Front Loading a Contract

[Gai1997]

Do you guys ever do this? As the Yankees and currently rebuilding with little payroll tied up, I've given out 4 contracts with 30m in the first 2 years and then around 5m in like the last 3 years. This makes my financials extremely flexible in the final years of the contract.

Just handed out a 10 year extension to my all-star 1B, and it goes like this:

40m
30m
20m
5m
5m
5m
5m
5m
5m
5m

Those first 2 years I won't be contending, but those last 7 years I hopefully will be contending and he'll be 5m! What do you guys think about this strategy?

[ra7c7er]

I'm really hoping you just aren't trolling.

As for the contract it's an exploit that gamers have been doing to sports games since before madden used the madden name. Front loading contracts is one thing but to that extreme is near obvious fleecing the AI.

As a human player you'll fleece the AI constantly with contracts like that. The game will have zero fun for you down the road and you'll be posting up here that the game is to easy. Been there posted on those threads already.

Not trying to get on you but even you have to know that is completely unrealistic.

[kingcharlesxii]

I like to frontload contracts a bit but this is far too much to be realistic. However, play it how you want, that's the fun of OOTP.

[DustinthePOWERHOUSE]

I thought the game didn't structurally allow you to do things like this? Seems like a cheap exploit to me.

[MBarrett]

Total and complete exploit. Use a house rule like most online leagues, no single season can be +/- 50% of any other single season.

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by MBarrett

Total and complete exploit. Use a house rule like most online leagues, no single season can be +/- 50% of any other single season.

Dang 50%. One of the great things about OOTP is making up the rules but even 50% is easily an exploit against AI. In an online league with everyone under the same rules it's ok but we're talking about AI here.

a 50% drop is actually more then what the OP posted.

[MBarrett]

Originally Posted by ra7c7er

Dang 50%. One of the great things about OOTP is making up the rules but even 50% is easily an exploit against AI. In an online league with everyone under the same rules it's ok but we're talking about AI here.

a 50% drop is actually more then what the OP posted.

Maybe I worded it wrong. But 50% meaning if he offers $40M in year 1, no other season can be less than $20M.

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by MBarrett

Maybe I worded it wrong. But 50% meaning if he offers $40M in year 1, no other season can be less than $20M.

Oh, ok, I thought you meant like this.

40
20
10
5

You're way sounds fair for a human vs. human league. Still, IMO, a big drop if you were using it against the AI.

I personally, against the AI, don't alter contracts at all besides subtracting/adding years and adding options. The AI can't adjust dollars amounts in contracts so I don't either. Back when I did alter contracts I kept it to 10% up or down per year no more then 25% total.

[MBarrett]

Originally Posted by ra7c7er

I personally, against the AI, don't alter contracts at all besides subtracting/adding years and adding options. The AI can't adjust dollars amounts in contracts so I don't either.

I do the exact same thing in solo leagues but I thought that might be too drastic of a limitation for the OP based on his post.

[Winnipeg59]

Any player (let alone All-Star calibre)...
Of any age (with the possible exception of someone say 40+)...
And at any point in their career (the original post only says All-Star, but the younger, the worse this is)...

...when offered a contract like that in the original post, should immediately break off negotiations and refuse to ever talk further!

That way your only control over the player would be for either the remainder of his arbitration years or the remainder of his current contract (unless you trade him of course)...period.

And your in-game reputation should also immediately change to "snake-oil peddler" (whether that's top or bottom of the scale used)!

If this is happening in 16, I had hoped they made progress in the negotiating process. I see they clearly have some more work to do. While it will never be "perfect" or "human", in my opinion, it could be a bit more realistic.

These dudes need a better agent!



Oh, and one more thing...the YANKEES should be hard-coded to "Win Now!"
"George is gettin' angry"!!!

[ezpkns34]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg59

Any player (let alone All-Star calibre)...
Of any age (with the possible exception of someone say 40+)...
And at any point in their career (the original post only says All-Star, but the younger, the worse this is)...

...when offered a contract like that in the original post, should immediately break off negotiations and refuse to ever talk further!

That way your only control over the player would be for either the remainder of his arbitration years or the remainder of his current contract (unless you trade him of course)...period.

And your in-game reputation should also immediately change to "snake-oil peddler" (whether that's top or bottom of the scale used)!

If this is happening in 16, I had hoped they made progress in the negotiating process. I see they clearly have some more work to do. While it will never be "perfect" or "human", in my opinion, it could be a bit more realistic.

These dudes need a better agent!



Oh, and one more thing...the YANKEES should be hard-coded to "Win Now!"
"George is gettin' angry"!!!

While I agree that extreme front-loading like in OP is gaming the system, to pretend that real life players wouldn't prefer 90% of their contract up front is ludicrous to me

Teams back load contracts because it's beneficial for the team to defer expenses while getting immediate returns from the player's in-game output

You think if Washington told Scherzer "We've got extra budget room these next 3 seasons, so we're gonna have to offer you $42M per season over the first 3 years of our offer, but then we'll have to only offer you $22M per for the following 3 seaons & end it with a $17M season...we're sorry we have to give you a ton of money up front like that" that Scherzer & his agent would immediately get up, walk out of the room & refuse to return any calls?

Because I think Scherzer would've been just fine with getting more up front

Is it realistic to offer majorly front-loaded deals? Nope, but it's b/c the front offices are adverse to offering them, not at all b/c the players would prefer getting most of the money deferred when inflation makes that $40M a decade from now worth less than $40M today is worth (not even including the up front salaries' worth in better investment opportunities). A player has zero incentive to turn down a front loaded deal

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by ezpkns34

While I agree that extreme front-loading like in OP is gaming the system, to pretend that real life players wouldn't prefer 90% of their contract up front is ludicrous to me

Teams back load contracts because it's beneficial for the team to defer expenses while getting immediate returns from the player's in-game output

You think if Washington told Scherzer "We've got extra budget room these next 3 seasons, so we're gonna have to offer you $42M per season over the first 3 years of our offer, but then we'll have to only offer you $22M per for the following 3 seaons & end it with a $17M season...we're sorry we have to give you a ton of money up front like that" that Scherzer & his agent would immediately get up, walk out of the room & refuse to return any calls?

Because I think Scherzer would've been just fine with getting more up front

Is it realistic to offer majorly front-loaded deals? Nope, but it's b/c the front offices are adverse to offering them, not at all b/c the players would prefer getting most of the money deferred when inflation makes that $40M a decade from now worth less than $40M today is worth (not even including the up front salaries' worth in better investment opportunities). A player has zero incentive to turn down a front loaded deal

That's not true. Teams offer front loaded deals to older veteran players all the time. The typical way of contracts are young players get back-loaded deals, middle ball aged players tend to get flatter contracts, and veteran players get front loaded deals. Their is no one right way to do it BUT you have to be reasonable about it.

[BMD]

Just last night I had a player (Andrelton Simmons) send me an email in the final year of his contract asking for an extension. I went to offer contract to see what he was looking for and he wanted a heavily fronted loaded contract. I have never seen a contract like that requested. Since a player can ask for one, I assume the AI could sign someone to one.

[rstoomeyii]

Originally Posted by MBarrett

Total and complete exploit. Use a house rule like most online leagues, no single season can be +/- 50% of any other single season.

just curious, do you think this is a huge exploit? Playing with the Red Sox i had Yoan Moancada become a super 2 arb guy. Offered an 8 year deal. 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, 17.5, 20, 22.5, 25

[Raidergoo]

Let's do a couple of things.
1) Sight unseen, I stipulate all the facts are accurate. I stipulate that you are the Yankees GM, that your 1B is an All-Star, that you signed him to a 10 year extension, and at the extension values cited.

2) Let's divide this contract into two parts, a three year deal and a seven year deal.

The first contract is 3/90m. The average value is $30 million a season. WAR values a win at $6 million a season. This indicates that the player should get a WAR of 5 a year, 15 overall. Here is a composite stat line from AL first basemen, 2012-2014

Year	      G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	         OBP	SLG	         OPS	OPS+	TB	GDP	HBP	SH	SF	IBB
2012	154	670	607	85	173	50	0	30	105	8	1	52	76	0.285	0.343	0.516	0.859	138	313	19	5	0	6	16
2013	137	600	518	84	160	38	2	30	103	4	0	76	88	0.309	0.395	0.564	0.959	159	292	21	1	0	5	27
2014	159	685	611	101	191	52	1	25	109	1	1	60	117	0.313	0.371	0.524	0.895	147	320	21	3	0	11	10

Pretty good? The WAR scale says an All-Star player will get a 5.0 or higher score. Three All Star seasons that look like that is surely worth $90 million. Looks like he is fairly paid.

There is the second deal. It is 7/35m, an average of $5 million a year. That means he's not quite worth 1 WAR a season.

Once a player peaks, WAR declines about .5 per season. A 5.0 player today should expect to accumulate 21 additional WAR over the next 7 seasons. You paid him for 6. You are getting a surplus of 15 WAR, or $55 million.

But, let's look at it some more. He's getting his money up-front. That $90 million is in his bank account, earning compound interest. You are assuming the risk now that he declines in a predictable and orderly manner, that he's going to deliver something between 6 to 21 WAR. If he ages like Ryan Howard? You're going to be writing five million dollar checks to a hunk of junk.

The only way you win this deal is if he ages well.

That's a heck of a risk you've assumed.

[MKG1734]

More curiously, Raidergoo, your point raises an interesting question from the OOTP side of things:

WAR values a win at $6 million a season

Once a player peaks, WAR declines about .5 per season

These two statements are true based on real-life statistical analysis. 1-WAR is worth approx. $6MM/season, and the average decline is 0.5 WAR/season after peak is reached.

The question with regard to OOTP, though... has anyone studied how much $$ 1-WAR is worth in OOTP (using default settings for modern day)? Does anyone have this breakdown?

Furthermore, we can see if OOTP is correctly aging players (default settings) by determining if the average WAR declines 0.5/season from peak.

Has anyone run these tests, yet?

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by BMD

Just last night I had a player (Andrelton Simmons) send me an email in the final year of his contract asking for an extension. I went to offer contract to see what he was looking for and he wanted a heavily fronted loaded contract. I have never seen a contract like that requested. Since a player can ask for one, I assume the AI could sign someone to one.

Yeah I get those every once in a while. Nearly 100% it happens with high loyalty low greed players who are aging and on the decline. The first year is right at the same amount of their last contract and then they want "league average" or somewhere similar.

I found a pattern with it. I think the game is trying to bring in a mechanic where older player would rather stay on a team then hit FA. Nearly every time I've let one of these types of players go their FA demand is the same or very close to the second year of the salary from the extension contract. Kind of like they want one more year of the big contract and then are willing to take less.

[gentlemanofleisure]

Hello Ilya Kovalchuk!

2010-11: $6 million
2011-12: $6 million
2012-13: $11 million
2013-14: $11.3 million
2014-15: $11.3 million
2015-16: $11.6 million
2016-17: $11.8 million
2017-18: $10 million
2018-19: $7 million
2020-21: $4 million
2021-22: $1 million
2022-23: $1 million
2023-24: $1 million
2024-25: $3 million
2025-26: $4 million

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by gentlemanofleisure

Hello Ilya Kovalchuk!

2010-11: $6 million
2011-12: $6 million
2012-13: $11 million
2013-14: $11.3 million
2014-15: $11.3 million
2015-16: $11.6 million
2016-17: $11.8 million
2017-18: $10 million
2018-19: $7 million
2020-21: $4 million
2021-22: $1 million
2022-23: $1 million
2023-24: $1 million
2024-25: $3 million
2025-26: $4 million

Yeah that contract was considered illegal and even admitted by team personnel only a way to get around the salary cap. Not a good example of anything except for cheating.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by ezpkns34

Is it realistic to offer majorly front-loaded deals? Nope, but it's b/c the front offices are adverse to offering them, not at all b/c the players would prefer getting most of the money deferred when inflation makes that $40M a decade from now worth less than $40M today is worth (not even including the up front salaries' worth in better investment opportunities). A player has zero incentive to turn down a front loaded deal

You hit the nail on the head. It may be an unrealistic exploit that someone probably shouldn't use (though it's their game), but what would be more unrealistic is a player turning a contract down due to front-loading and getting more money "now."

In terms of house rule restraint it makes sense to limit oneself to MBarrett's suggestion that the cheapest year of a contract (be it front-loaded or back-loaded) should be at least 50% of the value of the most expensive year. A big exception would be if the player asks for the differential himself, in which case it's okay to use the same ratio the player offered.