Suggestion: Trading away players soon after signing them

Mets Man · 02-22-2013, 10:28 PM

One of the things I have been able to exploit in OOTP over the years has been signing whatever guys I want during the free agency period, and then trading them off if necessary (if I happened to overstock on certain guys I don't need).

As a result, I've set a house rule for myself that doesn't allow me to trade any player that I have signed within 1 year. This has made my experience more enjoyable as I have to now think whether I want to take a chance in offering a free agent a contract and be stuck with him.

However, without this house rule, I can just take my chances in signing my my fallback options and then get rid of them afterwards via trade (if I successfully sign my main options).

For example, if I have 3 relievers that I'm interested in getting, but I'm worried I'm not guaranteed to get all of them at the price I want, I usually have 2 or 3 fallback options just in case. However (with the house rule in place), the risk in signing those fallback options is that if I successfully sign one of them - this may hinder me from getting my main options OR at the very least leave me to be stuck with a fallback option I don't need. Without the house rule, I can safely sign all my options (including fallbacks), and wait to see if I sign my main options, and if I do successfully sign my main options, I can easily just trade the fallback options without consequence. Furthermore, I can also sign the fallback option, and then if I need to free up more money to raise the offer on another guy I really want, I can easily dump the recently signed fallback guy's contract via trade without consequence.

My proposal for the new OOTP is to maybe make it so that you can't simply just trade off guys who you've recently signed. Perhaps somebody can see what the stats are on how many players have been traded within the first year of a new contract signed in real life. I can't imagine there are too many cases. First of all, trading a guy during his first year of a contract would cause distrust to the GM doing this, possibly hurting his reputation with other players in future dealings. Secondly, not many teams would actually want a player that was just recently signed because otherwise they would have signed him themselves in the first place since they were just a free agent. Why lose a player in a trade to get this guy now when they could have gotten the same player without giving up any assets via free agency?

I'm not sure what the best way to implement this would be, but as an example - Front Office Football made it such that whenever you tried to trade a player in the first year of his new contract, it would give a message saying "The team is not interested in trading for a player who has recently signed a new contract". This dialogue message appeared whenever trying to trade a player on the first year of a new deal, I believe.

Mets Man · 02-22-2013, 10:31 PM

Also, with this house rule, it seems to put more risk into signing free agency as it should be. Without the house rule, I'm never afraid to commit to a contract because I always know I can trade them off later whenever I want to. I feel there is no consequence to signing a free agent as a result.

I think there needs to be more fear and thought put into whether signing a free agent is worth the financial commitment. As it is now in the game's current state; I feel like there is no real commitment. If I sign a guy to a contract and he busts during the year or doesn't meet my expectations, I can usually get rid of him and rid myself of any financial commitment.

I feel like this isn't how it works in real life.

The Wolf · 02-23-2013, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mets Man

I feel like this isn't how it works in real life.

You should perhaps read Seth Mnookin's book Feeding The Monster.

The Game · 02-23-2013, 02:35 AM

Mets while i don;t have that house rule, i dop try not to trade away someone i just signed in the off season, but it does happen on occasion. I have a MR who the season prior had a 1.87 ERA 45 IP 22 H 45 K 18 BB. i signed him to a 2 yr 1.7 mil per deal. When I traded him May 19th of my current season, he was 0-5 25IP 43H 12 K 19 BB. I practically gave him away. I trade a lot.

Sweed · 02-23-2013, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mets Man

One of the things I have been able to exploit in OOTP over the years has been signing whatever guys I want during the free agency period, and then trading them off if necessary (if I happened to overstock on certain guys I don't need).

As a result, I've set a house rule for myself that doesn't allow me to trade any player that I have signed within 1 year. This has made my experience more enjoyable as I have to now think whether I want to take a chance in offering a free agent a contract and be stuck with him.

However, without this house rule, I can just take my chances in signing my my fallback options and then get rid of them afterwards via trade (if I successfully sign my main options).

For example, if I have 3 relievers that I'm interested in getting, but I'm worried I'm not guaranteed to get all of them at the price I want, I usually have 2 or 3 fallback options just in case. However (with the house rule in place), the risk in signing those fallback options is that if I successfully sign one of them - this may hinder me from getting my main options OR at the very least leave me to be stuck with a fallback option I don't need. Without the house rule, I can safely sign all my options (including fallbacks), and wait to see if I sign my main options, and if I do successfully sign my main options, I can easily just trade the fallback options without consequence. Furthermore, I can also sign the fallback option, and then if I need to free up more money to raise the offer on another guy I really want, I can easily dump the recently signed fallback guy's contract via trade without consequence.

My proposal for the new OOTP is to maybe make it so that you can't simply just trade off guys who you've recently signed. Perhaps somebody can see what the stats are on how many players have been traded within the first year of a new contract signed in real life. I can't imagine there are too many cases. First of all, trading a guy during his first year of a contract would cause distrust to the GM doing this, possibly hurting his reputation with other players in future dealings. Secondly, not many teams would actually want a player that was just recently signed because otherwise they would have signed him themselves in the first place since they were just a free agent. Why lose a player in a trade to get this guy now when they could have gotten the same player without giving up any assets via free agency?

I'm not sure what the best way to implement this would be, but as an example - Front Office Football made it such that whenever you tried to trade a player in the first year of his new contract, it would give a message saying "The team is not interested in trading for a player who has recently signed a new contract". This dialogue message appeared whenever trying to trade a player on the first year of a new deal, I believe.

If anything was done the bold part would be the way to fix this issue IMHO. I've suggested many times that the trade module should have a "GM reputation" that can be positive or negative depending on how reliable a trader you are. Make unrealistic offers trying to screw the AI-GM will result in that AI-GM having a lower chance of making any deals with you, etc.

This same thing could be brought into player dealings. Screw too many FA over and other FA are going to be reluctant to sign with your club.

I would not want a hard rule in place that would not allow me to trade a recently signed player. Too me just not realistic as there is always the chance the guy is just, legitimately, not working out and my option to try to rectify that situation shouldn't be taken away.

Not sure I'd put this high on my priority list as it is a user issue and easily controlled. I would guess a hard rule would be easy to code, though I wouldn't want it. The more complex GM reputation would take more time and testing and IMHO not worth the effort for the "sign and trade FA" issue. Just my 2 cents.

blasek0 · 04-11-2013, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mets Man

I feel like this isn't how it works in real life.

In real life, a player can't be traded without his consent within something like 60 or 90 days of signing a contract.

Draftees can't be traded for 1 year after signing. For a real world example as it relates to draftees, look at Tyler Skaggs in the Dan Haren trade sending him from AZ to LAA. He was the centerpiece of the package going to AZ, but wasn't yet eligible to be traded, so was included as a PTBNL.

Cras · 04-11-2013, 12:11 PM

there are a few little things that MLB has when it comes to long term deals. I thought it was 60 days you had to wait until you can trade a guy you just signed to a long term deal. Then if a guy is traded in the middle of a long term deal, he can then demand to be traded from the new team. Not so sure if that is still a rule, but it used to be, Javier Vasquez comes to mind after he was traded from the Yankees to the D-backs, he then demanded to be traded and so they moved him to the White Sox.

The game does have the rookie draft limit, which really is important to have otherwise that would be a massive cheese move right there, let some poor slob of a club dish out the signing bonus and then you can come in and poach him.

Le Grande Orange · 04-11-2013, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cras

I thought it was 60 days you had to wait until you can trade a guy you just signed to a long term deal.

I'm not aware of any such rule, now or in the past, though perhaps I have missed it. There is a rule which states a player signed as a free agent for the next season cannot be traded without his consent prior to June 15th of that next season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cras

Then if a guy is traded in the middle of a long term deal, he can then demand to be traded from the new team. Not so sure if that is still a rule, but it used to be,

The ability to demand a trade when traded during a multi-year contract was added in the 1976 CBA. This right was eliminated starting with the 2007 CBA.

Cras · 04-11-2013, 12:23 PM

I might be getting that 60 day rule confused with the NBA....but I thought there was something like that in MLB......

meh, I tend to be wrong about these things so I will defer.

02-22-2013, 10:28 PM	#1
Mets Man Major Leagues Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 336	Suggestion: Trading away players soon after signing them One of the things I have been able to exploit in OOTP over the years has been signing whatever guys I want during the free agency period, and then trading them off if necessary (if I happened to overstock on certain guys I don't need). As a result, I've set a house rule for myself that doesn't allow me to trade any player that I have signed within 1 year. This has made my experience more enjoyable as I have to now think whether I want to take a chance in offering a free agent a contract and be stuck with him. However, without this house rule, I can just take my chances in signing my my fallback options and then get rid of them afterwards via trade (if I successfully sign my main options). For example, if I have 3 relievers that I'm interested in getting, but I'm worried I'm not guaranteed to get all of them at the price I want, I usually have 2 or 3 fallback options just in case. However (with the house rule in place), the risk in signing those fallback options is that if I successfully sign one of them - this may hinder me from getting my main options OR at the very least leave me to be stuck with a fallback option I don't need. Without the house rule, I can safely sign all my options (including fallbacks), and wait to see if I sign my main options, and if I do successfully sign my main options, I can easily just trade the fallback options without consequence. Furthermore, I can also sign the fallback option, and then if I need to free up more money to raise the offer on another guy I really want, I can easily dump the recently signed fallback guy's contract via trade without consequence. My proposal for the new OOTP is to maybe make it so that you can't simply just trade off guys who you've recently signed. Perhaps somebody can see what the stats are on how many players have been traded within the first year of a new contract signed in real life. I can't imagine there are too many cases. First of all, trading a guy during his first year of a contract would cause distrust to the GM doing this, possibly hurting his reputation with other players in future dealings. Secondly, not many teams would actually want a player that was just recently signed because otherwise they would have signed him themselves in the first place since they were just a free agent. Why lose a player in a trade to get this guy now when they could have gotten the same player without giving up any assets via free agency? I'm not sure what the best way to implement this would be, but as an example - Front Office Football made it such that whenever you tried to trade a player in the first year of his new contract, it would give a message saying "The team is not interested in trading for a player who has recently signed a new contract". This dialogue message appeared whenever trying to trade a player on the first year of a new deal, I believe.

04-11-2013, 12:11 PM	#7
Cras Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: LEO Posts: 3,789	there are a few little things that MLB has when it comes to long term deals. I thought it was 60 days you had to wait until you can trade a guy you just signed to a long term deal. Then if a guy is traded in the middle of a long term deal, he can then demand to be traded from the new team. Not so sure if that is still a rule, but it used to be, Javier Vasquez comes to mind after he was traded from the Yankees to the D-backs, he then demanded to be traded and so they moved him to the White Sox. The game does have the rookie draft limit, which really is important to have otherwise that would be a massive cheese move right there, let some poor slob of a club dish out the signing bonus and then you can come in and poach him. __________________ The Chicago White Sox 1906, 1917, 2005 World Series Champions 1900, 1901, 1906, 1917, 1919, 1959, 2005 American League Champions 2000, 2005, 2008 American League Central Division Champions 1983, 1993 American League West Division Champions OOTP \| Orbiter \| SSMS \| FSX \| LoL \| MLP:FIM!

04-11-2013, 12:23 PM	#9
Cras Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: LEO Posts: 3,789	I might be getting that 60 day rule confused with the NBA....but I thought there was something like that in MLB...... meh, I tend to be wrong about these things so I will defer. __________________ The Chicago White Sox 1906, 1917, 2005 World Series Champions 1900, 1901, 1906, 1917, 1919, 1959, 2005 American League Champions 2000, 2005, 2008 American League Central Division Champions 1983, 1993 American League West Division Champions OOTP \| Orbiter \| SSMS \| FSX \| LoL \| MLP:FIM!

02-22-2013, 10:31 PM	#2
Mets Man Major Leagues Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 336	Also, with this house rule, it seems to put more risk into signing free agency as it should be. Without the house rule, I'm never afraid to commit to a contract because I always know I can trade them off later whenever I want to. I feel there is no consequence to signing a free agent as a result. I think there needs to be more fear and thought put into whether signing a free agent is worth the financial commitment. As it is now in the game's current state; I feel like there is no real commitment. If I sign a guy to a contract and he busts during the year or doesn't meet my expectations, I can usually get rid of him and rid myself of any financial commitment. I feel like this isn't how it works in real life.

02-23-2013, 02:35 AM	#4
The Game Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Inside The Game Posts: 30,937	Mets while i don;t have that house rule, i dop try not to trade away someone i just signed in the off season, but it does happen on occasion. I have a MR who the season prior had a 1.87 ERA 45 IP 22 H 45 K 18 BB. i signed him to a 2 yr 1.7 mil per deal. When I traded him May 19th of my current season, he was 0-5 25IP 43H 12 K 19 BB. I practically gave him away. I trade a lot.