Ridiculous contract negotiations

[tonnage]

Has anybody else experienced this? I tried a search but can't find anything. I'm about 50 games into my sim and one of the things my owner asked me to do was sign Marcus Semien so I thought it was time. His first ask was $19 million over 6 years, which I thought wasn't too bad but still a little longer than I would like based on his age. So I countered with a 5 year deal at $19 million for the first 3 years, then $18 million and finally $17 million with a team option for the final year. I then bumped up his potential bonuses considerably, like $1 million if he was MVP, $500,000 for the allstar game etc. His response was a counter offer of $27.7 million over 6 years, completely ridiculous. He went from $19 mil to $27.7 mil after just one offer. I went back and offered his original request of 6 years and $19 million per because it was an owner request to sign the guy. Semien then cut off negotiations. I find this to be quite unrealistic and will probably now get fired LOL! Is this a bug with the system, or simply a one-off?

[KBLover]

Originally Posted by tonnage

His first ask was $19 million over 6 years, which I thought wasn't too bad but still a little longer than I would like based on his age. So I countered with a 5 year deal at $19 million for the first 3 years, then $18 million and finally $17 million with a team option for the final year. I then bumped up his potential bonuses considerably, like $1 million if he was MVP, $500,000 for the allstar game etc. His response was a counter offer of $27.7 million over 6 years, completely ridiculous. He went from $19 mil to $27.7 mil after just one offer. I went back and offered his original request of 6 years and $19 million per because it was an owner request to sign the guy. Semien then cut off negotiations. I find this to be quite unrealistic and will probably now get fired LOL! Is this a bug with the system, or simply a one-off?

I don't know but I just saw this in my online league (at least there it "never happened" since that's not included in exports).

I don't know if this happens because we totally tick the player off (I'm guessing if he broke negotiations) but it really seems strange.

[Autumn_Lion]

Tonnage, I've been playing in a fictional online league for years, and the problem you described has been plaguing us FOREVER. The negotiating process is messed up. Just the other day I had a similar situation. A player who was up for a contract extension asked me for 3 years at $7 million per year, with a player option after the second year. I hate player options, so I countered by saying fine, you can have the money, but no player option. There were three logical responses he could have made: (1) OK, I'll take it. (2) No dice, I've got to have my player option. (3) If I give up my player option I want an extra million bucks. Did he respond with any of these logical options? No, he countered by saying that he wanted a 3-year deal with a player option, and now he wanted $7.3 million a year. Sheesh. That is NOT how contract negotiations should work.

[Brad K]

Asking for additional money over his first demand is a players way of saying he thinks you're way off on your offer. IOW, "If you want to act silly, I can too". This is not unrealistic behavior.

[Dave Stieb II]

It is an entirely unrealistic reaction for simply agreeing to the player's request less one year of term.
Not saying the player should agree, but it is an irrational, nonsensical, extreme counter from him or his agent.

[Autumn_Lion]

It is definitely nonsensical. Let me repeat, in case I didn't make it clear in my earlier post, that I didn't make the initial offer. I basically went to the player and said, "OK, what do you want?" He said three years at $7 million per year with a player option. I agreed to the money and just wanted to make all three years guaranteed; I didn't want him to have the option to walk away after the second year. Then he came back wanting the player option PLUS some extra money. That is not reasonable. We weren't talking about money at that point, we were negotiating the player option. Then suddenly the player refuses to negotiate that option and demands more money on top of it. That's not a realistic simulation of a contract negotiation. It's a bug that needs to be fixed.

[Carplos]

I'm failing to see how a player asking for more money to drop one of his requests is unrealistic.

With a player option, if he goes out and has an MVP year, he can decline the option and become a FA. He should ask for more money to guarantee all 3 years.

If anything about it is poor, it's that he only asked for an extra 300k.

[tonnage]

I'm not sure about this. I've seen it happen far too often where the player counters well beyond what his original ask was. Which is quite ridiculous by my estimation. It appears to be poor bargaining on the players behalf. The player's original ask should include room to move. In real life, players ask for the moon and generally settle for less. Not ask for less and then shoot for the moon.

[nbsingapore]

Originally Posted by tonnage

Has anybody else experienced this? I tried a search but can't find anything. I'm about 50 games into my sim and one of the things my owner asked me to do was sign Marcus Semien so I thought it was time. His first ask was $19 million over 6 years, which I thought wasn't too bad but still a little longer than I would like based on his age. So I countered with a 5 year deal at $19 million for the first 3 years, then $18 million and finally $17 million with a team option for the final year. I then bumped up his potential bonuses considerably, like $1 million if he was MVP, $500,000 for the allstar game etc. His response was a counter offer of $27.7 million over 6 years, completely ridiculous. He went from $19 mil to $27.7 mil after just one offer. I went back and offered his original request of 6 years and $19 million per because it was an owner request to sign the guy. Semien then cut off negotiations. I find this to be quite unrealistic and will probably now get fired LOL! Is this a bug with the system, or simply a one-off?

If a player is unreasonable like that and ends up breaking off negotiations (which surely happens next after their demands get more absurd), let them continue to test the market and often times they will come back and offer to take the last offer you submitted if it was reasonable (as it sounds like yours was).

I have been able to retain some guys by letting them into the FA pool after negotiations, negotiating again, letting it break off, and then have them come back later on during FA as well as gotten great deals in FA with this approach.

[Kronos]

I've found talking to a player while games are being played causes this to happen a lot more, I only talk extensions before or after the season.

[hluraven]

I had this, but way worse. Player wanted 90 over 6. I countered with 84 over 6. He then jumped to 300 over 6!

But then the kicker, he wouldn't budge from that, even when I offered him more than the 90 he started on. Got to be a bug.

[Meeko]

I had one the other day I was looking to re-sign. He opened negotiations at 5yrs, 15m per.

The player is solid, I like him and can afford that, I felt it was fair. Met demand.

A couple days later he sends me an ingame mail telling me I'm "way off". New proposal is
8 yr, 27.5m per. No offense, but I only accepted what you put down. Don't offer it if you aren't willing to sign it. Wastes everyone's time.

[Scottiedog43]

With all do respect Tonnage
That’s not a in game bug....I mighta bugged (no pun intended) you things didn’t go the way you wanted
That’s how contract negotiations go my friend

[Ace1234NY]

Yeah I see that too. I get maybe the player raising the demand if your counter is insultingly bad. But what happens in this game is the demand gets increased pretty much anytime the player doesn't accept your first offer. Even if you're only off by a small amount.

[clamel]

Originally Posted by hluraven

I had this, but way worse. Player wanted 90 over 6. I countered with 84 over 6. He then jumped to 300 over 6!

But then the kicker, he wouldn't budge from that, even when I offered him more than the 90 he started on. Got to be a bug.

Could it be so that the player just don't like this or that club. The game might have something built in that hasn't been revealed.
FM got some things like this. Some players just don't like some clubs or other players. Can't sign them for any amount.
I do believe it has been talked about many years ago that some rivalry between clubs (as in FM) should be in the game.
If a player bump up salary demands from the "set" numbers he have when you first check it might be this or if it's a bug lets regard it as he just don't like to play for your club. No matter what you give him. Perhaps player attitude or whatever.
IDK, but would love to find out.

[Dave Stieb II]

I don't think it's a bug, it's just poor programming. Been this way since I started with OOTP16.
There are many times when posters come to the defence of OOTP and rightfully so. Unfortunately, some do it no matter the subject, no matter the validity of the OP, often with a smug rejection of any critcism.
Every. Single. Time.
In those cases, where it appears little consideration is given to the details of the subject, they simply become apologists.
Some of the examples cited above are definitely NOT the way real contract negotiations work.
IRL when an initial player proposal is countered with a reasonable counter-offer by the club, the two sides 'finagle', sometimes narrowing the scope of the differences and sometimes reaching an impasse. Negotiations can go back and forth several times, but usually stay close to the original player proposal.
Too often (almost all the time) in OOTP, a slight adjustment in the counter - like reducing one year of term or making it a club option - results in some absurd new proposal from the player that bares no resemblance to the original offer.
That does not happen IRL. Sorry.
Not suggesting the player has to accept the club's counter, but staying within reasonable range of the orginal proposal is a must to reflect real life.

[Autumn_Lion]

Originally Posted by Dave Stieb II

I don't think it's a bug, it's just poor programming. Been this way since I started with OOTP16.
There are many times when posters come to the defence of OOTP and rightfully so. Unfortunately, some do it no matter the subject, no matter the validity of the OP, often with a smug rejection of any critcism.
Every. Single. Time.
In those cases, where it appears little consideration is given to the details of the subject, they simply become apologists.
Some of the examples cited above are definitely NOT the way real contract negotiations work.
IRL when an initial player proposal is countered with a reasonable counter-offer by the club, the two sides 'finagle', sometimes narrowing the scope of the differences and sometimes reaching an impasse. Negotiations can go back and forth several times, but usually stay close to the original player proposal.
Too often (almost all the time) in OOTP, a slight adjustment in the counter - like reducing one year of term or making it a club option - results in some absurd new proposal from the player that bares no resemblance to the original offer.
That does not happen IRL. Sorry.
Not suggesting the player has to accept the club's counter, but staying within reasonable range of the orginal proposal is a must to reflect real life.

Amen. You hit it on the head, Dave Steib II. Your take is exactly right. The way the players "negotiate" in OOTP is often just absurd, and certainly not realistic to the way real-life negotiations are handled. It's a long-standing problem which needs to be corrected.

[wallewalls]

I feel like the initial demands have been more reasonable in the last couple of versions as opposed to earlier ones, so most of the time I end up just accepting the player's first offer just so I don't have to get into these weird situations where their second demand is nowhere close to the initial one.

[tonnage]

Originally Posted by wallewalls

I feel like the initial demands have been more reasonable in the last couple of versions as opposed to earlier ones, so most of the time I end up just accepting the player's first offer just so I don't have to get into these weird situations where their second demand is nowhere close to the initial one.

That alone is reason enough to ask for change from the developers. We should be able to negotiate in good faith and that those we are negotiating with are equally respective. Bargaining contracts is one of the enjoyable aspects of OOTP. It bothers me that it's tantamount to walking in a mine field and not knowing when one might go off!

[Anyone]

The system is messed up. The player doesn't bargain rationally, trying to work out a deal. Unless an offer is so low it's truly insulting, the player should at worst come back with his original offer, essentially saying, "This is what I'll sign for, take it or leave it."

And that should be rare.

I've had players ask for, say, 1 year, $7 million. I want them for longer, and realize that they prefer 1 year, which is why they asked for it, so know I'll have to offer more than $7 million to get a 3 year deal...so I might come back with, say, 3 years, averaging $8.4 million/year.

What should usually happen then is, if the player doesn't like that offer, he should come back with 3 years at what it would take to get him for that long, maybe average $9.5 million/year...or offer 2 years averaging $8.4 million ("Okay, you were willing to offer me that to sign for 3 years...that's too long, but I'll do it for 2"-- or 3 years but the last is a player option).

The most common response is 1 year, $8.4 million, which the logic doesn't have the player think "Okay, what might this GM agree to?" If he offered 1 year for $7 million and I countered offering more per year to get him for multi-years, I'm not going to agree to 1 year for the premium I was only willing to pay to get him for 3 years.

If that was his bottom line he should just go to that.

I will say I've always, as far as I remember, with a player on my team, been able to go back to his original demand and he'll take it, and usually I can shave maybe 10% off his original demand and he'll take that, if it's the number of years he wanted.

It's really hard to get players to sign different lengths than they asked for, especially those only wanting one year (note that some are tied to my team through arbitration for those 3 years, so those always ought to be willing to sign for 3 years at some level, at least as long as it's more than they expect they'd get in arbitration over those 3 years.

And in that case if I offer 3 years they should respond for 3 years, though at a level they think will profit for them over what they expect they'd get if those 3 years they went to arbitration.

Even in other cases, they should come back with "Okay, you want 3 years, here's what it would take." I should have to pay more of course, for not meeting their preferred length, but they should be working toward an agreement in that way.