plan.

06-22-2017, 09:33 PM	#2
endgame Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 16,843	Having trouble understanding the issue. Help me out. You don't want career-enders? __________________ "Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett _____________________________________________

06-22-2017, 09:34 PM	#3
Mike D Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: In a van, down by the river Posts: 2,786	No, I don't want players to sign a massive contract while injured to get the injury changed to a career ended 13 days later __________________ Sometimes the best laid plans will never get you laid the way you plan.

06-23-2017, 01:21 AM	#7
endgame Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 16,843	Yeah, I may be in the minority, but offering a contract to an injured player comes with risk. This time it didn't pay off. Now "he who shall remain nameless" may chime in here with the necessity to accurately reflect insurance coverage in this instance, but I'm not sure OOTP would gain a whole lot from such an addition. As it is, IIRC, there is no ongoing penalty for a CEI, so all that's lost is the use of the player. In RL, and I'm not expert here, but I think Fielder and Wright come to mind from what minimal reading I've done, saddling their teams with major expenditures covering whatever clauses were in effect. Is what it is, IMHO. __________________ "Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett _____________________________________________

06-24-2017, 02:12 PM	#9
Painmantle Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Greenfield ,IN Posts: 3,053	The player was less than a month away from the full 6 month listing of the injury, that, to me, is within the window of opportunity of "realistic". Maybe if the guy was injured in late Sept for 12 months and signed in late October then retired I'd see it as an issue. But in this particular scenario, I don't see the issue! __________________ “As soon as I got out there I felt a strange relationship with the pitcher's mound. It was as if I'd been born out there. Pitching just felt like the most natural thing in the world. Striking out batters was easy.” -Babe Ruth “Ruth made a grave mistake when he gave up pitching. Working once a week, he might have lasted a long time and become a great star.”-Tris Speaker My Dynasties The Beantown Bambino

06-22-2017, 09:35 PM	#4
pstrickert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 15,738	The Mets needed to do a more thorough medical on the guy. I see the OP's point. Not realistic.

06-22-2017, 09:35 PM	#5
bjohn13 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 47 Blog Entries: 52	There is a whole lot of messed up going on in that history. What needs to be fixed?

06-22-2017, 11:12 PM	#6
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 14,127	He may have been fine, and then when Feb rolls around he picks up a ball and then suddenly something else pops. The career ending setback may not have been apparent the month before.

06-23-2017, 08:28 PM	#8
Lordofbrewtown Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: St Petersburg, FL Posts: 275	Well, it was the Mets who signed him/missed the injury. Seems pretty realistic to me.

06-24-2017, 02:19 PM	#10
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: The big smoke Posts: 15,628	Also the team is not on the hook for money. Let it ride. __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

06-24-2017, 02:47 PM	#13
thehef Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,842	I think the key here is if the frequency of this type of thing is realistically rare in OOTP. If so, then the the only thing missing are the details that have it make perfect sense. These details would explain (among other things) 1) the teams's thinking at the time ("full confidence that he'll experience a full recovery"), 2) then the team's and player's utter shock when the injury became career-ending, 3) the resulting settlement/buyout or whatever, and 4) the firing of the medical staff . (Note that I'm not necessarilly expecting OOTP to include all of these details; just pointing out what they are. You may need to use your imagination - perhaps write the news articles if you're into that sort of thing - so it makes sense.)

06-24-2017, 03:45 PM	#16
GunnyB Minors (Triple A) Join Date: May 2017 Location: Southeast US Posts: 206	Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Crap happens...I've taken chances on guys before. Sometimes you win....sometimes you loss. In my current solo league, I signed a guy coming off a major injury and sadly he's my ace. That's a story for another day lol. Running an expansion team can be hard. Anyways, put on a helmet and eat a cookie. Life goes on man. __________________ If pain is the sign of weakness leaving the body...then, I must be weak.

06-24-2017, 03:46 PM	#17
Jamee999 All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 769	I had a similar problem - but in my case the AI signed a guy whose injury would keep him out for the whole season to a one-year contract. I suspect the AI may not be correctly accounting for injuries.