Star Players Signing Extensions - e.g. Harper/Machado

[schreck]

So one of the things I came into this game really excited about was the Great Free Agent Tsunami of the post 2018 season (yes I'm a Yankee fan and looking forward to getting crazy )

I've simmed through the 2017 season twice now, and in both cases, Harper and Machado each signed contract extensions right at the start of the 2017 season. No way either of them do that, especially for what they signed for in the game.

Harper did a 7 year $151 (around $22 mill/season) million extension, which is probably a few years and $200-$300 million short if current speculation is to be believed.

Machado went for 6 years and $126 million, also way off if a guy like Chris Davis can blow that deal away.

Hell, after 2017 I had Arrieta and Cueto demanding over $30 million a season for 7-8 years, so I know the cpu isn't shy about demanding big money.

Since it's happened a few times, I'm assuming I'm not the only one seeing it. Am I crazy for being annoyed by this? Any way to adjust how that kind of thing works? I know I can go in and be commissioner, so maybe that's the way, was just hoping I wouldn't have to be that way to shape things for my will.

[eriqjaffe]

Well, what players want and what they get is different. Just look at this past real life off-season. Anybody think that Edwin Encarnacion would go for 3/$30?

[wallewalls]

Yup it's annoyed me even though I play as the A's and can't afford them anyway. Harper didn't sign a 7 year extension, I think it was a 3 year extension, so we went to free agency anyway (signed with the Blue Jays of all teams) and he didn't get anywhere near the money he should, i think his peak salary is around 28 mil but I cant recall off the top of my head. Trout also signed an extension that'll keep him in Anaheim for a long time, not sure about Machado.

[Orcin]

The computer does not know names and reputations. It only knows bits of data. The bits of data may not satisfy your pre-conceived notions, however logical they may be. This is why many of us play fictional leagues.

[schreck]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The computer does not know names and reputations. It only knows bits of data. The bits of data may not satisfy your pre-conceived notions, however logical they may be. This is why many of us play fictional leagues.

I totally get that, but both of them are rated 65 or 75 for almost every important tool. They are both 24ish years old and set up for FA within 2 seasons. The 'bits of data' should clearly be set up for guys/data like that to go to free agency.

For example, Cueto and Arrieta both went to FA after 2017 in my case. They both started with demands around $22-25 million per year for 7-8 years, which I think is realistic. I offered them both their demand. Each came back with higher offers from other teams. I upped mine, they both came back again with higher offers. Finally at least one of them was asking for something like $32 million/year long-term and I was out, but that was fun.

That is exactly the way I would expect 2 young stars to behave, whether they are bits of data or not, my preconceived notions aren't the point, the skills of the players and the way baseball plays out is. Just takes a little away from the experience is all I'm saying. Hoping the devs can find a way to account for guys like that with generational talent that should go to free agency at a young age.

Or at least if they take an extension, it is close enough to as big as could reasonably be expected on the market. If they had signed for $250 million+, I wouldn't be so whiny .

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The computer does not know names and reputations. It only knows bits of data. The bits of data may not satisfy your pre-conceived notions, however logical they may be. This is why many of us play fictional leagues.

Unless these guys declined, they are in their prime superstars who are some of the best players in the game. They absolutely shouldn't be signing for less than 28M a year when they're a year away from FA.

[WIUPIKE]

I think this has to do with inflation to. I believe the game does not calculate future inflation unless you add that option.

This is a thought it may very well be wrong though.

[Habsfan18]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Unless these guys declined, they are in their prime superstars who are some of the best players in the game. They absolutely shouldn't be signing for less than 28M a year when they're a year away from FA.

Well, it's still better than what the free agent AI was like last year before Matt fixed it.

I'd MUCH rather see star position players sign for 5 years at 22 million per rather than sign for 1 year and 10 million during the first week of the season..which was what was happening before because their demands were so outrageous that teams were staying away and by the time they finally lowered their demands teams no longer had any money left.

[SFGiantsFan]

This makes me think I got really lucky because I saw Machado hit free agency and his demand was only a bit under 16 million and I dropped him somewhere around 6 yr/93m and surprisingly he signed after a few weeks. I moved him back to SS and I haven't looked back. Harper signed an extension sadly so I couldn't pair them together, but then my lineup would probably be too deadly.

I mean I'm sure the AI doesn't think like this, but I'm sure there's some hometown discount in there or taking a pay cut to play for a title and sometimes those cheaper deals have early opt-outs so the player can capitalize on a quick increase in pay and get into free agency again.

[r0nster]

the amount a player demands as salary depends on its level of greed and loyalty

[Orcin]

Exactly. There are multiple variables at play.

[The Yurpman]

Harper signed the exact same extension in my game. 7 years, $151 million.