Entrenched players

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

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.

That's true enough for the Yankees. What about small-market teams? If the player's greedy enough, he's not going to care about being loyal to the team, and if another team offers more money, he's out of there. Look at Carl Crawford or Jason Giambi - two marquee players who ultimately refused to re-sign with their franchises because a big-market team offered them much more money.

Speaking as someone from the Boston area, a lot of people were actually UNHAPPY that David Ortiz has been constantly re-signed and re-signed. There are plenty of people who would have been fine with seeing him chase the money elsewhere.

I'm not saying that what you claim isn't true in a lot of cases. But it's not a steadfast rule.

[nyy26wc]

Maybe there's another option here. Maybe the AI could trade an "entrenched player", subject to commissioner's approval. The user would get a personal message asking for approval of the trade.

I would be able to say OK, the Braves would never have traded Jones under other circumstances, but looking at what the Cardinals are offering, the Braves not only couldn't turn it down, but their fans would have accepted that deal. But, we'd also have an option where we can look at a deal and say there is just no way that the fans would have accepted that offer, even though that is really all he can bring back in a trade when looking at OOTP ratings.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

That's true enough for the Yankees. What about small-market teams? If the player's greedy enough, he's not going to care about being loyal to the team, and if another team offers more money, he's out of there. Look at Carl Crawford or Jason Giambi - two marquee players who ultimately refused to re-sign with their franchises because a big-market team offered them much more money.

Those are good real world examples of players who didn't end up being entrenched to their teams. I wouldn't use the entrenched player option on them.

One of the keys to the entrenched player feature would be user's discretion.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

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.

Upon further thought, I can accept the arguments against permanent entrenchment are pretty good.

I do like the idea of limiting it to the duration of his current contract. But, maybe also have the user get an end of the season message saying the following players have had their entrenched player feature expire: ___, ____, ...

Then, the user would be able to exert discretion on who to continue the entrenchment under a new contract and who to let it lapse and just let OOTP world be OOTP world.

[Matt Arnold]

I think there needs to me more weight when valuing a player with their local popularity, and that value should fluctuate heavily. It should start out as low for anyone who starts out with a new team, but have a few more points to it:
-The longer he is with the team, the more it goes up.
-The better he does with a team, it goes up

And then certain players (the entrenched ones) should basically have that be when their popularity maxes out, and at that point, the team should basically treat them with reverence. Now, it shouldn't completely overrule everything - I mean, I'm sure if 2 years ago LA went and offered Trout to the Braves for Jones, they would likely have to pull the trigger on that. But barring an offer that ridiculous, they should not be movable. Even to the point of basically having the owner "veto" the transaction.

I've had players where to me I followed this strategy. I stuck with them through their contracts. My only flaw was occasionally when they got to be 37, 38, clearly on the decline, but they still want like 15-20M per year. Had they wanted 10, maybe I would sign them. But they wanted too much, so I let them walk. But that's true in some real life cases too - BB it hasn't been as much, but I know in hockey you always get those guys who are lifers with one team, and then play out their last year or 2 with someone else.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

Those are good real world examples of players who didn't end up being entrenched to their teams. I wouldn't use the entrenched player option on them.

One of the keys to the entrenched player feature would be user's discretion.

And we're back to this just being a variation of historical transactions.

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

Upon further thought, I can accept the arguments against permanent entrenchment are pretty good.

I do like the idea of limiting it to the duration of his current contract. But, maybe also have the user get an end of the season message saying the following players have had their entrenched player feature expire: ___, ____, ...

Then, the user would be able to exert discretion on who to continue the entrenchment under a new contract and who to let it lapse and just let OOTP world be OOTP world.

That's acceptable, even though I personally wouldn't want to get those e-mails. Ultimately, I like the idea as a general concept, but I feel like it creates some logistical issues that are tough to hammer out. And unless those can be solved, I doubt it would be worth the effort to put in a feature that is, at the end of the day, just a spin-off of historical transactions.