Contract extension question

Eckstein 4 Prez · 04-05-2005, 12:02 PM

Maybe I just haven't noticed this before, or I'm missing something.

In my solo league, all the AI extensions were signed on August 1. A number of players hit their 6 years of major league service after August 1 - is there going to be another time when the AI does signings? Or is it factoring this in when doing its signings on August 1? I ask because my 1876 league is going to get flooded with free agents this offseason, as most of the key players did not get offers from their teams. If the AI actually considers on August 1 resigning all of the players who are going to hit free agency between August 1 and the end of the season, I can accept this result, but if not I fear it may be a bug that will need to be resolved.

Anyone know anything about this?

Mike D · 04-05-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez

Maybe I just haven't noticed this before, or I'm missing something.

In my solo league, all the AI extensions were signed on August 1. A number of players hit their 6 years of major league service after August 1 - is there going to be another time when the AI does signings? Or is it factoring this in when doing its signings on August 1? I ask because my 1876 league is going to get flooded with free agents this offseason, as most of the key players did not get offers from their teams. If the AI actually considers on August 1 resigning all of the players who are going to hit free agency between August 1 and the end of the season, I can accept this result, but if not I fear it may be a bug that will need to be resolved.

Anyone know anything about this?

That's a good question. I never thought about that. I wish I had the time now to check that out today.

rem · 04-05-2005, 12:15 PM

My experience has been that the AI does the majority of their contract extensions on August 1st. I wouldn't count on them doing much in the way of extensions later on.

gmo · 04-05-2005, 01:31 PM

If a player gets to 6 full seasons after Aug 1, that figures to mean they have played at some time during 6 different seasons. I know there is the holdover from previous versions where a player on my team in his 6th partial season but with only say 4 years and 66 days of service time will say he is ready for an extension as before, being in his 6th season playing in the majors, he would be a free agent at season's end.

I thought that the CPU teams were signing players like the one in my example above, which does not really make sense for free agency but would avoid the particular issue cited at the beginning of the thread. I do not know that for a fact though.

Eckstein 4 Prez · 04-05-2005, 02:31 PM

This is a serious problem if the AI doesn't handle this correctly. In my solo league, everyone started in 1871 with no major league experience. The marginal players who were rookies in 1871 are generally the ones who will hit free agency sometime in 1877, because they've spent some time in the minors. However, the stars became starters in 1871 and have been ever since - they all hit the required days of service in late September 1876. For the most part, they have not been resigned.

In historical leagues, this could be a recurring problem. (Probably less so in fictional leagues, since September call-ups will cause guys to hit six years of service earlier in the year.) A guy like Ted Williams is going to import with ratings sufficient to make him a big-league starter. If he stays for the full six years, he'll hit free agency in September of his sixth year.

So what's the solution? Should I reduce the number of days needed for a year of service so that guys will hit it before August 1st? This is not a huge issue for me right now, since the player movement of the 1870s was so rampant that it's actually not unrealistic to have most of the top free agents leaving. But I'm worried about the future. I wish I could believe that someone at OOTPD has thought this issue through already.....

gmo · 04-05-2005, 03:42 PM

I went back and looked at a few recent years from my league and indeed found several cases were players were "pre-emptively" signed to extensions before they were to the point of having completed 6 full years of major league service time. These were high quality youngish players in their 6th at least partial seasons, except in a couple of the cases where it was the 7th, though the first had been for 1-2 games. Not enough to declare any firm rules but interesting observations I thought.

Anyway, having seen this, I would thus expect players approaching their 6 full years but not there yet to get extensions on Aug 1 if the teams intended to re-sign them. It definitely though seems like faulty logic giving a player with not even 5 years of service an extension when it was not yet needed to maintain the player. However, in the cases I looked at it seemed that perhaps the extensions could work out as bargains as the yearly value is probably right around what arbitration would give for the next year or two and perhaps under what would have to be paid in a year or two in an extension. That is probably just coincidence as I am not quite ready to give the game that much credit.

So it is I can say, though only with any comfort about someone else's league, that I think that you do not need to worry about the specific concern that the game is not recognizing players who will be free agents but do not achieve that will-be status until after the Aug 1 extension date. The game appears to me capable of handling this, though perhaps for faulty reasons. Maybe that it is the beginning (now 6th season) of your league, but I cannot see why. Are you doing finances just like modern or are any numbers adjusted so that it may be causing teams not to spend on extensions?

Eckstein 4 Prez · 04-05-2005, 04:18 PM

Well, the finances and the talent pool relative to salaries are both a little weird, and the schedules are short - so there are lots of things going on in my league that could cause issues, and as I said it's actually not unrealistic for the 19th century. I just wanted to make sure the game knows how to handle this, and from your post it seems that it does, although as you said it could be faulty reasoning that it uses to get there.

This will really be the only instance in my league of a HUGE portion of the talent pool all hitting free agency at once, since about 75%-80% of the players who are key players in 1876 were around in 1871 - it's just one of the quirks of the way people entered professional baseball in the 19th century - there are certain times - 1871, 1882 and 1884 in particular - when a LOT of new talent entered the league, and other years - especially from 1872-77 - when hardly any new talent came in.

04-05-2005, 12:02 PM	#1
Eckstein 4 Prez Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The OC Posts: 6,347	Contract extension question Maybe I just haven't noticed this before, or I'm missing something. In my solo league, all the AI extensions were signed on August 1. A number of players hit their 6 years of major league service after August 1 - is there going to be another time when the AI does signings? Or is it factoring this in when doing its signings on August 1? I ask because my 1876 league is going to get flooded with free agents this offseason, as most of the key players did not get offers from their teams. If the AI actually considers on August 1 resigning all of the players who are going to hit free agency between August 1 and the end of the season, I can accept this result, but if not I fear it may be a bug that will need to be resolved. Anyone know anything about this? __________________ Looking for an insomnia cure? Check out my dynasty thread, The Dawn of American Professional Base Ball, 1871.

04-05-2005, 12:15 PM	#3
rem Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: College Park, Md. Posts: 5,024	My experience has been that the AI does the majority of their contract extensions on August 1st. I wouldn't count on them doing much in the way of extensions later on. __________________ OTBA: Washington Filibusters CLBR: Minnesota Twins 2005 Winner of LL's Pick the Loser Contest! - 15-0

04-05-2005, 02:31 PM	#5
Eckstein 4 Prez Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The OC Posts: 6,347	This is a serious problem if the AI doesn't handle this correctly. In my solo league, everyone started in 1871 with no major league experience. The marginal players who were rookies in 1871 are generally the ones who will hit free agency sometime in 1877, because they've spent some time in the minors. However, the stars became starters in 1871 and have been ever since - they all hit the required days of service in late September 1876. For the most part, they have not been resigned. In historical leagues, this could be a recurring problem. (Probably less so in fictional leagues, since September call-ups will cause guys to hit six years of service earlier in the year.) A guy like Ted Williams is going to import with ratings sufficient to make him a big-league starter. If he stays for the full six years, he'll hit free agency in September of his sixth year. So what's the solution? Should I reduce the number of days needed for a year of service so that guys will hit it before August 1st? This is not a huge issue for me right now, since the player movement of the 1870s was so rampant that it's actually not unrealistic to have most of the top free agents leaving. But I'm worried about the future. I wish I could believe that someone at OOTPD has thought this issue through already..... __________________ Looking for an insomnia cure? Check out my dynasty thread, The Dawn of American Professional Base Ball, 1871.

04-05-2005, 04:18 PM	#7
Eckstein 4 Prez Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The OC Posts: 6,347	Well, the finances and the talent pool relative to salaries are both a little weird, and the schedules are short - so there are lots of things going on in my league that could cause issues, and as I said it's actually not unrealistic for the 19th century. I just wanted to make sure the game knows how to handle this, and from your post it seems that it does, although as you said it could be faulty reasoning that it uses to get there. This will really be the only instance in my league of a HUGE portion of the talent pool all hitting free agency at once, since about 75%-80% of the players who are key players in 1876 were around in 1871 - it's just one of the quirks of the way people entered professional baseball in the 19th century - there are certain times - 1871, 1882 and 1884 in particular - when a LOT of new talent entered the league, and other years - especially from 1872-77 - when hardly any new talent came in. __________________ Looking for an insomnia cure? Check out my dynasty thread, The Dawn of American Professional Base Ball, 1871.

04-05-2005, 01:31 PM	#4
gmo Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: Longmont, CO Posts: 3,154	If a player gets to 6 full seasons after Aug 1, that figures to mean they have played at some time during 6 different seasons. I know there is the holdover from previous versions where a player on my team in his 6th partial season but with only say 4 years and 66 days of service time will say he is ready for an extension as before, being in his 6th season playing in the majors, he would be a free agent at season's end. I thought that the CPU teams were signing players like the one in my example above, which does not really make sense for free agency but would avoid the particular issue cited at the beginning of the thread. I do not know that for a fact though.

04-05-2005, 03:42 PM	#6
gmo Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: Longmont, CO Posts: 3,154	I went back and looked at a few recent years from my league and indeed found several cases were players were "pre-emptively" signed to extensions before they were to the point of having completed 6 full years of major league service time. These were high quality youngish players in their 6th at least partial seasons, except in a couple of the cases where it was the 7th, though the first had been for 1-2 games. Not enough to declare any firm rules but interesting observations I thought. Anyway, having seen this, I would thus expect players approaching their 6 full years but not there yet to get extensions on Aug 1 if the teams intended to re-sign them. It definitely though seems like faulty logic giving a player with not even 5 years of service an extension when it was not yet needed to maintain the player. However, in the cases I looked at it seemed that perhaps the extensions could work out as bargains as the yearly value is probably right around what arbitration would give for the next year or two and perhaps under what would have to be paid in a year or two in an extension. That is probably just coincidence as I am not quite ready to give the game that much credit. So it is I can say, though only with any comfort about someone else's league, that I think that you do not need to worry about the specific concern that the game is not recognizing players who will be free agents but do not achieve that will-be status until after the Aug 1 extension date. The game appears to me capable of handling this, though perhaps for faulty reasons. Maybe that it is the beginning (now 6th season) of your league, but I cannot see why. Are you doing finances just like modern or are any numbers adjusted so that it may be causing teams not to spend on extensions?