Player Option

[Winnipeg59]

Under what circumstances would you, or do you, offer a player option in a contract offer?

Players routinely seem to ask for one and just as routinely I tend to completely avoid them (just change to a team or vesting). How would you suggest the process could be more effective in a future version? And, either in solo games or if you're involved in an online league, do you have any "house rules" that bring a player option more into play?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg59

Under what circumstances would you, or do you, offer a player option in a contract offer?

Players routinely seem to ask for one and just as routinely I tend to completely avoid them (just change to a team or vesting). How would you suggest the process could be more effective in a future version? And, either in solo games or if you're involved in an online league, do you have any "house rules" that bring a player option more into play?

I use it to get a guy I like but only want for 2 seasons on a 3 year contract. It carries some risk. I'm betting that he performs well enough that he will turn down the option yet if he is really good in the first year and halfway through the second I can explore an extension. Generally that's not what I want. My preference is two good years and he declines the option because his market value is up.

Edit:

The risk is that he tanks in the second year and takes the option with reduced performance.

[Tram2Whitaker]

I know I beat this subject like a dead horse, but I say, refer to the age. If your player is going to be 36 1/2 or older when his contract expires, then do not allow the player option. I may offer to a guy who is 28/29 and only wants a 6 year deal, and offers the 7th as a player option; that's fine. But in the rare case I'm signing a 30 year old, best bet all years after 36 are vesting options.

[RchW]

Just my opinion but I'd never offer a player option on a long term deal. Put another way I only do it on 3 year deals.

[jdono927]

I almost never offer player options, I usually tend to offer Team Options and it doesn't affect negotiations at all

[Winnipeg59]

Originally Posted by RchW

I use it to get a guy I like but only want for 2 seasons on a 3 year contract. It carries some risk. I'm betting that he performs well enough that he will turn down the option yet if he is really good in the first year and halfway through the second I can explore an extension. Generally that's not what I want. My preference is two good years and he declines the option because his market value is up.

Edit:

The risk is that he tanks in the second year and takes the option with reduced performance.

This helps. I'll try this. Thanks.

[Winnipeg59]

Originally Posted by jdono927

I almost never offer player options, I usually tend to offer Team Options and it doesn't affect negotiations at all

This was part of the reason why I posted. How can they be made more effective in the game, either by tweaking the AI so it does affect negotiations, like:
"If you do not offer me a player option then I will not sign with your team."

Or, in online, is there a way to make them more of an "option". One example I thought of was if you offer a "front-loaded" contract of two years guaranteed, or more, then you must add on a player option year of some amount (say average of all guaranteed years).

I generally don't like front-loaded contracts as I think they are a bit gamey, but the player option might be risk/reward in that case??

[MBarrett]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg59

This was part of the reason why I posted. How can they be made more effective in the game, either by tweaking the AI so it does affect negotiations, like:
"If you do not offer me a player option then I will not sign with your team."

Or, in online, is there a way to make them more of an "option". One example I thought of was if you offer a "front-loaded" contract of two years guaranteed, or more, then you must add on a player option year of some amount (say average of all guaranteed years).

I generally don't like front-loaded contracts as I think they are a bit gamey, but the player option might be risk/reward in that case??

What's becoming more of a standard in online leagues, are "house rules" limiting a GMs ability to front or back load a contract. One rule used quite frequently now; no single year of a contract can be more than double that of any other.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by jdono927

I almost never offer player options, I usually tend to offer Team Options and it doesn't affect negotiations at all

In the example I posted it was the only way to get the deal done. Otherwise I'd have made it a team option.

[DustinthePOWERHOUSE]

I actually make it a general rule for myself (broken on rare occasion) that if he asks for a player option I demand a team option as well. If he's going to ask for an option I assume it's only fair for me to reciprocate that.

It works a lot of the time.

[jdono927]

Originally Posted by RchW

In the example I posted it was the only way to get the deal done. Otherwise I'd have made it a team option.

Oh. I've never seen that happen before

[rpriske]

Never.


A player option is never a good idea for the team. If a player demands it and you can't get around it you have to consider it as a bad end of contract and decided if the player is worth signing under those circumstances.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by rpriske

Never.


A player option is never a good idea for the team. If a player demands it and you can't get around it you have to consider it as a bad end of contract and decided if the player is worth signing under those circumstances.

It can be ideal for the reasons I suggested in an earlier post.

[USF]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg59

Under what circumstances would you, or do you, offer a player option in a contract offer?

Players routinely seem to ask for one and just as routinely I tend to completely avoid them (just change to a team or vesting). How would you suggest the process could be more effective in a future version? And, either in solo games or if you're involved in an online league, do you have any "house rules" that bring a player option more into play?

I avoid them at all costs.

[rpriske]

Originally Posted by RchW

It can be ideal for the reasons I suggested in an earlier post.

Even under the situation you describe it isn't 'ideal'. Ideal would would be signing them to a two year deal. What you are describing is if you fail to sign them to a two year deal, so you are taking a worse agreement in order to get it done.

You either have a bad contract or lose on a improving player. There is no other option.

[FaithlessValor]

How likely are players to exercise their player options? I know they accept QOs at a far higher rate than they should; would it be wise to tack on a player option for a rather low amount to game the AI into accepting it?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by rpriske

Even under the situation you describe it isn't 'ideal'. Ideal would would be signing them to a two year deal. What you are describing is if you fail to sign them to a two year deal, so you are taking a worse agreement in order to get it done.

You either have a bad contract or lose on a improving player. There is no other option.

I judge it to be a worthwhile risk. No other opinion matters. I'll see in two seasons, which I should have completed between now and early Jan.

[Winnipeg59]

Originally Posted by FaithlessValor

How likely are players to exercise their player options? I know they accept QOs at a far higher rate than they should; would it be wise to tack on a player option for a rather low amount to game the AI into accepting it?

Unless you craft your contract just right (possibly as stated above with the 2+PO at a low enough rate) I find they ALWAYS exercise them.

Most often because they will be overpaid in that year compared to their performance. Not their fault, usually mine!