Online League Free Agency: Let's Improve It - Page 3

Bluenoser · 08-22-2012, 04:30 PM

BTW - just for general interest - the last patch added an option to edit future budgets, so that's something else you could tinker with.

SandMan · 08-22-2012, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buane

I think we've gotten a little sidetracked, too.

What the problem IS: handful of players who price themselves out of free agency by rejecting offers the entirety of the league deem reasonable, instead of accepting the offer if it's the best offer they get.

What is determining what the league feels is reasonable? You could then low-ball every FA using the argument that the league feels is reasonable. Again it is the supply and demand theory. More money available = More money the FA wants, even if they are not worth it. What you are asking for could blow up in your face with all the GMs not offering legitimate contracts knowing that the player will accept some offer, not necessarily a reasonable contract.

Buane · 08-22-2012, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SandMan

What is determining what the league feels is reasonable? You could then low-ball every FA using the argument that the league feels is reasonable. Again it is the supply and demand theory. More money available = More money the FA wants, even if they are not worth it. What you are asking for could blow up in your face with all the GMs not offering legitimate contracts knowing that the player will accept some offer, not necessarily a reasonable contract.

That's not how the free market works at all. A player is worth what the other GMs will pay him. If, in the new theoretical system, a GM is making lowball offers, he'll be outbid by his fellow GMs until the price for the player reaches the representation of the market.

And to make sure the other GMs have time to do that, I already said it's probably a good idea that if your offer is really that far off the player's demand, the longer the player will wait before he agrees to it.

Buane · 08-22-2012, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

BTW - just for general interest - the last patch added an option to edit future budgets, so that's something else you could tinker with.

If it were a budgetary problem this would help (although, this feature DOES help in other areas and when it was added I was appreciative). The issue I'm talking about is a sanity problem, in that particular players are asking for demands a GM would have to be insane to even come close to.

I just want Free Agents in my league to be able to sign at the price that the GMs are willing to pay for them. I don't think this is unreasonable. There are players that my GMs want to sign, want to pay money to, but the game literally does not allow them to. I think this is an issue, and the solution I proposed is non-intrusive and logical.

Le Grande Orange · 08-22-2012, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buane

If, in the new theoretical system, a GM is making lowball offers, he'll be outbid by his fellow GMs until the price for the player reaches the representation of the market.

Unless there is collusion, that is. In that instance GMs can then control wages by working together to keep offers low.

Buane · 08-22-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Unless there is collusion, that is. In that instance GMs can then control wages by working together to keep offers low.

In the real world where owners are interested in millions of dollars of profit this is a thing that could happen. What chance is there that this would take place in a fake baseball league where competition with your fellow GMs is the alpha and the omega?

Unless you were just looking to inject a little humor into a thread that got a tad heated for a second there

McExpos · 08-22-2012, 05:17 PM

Look, I'll drop the fake troll act here for a moment.

People are making the argument that the problems that we've outlined are realistic, because they happen once every couple of years. Never mind happening four or five times per offseason, but let's grant the premise and say, yes, these things do happen.

Furthermore, the argument seems to be that, because something happens (thanks, Magnolia kid!), it should be part of the system. So commissioners who disagree are presented with a false dichotomy - either accept the realism of the event, or demonstrate an iron fist in financial management so that it won't happen in the game. In other words, error on the side of realism, or error on the side of fantasy.

Why, then, are we stuck with the game making determinations about how real or fantastical our finances should be? I assure you that Buane has put way more time and energy into the finances of the league than most, but even if you don't believe that, even if you believe that Buane is riding his naive or irresponsible league right over the cliff, Thelma and Louise style, shouldn't he be allowed to adjust the finances to better reflect his "vision" of the league? There shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all fix for the league, there should be customization options that will allow many different styles of play. So that the game can provide those with an eye towards solo play, or league play, or historical play, with plenty of options. OOTP loses nothing by giving a bit more creative control, and gains everything.

I'm sorry, but when you say, "That's just the way it is, and either learn to deal with it or change your league," then that's a disincentive for me to continue being part of the OOTP community.

stevew · 08-22-2012, 05:28 PM

I have seen problems like this in free agency for the majority of my time in online leagues. I wish there was merely a setting for "maximum length" of free agent offers/demands. I think that would probably fix a lot of problems. I find that not many would pause to spend an excess on a player for 4-5 years, but when you get out to 8 year demands, it just isn't going to happen.

Also, the fact there there still isn't anything more than an "all or nothing" buyout setting is crippling if a player tanks with 4+ years left on his deal. Find a way that I can trade him while assuming X dollars per year and have this reflected on my budget . Or allow me to cut him and allocate his dollars in a manner other than straight up release. I'm looking at Cliff Lee absolutely sucking with 63million left on his contract in my league. I suppose I can let him burn out and waste a roster spot for the next 2 years, but it would be nice if there was a way to get rid of him now and allocate the dollars over the next couple years(as per how his contract reflects).

Buane · 08-22-2012, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

I think your solutions are nothing more than trying to add more complexity to an already complex game. That's just my opinion. I respect yours but disagree.

Maybe I wrote too many words so it seems like I'm proposing something very complicated. If that's the case then please just tell me which of the following two systems is more complex:

Option 1: A free agent accepts the best offer made to him during Free Agency.

Option 2: A free agent begins the Free Agent period with a particular window within which the value of an offered contract must fall before it qualifies for his consideration. As Free Agency continues, this window migrates to a lower threshold, however previous offers that would have fallen within future windows still do not qualify as they were made at a time when the window threshold was greater than the offered contract. The free agent accepts the best offer that was made to him above his particular threshold at a particular time during the free agency period.

griffeyin98 · 08-22-2012, 05:54 PM

we haven't made the switch to 13 yet (doing it after this season) but it's pretty routine in our league for players to sign for less than what they initially wanted. We even had one player this year Joey Devine who was 33, with a history of injuries coming off 3 straight 200+ innings, and 200+ k's (2 years at 250+) and wanted 22 million per for 7 years from me as an extension the year before. He came into free agency requesting 23 for 7 which obviously nobody is going to pay into a pitchers age 40 season, and sat there for a while with some low ball offers. I had offered 40/4 and he said it was too low, but I knew he didn't have anything higher. I removed my offer for another offer and he ended up signing for 3 years, 11 million total. So just because they ask for something doesn't mean they're going to get it.

I do wish the game was smart enough that he didn't ask for 22 per from me when we have a 125 million cap and I had 15 million in space.

Bluenoser · 08-22-2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McExpos

Look, I'll drop the fake troll act here for a moment.

People are making the argument that the problems that we've outlined are realistic, because they happen once every couple of years. Never mind happening four or five times per offseason, but let's grant the premise and say, yes, these things do happen.

Furthermore, the argument seems to be that, because something happens (thanks, Magnolia kid!), it should be part of the system. So commissioners who disagree are presented with a false dichotomy - either accept the realism of the event, or demonstrate an iron fist in financial management so that it won't happen in the game. In other words, error on the side of realism, or error on the side of fantasy.

Why, then, are we stuck with the game making determinations about how real or fantastical our finances should be? I assure you that Buane has put way more time and energy into the finances of the league than most, but even if you don't believe that, even if you believe that Buane is riding his naive or irresponsible league right over the cliff, Thelma and Louise style, shouldn't he be allowed to adjust the finances to better reflect his "vision" of the league?

There shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all fix for the league, there should be customization options that will allow many different styles of play. So that the game can provide those with an eye towards solo play, or league play, or historical play, with plenty of options. OOTP loses nothing by giving a bit more creative control, and gains everything.

I'm sorry, but when you say, "That's just the way it is, and either learn to deal with it or change your league," then that's a disincentive for me to continue being part of the OOTP community.

The option for him to adjust the finances to better reflect his vision of the league, is already in the game. It isn't one size fits all. You just seem to be dead set on ignoring these facts.

Bluenoser · 08-22-2012, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buane

Maybe I wrote too many words so it seems like I'm proposing something very complicated. If that's the case then please just tell me which of the following two systems is more complex:

Option 1: A free agent accepts the best offer made to him during Free Agency.

Option 2: A free agent begins the Free Agent period with a particular window within which the value of an offered contract must fall before it qualifies for his consideration. As Free Agency continues, this window migrates to a lower threshold, however previous offers that would have fallen within future windows still do not qualify as they were made at a time when the window threshold was greater than the offered contract. The free agent accepts the best offer that was made to him above his particular threshold at a particular time during the free agency period.

Option 1 obviously. Option 2 adds a boatload of unneeded complexity, especially when you consider the fact that what you claim to be broken isn't broken.

stevew · 08-22-2012, 06:13 PM

This just happened last year, with default rosters in our league. Shane Victorino, despite an injury plagued season(98 games) holds firm that he wants about 22million for 7 years from my team for an extension. I laugh at this. Then he is somehow labeled a compensation free agent, so I offer him the qualifying offer. He turns that down, which i'm assuming is a 1 year 12million dollar-ish offer.

He heads into FA with his insane demands(140m+), gradually keeps reducing them to where they eventually drop into the 5 years and 12million dollar range. Not bad, not good, but probably where they should have been. I briefly consider signing him at that point, but I'm tight on money. Eventually in late March he gets and signs a 1 year 6.5million dollar deal from someone willing to give up a pick. Even though people way overrate picks IMO.

Anyways, stuff like this happens too much. Guys way overrate their abilities and their demands are insane. Eventually they settle for like 1/20th of their demands and we move on.

So instead of me maybe extending him for 4@12m, which I probably would have done, I now have all this extra money sitting around. With nothing to do with it, this magnifies the excess cash equals inflated demand problem for future generations of players.

Buane · 08-22-2012, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Option 1 obviously. Option 2 adds a boatload of unneeded complexity, especially when you consider the fact that what you claim to be broken isn't broken.

Option 1 is what I'm proposing. Option 2 is how the game currently works.

TPinrose · 08-22-2012, 06:19 PM

I play online.

The problem here is too much money available to the GMs. Can't get around that. I suggest making changes slowly over several seasons to get it where you like it. Heck, the game is more fun when money is tight.

The one issue that is a problem is players signing before receiving an alternate offer. Online leagues usually try to move faster in the offseason. As one of my commissioners says: "That just means you need to make a serious offer." And that's true. I'm quicker to offer what I am willing to pay now, so I barely notice the problem anymore.

Bluenoser · 08-22-2012, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buane

Option 1 is what I'm proposing. Option 2 is how the game currently works.

No, what you're proposing is a whole lot of complexity that isn't required. Why can't you use the tools already available to get the settings you want?

Option 2 is certainly not how it works now.

stevew · 08-22-2012, 06:45 PM

How are people running online free agency in version 13? I typically run in 1 week increments through the end of december, and then move towards 2 week chunks in January. It seems like the better players will sign near the league meetings, but after that it is kind of a crapshoot.

olivertheorem · 08-22-2012, 08:31 PM

Would not a potential compromise have the players "pick" a salary level (from the financial setup), notifying GMs (online, solo, and AI) roughly how they expect to be compensated within that specified financial structure, and let the offers made take it from there? I think it would be somewhat better, seeing as you wouldn't know that, say 7/140m would land a guy. Just brainstorming here.

Isryion · 08-22-2012, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buane

I think we've gotten a little sidetracked, too.

What the problem is NOT: players looking for too much money in Free Agency because of too much cash on hand. Whether or not this makes sense can be debated in a different thread.

What the problem IS: handful of players who price themselves out of free agency by rejecting offers the entirety of the league deem reasonable, instead of accepting the offer if it's the best offer they get.

IMO, "problem IS" and "is NOT" are very much related. While I'd agree that they should, at some point, accept the best offer, with the remaining money teams have there's no reason for the game engine to think that's a final offer. Obviously I don't have exact details for the situation, so it is somewhat of a guess.

Jontler · 08-22-2012, 09:31 PM

Not to take things too far off the rails, but another aspect of free agency that is broken is the infamous "I favor another team that's really you" email, followed by the quick-sign. Observe:

Note: I am the Spectres.
Note 2: 2/4/2029, one day after the weird email to me, he signs with the Vikings.

Let the firestorm of controversy commence!

(But seriously, this is hardly an edge case)

08-22-2012, 05:17 PM	#47
McExpos Bat Boy Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 14	Look, I'll drop the fake troll act here for a moment. People are making the argument that the problems that we've outlined are realistic, because they happen once every couple of years. Never mind happening four or five times per offseason, but let's grant the premise and say, yes, these things do happen. Furthermore, the argument seems to be that, because something happens (thanks, Magnolia kid!), it should be part of the system. So commissioners who disagree are presented with a false dichotomy - either accept the realism of the event, or demonstrate an iron fist in financial management so that it won't happen in the game. In other words, error on the side of realism, or error on the side of fantasy. Why, then, are we stuck with the game making determinations about how real or fantastical our finances should be? I assure you that Buane has put way more time and energy into the finances of the league than most, but even if you don't believe that, even if you believe that Buane is riding his naive or irresponsible league right over the cliff, Thelma and Louise style, shouldn't he be allowed to adjust the finances to better reflect his "vision" of the league? There shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all fix for the league, there should be customization options that will allow many different styles of play. So that the game can provide those with an eye towards solo play, or league play, or historical play, with plenty of options. OOTP loses nothing by giving a bit more creative control, and gains everything. I'm sorry, but when you say, "That's just the way it is, and either learn to deal with it or change your league," then that's a disincentive for me to continue being part of the OOTP community. __________________ Rising Star League Pittsburgh Eagles Championships - 2015, 2017, 2019, 2024 Playoffs - 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028 Last edited by McExpos; 08-22-2012 at 05:18 PM.

08-22-2012, 06:13 PM	#53
stevew Minors (Double A) Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 125	This just happened last year, with default rosters in our league. Shane Victorino, despite an injury plagued season(98 games) holds firm that he wants about 22million for 7 years from my team for an extension. I laugh at this. Then he is somehow labeled a compensation free agent, so I offer him the qualifying offer. He turns that down, which i'm assuming is a 1 year 12million dollar-ish offer. He heads into FA with his insane demands(140m+), gradually keeps reducing them to where they eventually drop into the 5 years and 12million dollar range. Not bad, not good, but probably where they should have been. I briefly consider signing him at that point, but I'm tight on money. Eventually in late March he gets and signs a 1 year 6.5million dollar deal from someone willing to give up a pick. Even though people way overrate picks IMO. Anyways, stuff like this happens too much. Guys way overrate their abilities and their demands are insane. Eventually they settle for like 1/20th of their demands and we move on. So instead of me maybe extending him for 4@12m, which I probably would have done, I now have all this extra money sitting around. With nothing to do with it, this magnifies the excess cash equals inflated demand problem for future generations of players. Last edited by stevew; 08-22-2012 at 06:16 PM.

08-22-2012, 04:30 PM	#41
Bluenoser Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In The Moment Posts: 13,680	BTW - just for general interest - the last patch added an option to edit future budgets, so that's something else you could tinker with.

08-22-2012, 05:28 PM	#48
stevew Minors (Double A) Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 125	I have seen problems like this in free agency for the majority of my time in online leagues. I wish there was merely a setting for "maximum length" of free agent offers/demands. I think that would probably fix a lot of problems. I find that not many would pause to spend an excess on a player for 4-5 years, but when you get out to 8 year demands, it just isn't going to happen. Also, the fact there there still isn't anything more than an "all or nothing" buyout setting is crippling if a player tanks with 4+ years left on his deal. Find a way that I can trade him while assuming X dollars per year and have this reflected on my budget . Or allow me to cut him and allocate his dollars in a manner other than straight up release. I'm looking at Cliff Lee absolutely sucking with 63million left on his contract in my league. I suppose I can let him burn out and waste a roster spot for the next 2 years, but it would be nice if there was a way to get rid of him now and allocate the dollars over the next couple years(as per how his contract reflects).

08-22-2012, 05:54 PM	#50
griffeyin98 Major Leagues Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 311	we haven't made the switch to 13 yet (doing it after this season) but it's pretty routine in our league for players to sign for less than what they initially wanted. We even had one player this year Joey Devine who was 33, with a history of injuries coming off 3 straight 200+ innings, and 200+ k's (2 years at 250+) and wanted 22 million per for 7 years from me as an extension the year before. He came into free agency requesting 23 for 7 which obviously nobody is going to pay into a pitchers age 40 season, and sat there for a while with some low ball offers. I had offered 40/4 and he said it was too low, but I knew he didn't have anything higher. I removed my offer for another offer and he ended up signing for 3 years, 11 million total. So just because they ask for something doesn't mean they're going to get it. I do wish the game was smart enough that he didn't ask for 22 per from me when we have a 125 million cap and I had 15 million in space.

08-22-2012, 06:19 PM	#55
TPinrose Minors (Double A) Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 199	I play online. The problem here is too much money available to the GMs. Can't get around that. I suggest making changes slowly over several seasons to get it where you like it. Heck, the game is more fun when money is tight. The one issue that is a problem is players signing before receiving an alternate offer. Online leagues usually try to move faster in the offseason. As one of my commissioners says: "That just means you need to make a serious offer." And that's true. I'm quicker to offer what I am willing to pay now, so I barely notice the problem anymore.

08-22-2012, 06:45 PM	#57
stevew Minors (Double A) Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 125	How are people running online free agency in version 13? I typically run in 1 week increments through the end of december, and then move towards 2 week chunks in January. It seems like the better players will sign near the league meetings, but after that it is kind of a crapshoot.

08-22-2012, 08:31 PM	#58
olivertheorem All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,919	Would not a potential compromise have the players "pick" a salary level (from the financial setup), notifying GMs (online, solo, and AI) roughly how they expect to be compensated within that specified financial structure, and let the offers made take it from there? I think it would be somewhat better, seeing as you wouldn't know that, say 7/140m would land a guy. Just brainstorming here.

08-22-2012, 09:31 PM	#60
Jontler Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 36	Not to take things too far off the rails, but another aspect of free agency that is broken is the infamous "I favor another team that's really you" email, followed by the quick-sign. Observe: Note: I am the Spectres. Note 2: 2/4/2029, one day after the weird email to me, he signs with the Vikings. Let the firestorm of controversy commence! (But seriously, this is hardly an edge case)