Entrenched players

[nyy26wc]

I would like to see an option for "entrenched" players.

For example, in a historical league, you could make Mickey Mantle entrenched to the Yankees. No matter what, Mantle could not be traded, nor be claimed by another team on waivers. You could go into commissioner mode, edit his contract for a no trade clause. But, those could be waived. I do edit some players in my league to give them no trade clauses. I'm sure that potential trades do end up getting blocked, but the no trade clauses are waived more frequently than I would like.

Also, I would like to see an "entrenched" player option to force the AI to put a player into the starting lineup, the starting rotation or the closer's spot. It hurts the immersion factor for me a little bit when teams have huge contract players sitting on the bench or turned into a middle reliever while they still have a stamina rating high enough to be a starter. IRL, jobs will be lost if players are given such big contracts and they aren't playing. Yes, sometimes it happens, but not with the frequency that I see it happen in OOTP.

The entrenched player option would supercede the AI's ability to trade the player, demote him to the bench or turn him into a MR. You can entrench a player to a team, but not have him entrench into the lineup/rotation. You could have him entrenched to the lineup/rotation/closer, but he could be traded to a different team. So, there would be a separate checkbox for entrench to team, entrench to lineup/rotation/closer.

[Fyrestorm3]

Interesting idea.

As for force-starting a player, that's already a thing: Team Menu -> Player Strategy -> Select a player and there should be a Force Start drop-down menu.

[nyy26wc]

You're right about force starting. I had forgotten about that.

If I remember correctly, initially, the point of that feature was to force a player to play a specific position, usually in the minors to gain experience there. Originally, the player could be a starter, if the AI wanted him to be and forcing that position would be the way to get the AI to consider him at that particular position. But, assuming that I remember correctly, that would have been several editions of OOTP ago. I just checked and, yes, OOTP14 works properly to force someone to be in a starting lineup at a position.

However, I can't get force role as starting pitcher to work.

[endgame]

You may test whether the Untouchable designation applies to only Trading. I believe it does, but having the player set at that 'may' be of influence we haven't determined, as goes waivers, etc... I'm not optimistic, but it's worth a look.

[nyy26wc]

I don't know if the untouchable designation would work. But, if it does, then this is exactly what I'm looking for.

Let's say that I temporarily act as the Red Sox and set David Ortiz as untouchable. Once I relinquish control of the team, can't the AI just remove the untouchable label from Ortiz and trade him that way?

[nyy26wc]

I have an idea in mind on how I can test this. Let me perform my tests and will report back.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

I don't know if the untouchable designation would work. But, if it does, then this is exactly what I'm looking for.

Let's say that I temporarily act as the Red Sox and set David Ortiz as untouchable. Once I relinquish control of the team, can't the AI just remove the untouchable label from Ortiz and trade him that way?

Yes it can, and it should. My question to you is, do you want to manage all the teams or do you want the AI to manage them? You can't expect every AI manager to make every exact move you would. The game would get boring real quick. I understand what you're asking for in a game sense, but there are features now that model baseball to do what you want for the most part.

As for the waiver thing - why bother placing a guy on waivers if he's set that no team can claim him? Isn't that the purpose of waivers? To see if another team has interest in the player? Just disable the waivers option in your league.

[nyy26wc]

I did a test with the quickstart. I took 6 teams and moved everybody on the 25 man roster to the untouchables list. I also wanted to test whether or not team status will affect whether the AI would want to trade a player bad enough that it would take a player off the untouchable list. So, I added that to the study.

For 2 teams, I changed their status to win now--the Yankees and the Nationals.
For 2 teams, I kept their status as neutral--Brewers and Dodgers.
For 2 teams, I changed their status to rebuilding--Astros and Marlins.

Trading was set to "very high". I did that because that's what my league has been set to, ever since I started to count how many trades are actually made every year in the majors. (From 2000-12, the figures are: MEDIAN--101, MEAN--98, HIGH--112, LOW--68 (but that was a 1 year outlier, with the 2nd lowest being 90).

I then simmed the entire 2013 season. I checked the transactions logs for each team. Not a single one of those teams made a single trade involving a major leaguer. (Actually, the Yankees did trade for Matt Garza. But, that involved trading a trio of minor leaguers, so those players were outside the scope of this experiment). The Dodgers did trade Hanley Ramirez and Chad Billingsley. However, since the 2 of them started the season on the DL, they weren't mass selected to go onto the untouchable list, so that loophole put them outside the scope of this experiment.

But, then I advanced to the offseason and continued the experiment through the end of December. The Marlins traded Steve Chisek, Ryan Webb and Mike Dunn. The Astros traded Brett Wallace and Hector Ambriz. I then started a new quickstart, just to look at the original rosters. That confirmed that every one of those players had started the 2013 season on the major league roster, so they were labeled as untouchables.

So, the evidence from the offseason would indicate that, if the AI really wants to trade someone, it will remove the untouchable label.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Yes it can, and it should. My question to you is, do you want to manage all the teams or do you want the AI to manage them? You can't expect every AI manager to make every exact move you would. The game would get boring real quick. I understand what you're asking for in a game sense, but there are features now that model baseball to do what you want for the most part.

Why should it be able to do it? I am talking about a small percentage of the majors that would be entrenched to their teams. Anyone who doesn't want that would be free to never use that feature, just like I have never created a note about a player (I use a whole slew of papers next to my computer), but would never advocate against such a feature for those who want it.

I don't want to manage all of the teams. I want to manage the Yankees and have the AI manage the rest of the majors. But, for the sake of better immersion factor, I want certain players to be as untouchable in OOTP as they are IRL. I don't want see Chipper Jones going to the Royals. I don't want to see Trevor Hoffman with the Dodgers. I don't want to see David Ortiz with the Blue Jays.

As for the waiver thing - why bother placing a guy on waivers if he's set that no team can claim him? Isn't that the purpose of waivers? To see if another team has interest in the player? Just disable the waivers option in your league.

I have nothing against the way waivers works. I have no reason to disable the waivers just because I have a group of players that I want to keep entrenched on their teams.

[nyy26wc]

There is already coding in the game that makes players untradeable. You can't trade a player who is injured. If the code can prohibit a fringe minor leaguer from being added to a deal because he is out for a couple of days because of a cold and is therefore "injured", I don't see how it hurts anyone to give me the option to tell OOTP that a player is a face of the franchise kind of player and you forbidden from trading him. In between the end of the season and the free agents hitting the market, you can't trade someone will be a free agent. Since there is already an untradable player aspect to the trade process, all I ask here is a little checkbox that lets a user also declare the player to be untradable.

There is obviously already a boolean variable in the code for players who can't be traded. All I ask is for that boolean to be expanded slightly to allow the user to mark a specific player with that label.

I could do it with no trade clauses. But, there are 2 problems. First, the no trade clause has to be put into every contract a player signs, which makes things more inconvenient when it's before free agency and he's still typically going year to year. And, the player can waive the no trade clause.

I can try this by moving a player to untouchable. But, the problem there is the AI can overrule me.

So, what I'm proposing is a direct way to do this, instead of having to resort to indirect measures that can easily be overruled.

[nyy26wc]

Now that Pedroia has just signed a new contract that keeps him in Boston through 2021, for realism purposes, I would be interested in making him an entrenched player with the Red Sox in OOTP. I do find it strange that I can lock his popularity ratings, to prevent OOTP from changing how popular he is, both nationally and with his current team, but I can't lock his team being the Red Sox.

[Fyrestorm3]

I'm in complete agreement here. Even though it's not something I'd ever use, it's a solid idea. All it would require is a checkbox in the player's Editor page that prevents him from being moved from his current team.

The only question I have is, what happens when his contract runs out? Would it force the team to re-sign him, or would it only affect him for the duration of his contract?

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

Why should it be able to do it? I am talking about a small percentage of the majors that would be entrenched to their teams. Anyone who doesn't want that would be free to never use that feature, just like I have never created a note about a player (I use a whole slew of papers next to my computer), but would never advocate against such a feature for those who want it.

My response of "Yes it can and should" was in reply to your question whether the AI would remove the untouchable tag from Ortiz. And I stand by my response - the AI manager is not you, it sees things differently. Maybe it sees a chance to get some good young players for Ortiz. The AI is doing what it's programmed to do, try and improve the team and win. So yes, a new manager can and should be able to remove that tag.

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

I don't want to manage all of the teams. I want to manage the Yankees and have the AI manage the rest of the majors. But, for the sake of better immersion factor, I want certain players to be as untouchable in OOTP as they are IRL. I don't want see Chipper Jones going to the Royals. I don't want to see Trevor Hoffman with the Dodgers. I don't want to see David Ortiz with the Blue Jays.

So basically you want the ability to partially manage the teams. So why not designate them all to your control and then assign most things to the AI except those moves you don't want happening? This option is in the game now.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

I'm in complete agreement here. Even though it's not something I'd ever use, it's a solid idea. All it would require is a checkbox in the player's Editor page that prevents him from being moved from his current team.

The only question I have is, what happens when his contract runs out? Would it force the team to re-sign him, or would it only affect him for the duration of his contract?

Good question.

Another good question - what happens if the team goes broke and they can't dump the big salary because the player is entrenched? Do they just wallow in the red until the player retires?

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

The only question I have is, what happens when his contract runs out? Would it force the team to re-sign him, or would it only affect him for the duration of his contract?

I would force the team to re-sign him. Maybe an entrenched player would automatically get a team loyalty rating of 200 and maybe that would make it easier for him and the team to agree to a new deal. Maybe if they still can't agree to a deal, it would go to arbitration.

Or, maybe there can be 2 different team entrenched options. Entrenched for career, entrenched through current contract, entrenched through year X.

For example, I would use this option for Lance Berkman and Roy Oswalt, as both of them were big faces of the Astros. But, in acknowledge to the fact that they really were eventually traded, I would have their entrenchment to the team only run through 2009, since they were both traded during the 2010 season. Or, historically, I would entrench Yogi Berra to the Yankees for 1946-62 and then permit the possibility of him finishing his career elsewhere and leaving that up to the AI as to whether or not it actually happens.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

My response of "Yes it can and should" was in reply to your question whether the AI would remove the untouchable tag from Ortiz. And I stand by my response - the AI manager is not you, it sees things differently. Maybe it sees a chance to get some good young players for Ortiz. The AI is doing what it's programmed to do, try and improve the team and win. So yes, a new manager can and should be able to remove that tag.

Aren't real GMs "programmed" to try to improve the team and win. Yet, we see teams single out certain players that they absolutely would never trade even at the decline of their careers. So, I believe we are adding another option level of realism.

So basically you want the ability to partially manage the teams. So why not designate them all to your control and then assign most things to the AI except those moves you don't want happening? This option is in the game now.

I don't see it trying to partially manage the teams. I see this as adding another level of realism. There are entrenched players in real life and I'd like to bring that to OOTP.

As far as assinging everything to the AI, except for certain things, if there was an option for be able to trade everyone in the organization except ______, I would choose that. There isn't such a narrow exemption currently. That's why I am asking for it.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Good question.

Another good question - what happens if the team goes broke and they can't dump the big salary because the player is entrenched? Do they just wallow in the red until the player retires?

In real baseball, teams frequently do wallow in it when they have an entrenched player. For example, let's say that Derek Jeter didn't only have a player option for 2014 left in his contract. Would the Yankees dump the salary of a player who is not earning the money. Not if his name is Derek Jeter.

It is a reality of baseball that teams do find other places to make cuts when they have an entrenched player on the payroll that they won't move because of who he is. I am just asking that this particular element of realism is added to the game.

I am currently in 2010 and Chipper Jones isn't what he used to be. He's no longer the player who ranks among the greatest 3B of all time. The AI doesn't know and doesn't care who he is. But, to the millions of Braves fans who exist in my OOTP world, they know and they care. It hurts realism in my eyes for them to even have the option of trading him. I don't believe that Braves fans should be appeased by being told "Oh, the team is really being run by a computer algorithm that doesn't care who Chipper Jones is and done in his career. It doesn't care that he is a 4 time National League MVP [he added 3 OOTP MVPs to his 1 IRL MVP in my world]."

I'm not saying that the AI needs to always consider who the player is and not just his OOTP numbers. For the vast majority of players, it's good enough that it doesn't consider the player's name. And, I'm fine with it not considering the players name when it comes to how the in-game engine works and what his stats look like. But, we know as baseball fans, there are players that teams would not trade because they are so identified with that team. And, I'm just asking for the ability for us to designate certain players that way in OOTP.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

Aren't real GMs "programmed" to try to improve the team and win. Yet, we see teams single out certain players that they absolutely would never trade even at the decline of their careers. So, I believe we are adding another option level of realism.

That's what I just said. The AI is trying to win, it's programmed to do that. I'm not against your idea, I'm just curious how you would program the AI to try to win and not try to win at the same time.

I wouldn't know about real GM's being "programmed". I didn't think it was possible to program people yet.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

I would force the team to re-sign him. Maybe an entrenched player would automatically get a team loyalty rating of 200 and maybe that would make it easier for him and the team to agree to a new deal. Maybe if they still can't agree to a deal, it would go to arbitration.

Eh, now see, I liked the idea up until this point. As Bluenoser points out, you could get a team into serious financial trouble by doing this, and if you were going to entrench a player for his career, it would require another layer of coding to ensure the AI doesn't keep drafting or trading for a bunch of highly-rated talent at that player's position.

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

For example, I would use this option for Lance Berkman and Roy Oswalt, as both of them were big faces of the Astros. But, in acknowledge to the fact that they really were eventually traded, I would have their entrenchment to the team only run through 2009, since they were both traded during the 2010 season. Or, historically, I would entrench Yogi Berra to the Yankees for 1946-62 and then permit the possibility of him finishing his career elsewhere and leaving that up to the AI as to whether or not it actually happens.

Well now it seems like we're just talking about historical transactions, a function the game already has. I realize it's not exactly the same, but the difference is miniscule enough that it doesn't seem worth the programming effort to put it in the game.

I do like the idea, in general - it stops some moves from happening that would seem ridiculous (e.g. Cal Ripken, Jr. being traded after having a couple down years, or David Ortiz being sent to the minors after getting too old), but it seems at once too restrictive and too broad to really function properly. My suggestion would be to have a checkbox in the editor that entrenches the player for the duration of his current contract, stopping him from being put on waivers, demoted to the minors, or traded. Once his contract is up, the box automatically un-checks, and the negotiations play out normally. And then, if it matters that much to have a player play his entire career with a certain team, you can always edit the player to have a new contract with that team, and re-check the entrenchment option.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

That's what I just said. The AI is trying to win, it's programmed to do that. I'm not against your idea, I'm just curious how you would program the AI to try to win and not try to win at the same time.

The AI programming wouldn't really be affected. The AI can continue to try to win and have nearly everyone in the organization available to be traded. But, there would just be some players it just can't trade.

I don't think it would be the AI trying not to win, just like the 2010 Braves wouldn't have been considered to not be trying to win if they refused to consider any trade that would have treated as anything other than a 38 year old declining player.