'Team Option Year' contracts

[byzeil]

This is something I have seen especially in online leagues. GMs signing players to contracts with team option years in the last year with a $0 buyout. So they may make the last year Team option of $10 mil with a $0 buyout. Why would this appeal to a player in the least. Now I could see $10 mil with a $2.5 mil buyout or something similar making sense and appealing to a player.

I have seen this used to win bidding wars for players by back loading a contract with a large salaried team option year but in reality the team has no intention of ever picking up the option.

I would like to see the ability to have a Calculated Buyout set in the financials setup. For example it could be set to 50%, 33%, 10%, 0% or any other figure the league commissioner deems appropriate. This could either set the buyout or set the minimum $ of the buyout. By default the value could be 0% therefore essentially leaving it as it is.

[GMLoophole]

Originally Posted by byzeil

This is something I have seen especially in online leagues. GMs signing players to contracts with team option years in the last year with a $0 buyout. So they may make the last year Team option of $10 mil with a $0 buyout. Why would this appeal to a player in the least.

I often include a team option in the last year of a multi-year deal... the player accepts it because if he says no I cut the last year off the contract and offer it again.

You might as well ask "why would a player option year appeal to a team?". It doesn't, but when it's either that or lose the guy, they'll agree to it.

[RchW]

That seems like a flaw in the contract module giving human players a cheat. No real life player would ever take a $0 buyout team option. I use 15%-30% depending on the player.

Seems to me that online league commishes could make GM's adhere to a minimum % buyout. Not my leagues though.

Has anyone seen an AI team have a $0 buyout?

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by GMLoophole

I often include a team option in the last year of a multi-year deal... the player accepts it because if he says no I cut the last year off the contract and offer it again.

You might as well ask "why would a player option year appeal to a team?". It doesn't, but when it's either that or lose the guy, they'll agree to it.

No, the player accepts it because the game AI just looks at the total value of the contract and doesn't figure the final year is just to boost the potential value of the deal with little or no intention of every paying the $$.

[Overkill]

Originally Posted by RchW

That seems like a flaw in the contract module giving human players a cheat. No real life player would ever take a $0 buyout team option.

Tampa Bay Rays | Cot's Baseball Contracts

Check out the contract of Yunel Escobar. 4-year deal, $5-million each year, with the last two years being team options with no buyout.

It should not be removed because it does happen in real life, but it should definitely be modified. Basically, the GUARANTEED money should perhaps be weighted a little more heavily than the POTENTIAL money.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Overkill

Tampa Bay Rays | Cot's Baseball Contracts

Check out the contract of Yunel Escobar. 4-year deal, $5-million each year, with the last two years being team options with no buyout.

It should not be removed because it does happen in real life, but it should definitely be modified. Basically, the GUARANTEED money should perhaps be weighted a little more heavily than the POTENTIAL money.

I stand corrected. I should have known that since I look at Cot's often.

[byzeil]

Not saying the $0 buyout should be eliminated just that the commish should have the option of setting a minimum buyout amount.

I am in an online league that requires a 50% buyout amount which has to be policed manually.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by byzeil

I am in an online league that requires a 50% buyout amount which has to be policed manually.

For what it's worth a couple of years ago I took all the contracts listed on Cot's site that had a buyout amount for a team option year and calculated the average buyout value as a percentage of the salary in the last guaranteed year. That average was one-sixth.

[nebradska]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

For what it's worth a couple of years ago I took all the contracts listed on Cot's site that had a buyout amount for a team option year and calculated the average buyout value as a percentage of the salary in the last guaranteed year. That average was one-sixth.

I think byzeil and I might be in the same league. If so, the issue was GMs giving huge salaries in the last year of a contract with a $0 buyout, so we had to implement a 50% minimum buyout to limit that. A 1/6th buyout on a normally-stacked contract is reasonable.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

For what it's worth a couple of years ago I took all the contracts listed on Cot's site that had a buyout amount for a team option year and calculated the average buyout value as a percentage of the salary in the last guaranteed year. That average was one-sixth.

Correction to the above: the average was one-sixth of the salary listed for the team option year, not the last guaranteed year. So, in other words, if the team option year called for the player to be paid $6 million, if the club decided not to exercise the option the player would be paid $1 million.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by byzeil

No, the player accepts it because the game AI just looks at the total value of the contract and doesn't figure the final year is just to boost the potential value of the deal with little or no intention of every paying the $$.

Do you have any evidence that the team option year makes the player more likely to accept the contract? Or is your only evidence that you've seen players accept contracts with big team options?

If I'm a player worth $6m annually, and a team offers me a two-year deal worth $12m with a $20m team option and $0 buyout, I'd be just as happy with that deal as I would with a $12m/2 year deal. If the option isn't exercised, my deal is exactly what I wanted anyway: a 2 year $12m deal. If my GM gets drunk and decides to execute the option, then so much the better - I'm $14m better off than I would have expected. But the value of the option itself wouldn't factor into my decision at all. And in my experience, OOTP works the same way (at least in recent versions - it didn't used to). A lot of work has gone into eliminating simplistic exploits with team option years, and I find players dislike team options in contracts.

To prove that team options offer the user a way to exploit contract negotiations, you need to provide some evidence: find a contract offer with a big team option with no buyout that a player will accept, but won't accept when the team option is removed. If you can do that, then I'll concede there's a problem. But if players are accepting big option years attached to contracts that are otherwise perfectly fair, that's not an issue at all.

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by injury log

If I'm a player worth $6m annually, and a team offers me a two-year deal worth $12m with a $20m team option and $0 buyout, I'd be just as happy with that deal as I would with a $12m/2 year deal. If the option isn't exercised, my deal is exactly what I wanted anyway: a 2 year $12m deal. If my GM gets drunk and decides to execute the option, then so much the better - I'm $14m better off than I would have expected. But the value of the option itself wouldn't factor into my decision at all. And in my experience, OOTP works the same way (at least in recent versions - it didn't used to). A lot of work has gone into eliminating simplistic exploits with team option years, and I find players dislike team options in contracts.

I'll agree I'd take the contract with the option year in this case BUT the issue is when the FA is comparing 2 contracts. In one, as in your example, requiring the GM to be drunk to exercise the option compared to a third year that isn't optional but pays a guaranteed $10mil. I think I'd lean towards that guaranteed $$ as opposed to hoping my GM has a drinking problem and gives me the $20mil.

I'll admit I don't have a ton of hard examples in front of me but that doesn't mean it isn't a issue to some people. I have seen it done quite a few times.

I have seen many situations similar to this:

1) 3 yr contract: $5mil/$6mil/$20mil Team Option ($0 buyout)
vs
2) 3 yr contract: $5mil/$6mil/$10mil (guaranteed)

And seen the AI Player choose #1 over #2.

I'm not even saying things are broken, they may be acting as planned, but that there is the ability for GMs to game the system. I'd like to see the OPTION to reduce the potential gaming of the system.

Each to his own. If you don't consider that huge option year with $0 buyout gaming the system then things are fine as is. I do consider it gaming the system and would like to see an OPTIONAL way, in game, of controlling it.

[byzeil]

FYI, just ran a fairly simple test in my test league.

Choose 5 free agents and offered them contracts from 3 different teams.

The offers were:

(a) $5mil/$5mil/$5mil/$10mil Team Option ($0 buyout) [Total Value $25mil Guaranteed $15mil]
(b) $5mil/$5mil/$5mil/$5mil [Total Value $20mil Guaranteed $20mil]
(c) $5mil/$5mil/$5mil [Total value $15mil Guaranteed $15mil]

In every case the player signed contract (a).

3 of the players responded during the negotiations to offering teams that team Such'n'Such offered a contract with a total value of $25mil if you would like to match that.

So it APPEARS, in limited testing, that the AI was looking at the team option year as part of the total value and not optional.

Again, may be exactly how it is designed to work and if it works for you that is great. To me it is an opportunity to game the system and I would like the option to not allow that.

[byzeil]

Did one other test with 5 FAs in the same league.

Offered:

(a) $2mil/$2mil/$4.0mil (TO $0 buyout)
(b) $2mil/$2mil/$3.9mil (guaranteed)

And in all 5 cases player signed contract (a). So $4mil guaranteed with a potential additional $4mil for a potential total of $8mil versus $7.9mil guaranteed.

Certainly looks like the AI is looking at the total potential value of the contract and disregarding the Team Options.


Edit: Ran 10 more tests of this scenario. In 6 of them the player took the greater over all value while in 4 they took the guaranteed money. So there is some logic built in.

[nebradska]

I wonder if player personality attributes work into this at all.

[bailey]

Originally Posted by injury log

Do you have any evidence that the team option year makes the player more likely to accept the contract?

Yes, you can even find players who will accept less guaranteed money with a high team option. For example, 2 mil for 3 years will be rejected, but coming back with 1.8 for 3 years and a team option 4th year of 9 mil will be accepted. The key is that the team option year is 5 times the lowest salary of the contract.

Edit: This is for negotiating with your own players, not free agents.

[injury log]

You have to control for two things if you're investigating this: players prefer some teams over others, so will sign with some teams for less, and the order in which a player receives offers matters. If a player likes one offer already, he needs at least a moderately better offer to change his mind. If you haven't controlled for those two things, then your tests may not be telling you what you think they're telling you.

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by injury log

You have to control for two things if you're investigating this: players prefer some teams over others, so will sign with some teams for less, and the order in which a player receives offers matters. If a player likes one offer already, he needs at least a moderately better offer to change his mind. If you haven't controlled for those two things, then your tests may not be telling you what you think they're telling you.

I submitted the offers all at the same time and I submitted them in various orders. Of course player personality may have an effect. As I said it was a simple test.

But I've gotten off track here a bit. I'm not trying to prove/disprove how contracts are chosen by the AI. I'm just advocating that there be an OPTION to require a minimum buyout amount in team option years.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by byzeil

FYI, just ran a fairly simple test in my test league.

Choose 5 free agents and offered them contracts from 3 different teams.

The offers were:

(a) $5mil/$5mil/$5mil/$10mil Team Option ($0 buyout) [Total Value $25mil Guaranteed $15mil]
(b) $5mil/$5mil/$5mil/$5mil [Total Value $20mil Guaranteed $20mil]
(c) $5mil/$5mil/$5mil [Total value $15mil Guaranteed $15mil]

In every case the player signed contract (a).

3 of the players responded during the negotiations to offering teams that team Such'n'Such offered a contract with a total value of $25mil if you would like to match that.

So it APPEARS, in limited testing, that the AI was looking at the team option year as part of the total value and not optional.

Again, may be exactly how it is designed to work and if it works for you that is great. To me it is an opportunity to game the system and I would like the option to not allow that.

Me too. Thanks for doing the work. If people want to have this fine. I'd like the option not as you say above.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by byzeil

Did one other test with 5 FAs in the same league.

Offered:

(a) $2mil/$2mil/$4.0mil (TO $0 buyout)
(b) $2mil/$2mil/$3.9mil (guaranteed)

And in all 5 cases player signed contract (a). So $4mil guaranteed with a potential additional $4mil for a potential total of $8mil versus $7.9mil guaranteed.

Certainly looks like the AI is looking at the total potential value of the contract and disregarding the Team Options.


Edit: Ran 10 more tests of this scenario. In 6 of them the player took the greater over all value while in 4 they took the guaranteed money. So there is some logic built in.

I'm in a couple of leagues where this is a known issue and plenty of similar contracts offered. Most are forced to consider/debate/institute house rules because of the concern of abuse of it.