Are Players in OOTP too Eager to Re-Negotiate?

[PSUColonel]

Most good players in MLB usually always view Free Agency as their long-waited for "pay-day" and are therefore more often than not going to test/play the free agency market in an effort to attract the best contract they can. (most money). Now, obviously sometimes other factors come into play such as geography, or the fact a player might not want to move on etc...I get it. It definitely happens...but I am just pointing out that in OOTP, it doesn't seem to mirror real life, and therefore also takes some of the challenge out of the game.

Currently on my roster I have Zack Efflin (I am just using this as an example) and he has better than average ratings. He is rated a 55 overall by my scout, although he's cold and not performing well at the moment. That will likely change however.

Anyway, I decided to go see what it would take to re-sign him so that he won't hit free agency, and he wants a 4 year extension worth $50.8 M. The average salary per year comes out to $12.7 M.

Now, I don't think that's bad money, (but this is without me negotiating down) but don't you think a player like this would probably want to see what he could command on the open market?

Another thing that the developers could take note of is that there is zero feedback during or before negotiations. Things such as "player wants to stay close to home area" or "player wants to test his value on the open market" or "player is very happy with current club but is not willing to give a discount" etc....you get the idea..the ideas here are limitless....but it would give you an idea going into negotiations what it is that's important to the player. I think that would be very realistic. but I digress....

The main point of this thread is that some of the "challenge" could be lessened by players being too eager to re-negotiate rather than testing the free agent market.

Any thoughts?

[MathBandit]

I tend to agree with the overall point that it seems players might be too willing to give up FA, especially when they're close. Seems like generally IRL unless the player gets a mega-deal a year or two from FA and takes it, they either lock in early to secure the bag when FA is ages away, or bet on themselves once they're a year or two away.

A decent baseline might be tying the average player's willingness to give up FA years to how many years of control the team has left. Maybe a player who won't hit FA for 5 years is willing to give up 3 of those FA years to get paid 5 years early, but by the time he's a year or two away he expects basically market value to sign early.

For players entering their last year of Arb specifically, it seems to be the case IRL that the only 'discount' the team gets on a deal is exclusive negotiating rights- the player still expects to more-or-less get a market-rate FA deal a year early (including the expected arb salary for year 1), and the team gets to pay market rate for their star and not risk a bidding war. Seems like in OOTP the team also often gets a discount even if they're only taking on 1 year of arb-risk.

[Sweed]

My counter would be the AI does a much better job of extending it's players. This gives the human less chances to take advantage during FA.

Maybe they could tweak it so the human player has a harder time than the AI but, what are the consequences? Complaints of "I couldn't extend my guy and then he signed for much less money with an AI team?" A lot of that has been cleaned up over the last few versions. We need to be very careful to not bring it back.

I've been fairly impressed when I go through league transactions at the deals the AI makes to keep their up and coming players. The biggest weakness, IMHO, is the AI may not be taking into account a player's injury history as much as it should. AI will tend to give mega contracts to "wrecked" players that, maybe, it shouldn't. To be fair these guys are huge stars in my league and sometimes it works out. Not sure the best answer as unintended consequences, on this issue, too could go both ways.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Sweed

My counter would be the AI does a much better job of extending it's players. This gives the human less chances to take advantage during FA.

Maybe they could tweak it so the human player has a harder time than the AI but, what are the consequences? Complaints of "I couldn't extend my guy and then he signed for much less money with an AI team?" A lot of that has been cleaned up over the last few versions. We need to be very careful to not bring it back.

I've been fairly impressed when I go through league transactions at the deals the AI makes to keep their up and coming players. The biggest weakness, IMHO, is the AI may not be taking into account a player's injury history as much as it should. AI will tend to give mega contracts to "wrecked" players that, maybe, it shouldn't. To be fair these guys are huge stars in my league and sometimes it works out. Not sure the best answer as unintended consequences, on this issue, too could go both ways.

I hear ya and agree I wouldn't want to break something in an attempt to improve things, but I still think this is very much worth discussing. The truth is, only the developers' know the underlying reasons for why things the way they are, but this (to me anyway) seems like something that could be tweaked without too much trouble, and hopefully without negative consequences. If done properly, I feel it's something that could vastly help make signing/re-signing players a bit more realistic as well as challenging.

[eriqjaffe]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Currently on my roster I have Zack Efflin (I am just using this as an example) and he has better than average ratings. He is rated a 55 overall by my scout, although he's cold and not performing well at the moment. That will likely change however.

Anyway, I decided to go see what it would take to re-sign him so that he won't hit free agency, and he wants a 4 year extension worth $50.8 M. The average salary per year comes out to $12.7 M.

IRL Eflin just signed a 3-year, $40m contract with Tampa Bay. It's back-loaded but still an AAV of $13.3m per year. So seems like OOTP has it pretty much nailed down.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by eriqjaffe

IRL Eflin just signed a 3-year, $40m contract with Tampa Bay. It's back-loaded but still an AAV of $13.3m per year. So seems like OOTP has it pretty much nailed down.

I’m not contending the salary…the fact is Efflin tested the FA market knowing the Phillies have two prospects coming up (Painter, Abel) the point I am making is he would have not tested the market in OOTP.

The way I think it should probably work is the FA players should probably make outlandish demands from their current teams and/or they just refuse to sign because they want to go on the FA market (or some combination of these two)

[Hrycaj]

I don’t have much to add to this conversation as most of my saves never get out of the reserve clause era. However, I do have a question for you guys. Is it possible to let a player walk and then re-sign him? I’m thinking like a current Aaron Judge situation where there is a chance he goes back to the Yankees. I seem to remember that if you let a guy walk he wouldn’t ever negotiate with you again. Am I wrong about that? Or has it changed?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Hrycaj

I don’t have much to add to this conversation as most of my saves never get out of the reserve clause era. However, I do have a question for you guys. Is it possible to let a player walk and then re-sign him? I’m thinking like a current Aaron Judge situation where there is a chance he goes back to the Yankees. I seem to remember that if you let a guy walk he wouldn’t ever negotiate with you again. Am I wrong about that? Or has it changed?

It is possible…which is exactly what got me thinking about this. It’s just way too easy for the human player to extend contracts to players who are about to hit FA. It’s my opinion most of these players (at least the higher rated ones) should be usually optimistic ng for FA. For one I think it’s more realistic, and two, it creates more of a challenge to keep players who SHOULD be looking for a payday.

Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous Ghost]

Originally Posted by Hrycaj

I don’t have much to add to this conversation as most of my saves never get out of the reserve clause era. However, I do have a question for you guys. Is it possible to let a player walk and then re-sign him? I’m thinking like a current Aaron Judge situation where there is a chance he goes back to the Yankees. I seem to remember that if you let a guy walk he wouldn’t ever negotiate with you again. Am I wrong about that? Or has it changed?

I think what you're describing used to be the case many years ago. But for a while now, FA will negotiate with their old team and without any sort of penalty, as far as I can tell.

You'll usually get a much better deal with a player if you sign an extension before he reaches FA, even if it's just a day before FA opens. I think that's because the game uses an algorithm for a player valuing himself in the abstract, but once he's in FA the game takes into account supply and demand. The market dynamics tend to push players' salaries above what the algorithm projects their worth at.

One possible fix would be to have some sort of increase in the player's last year of control above what the algorithm calculates their value at. That is, a player will only sign the extension if he's getting more than what the AI projects as his market value. It could escalate the closer the player gets to FA. IDK.

[Chimaera]

We have a house rule in TGS just for this very reason that prevents players traded mid-season from signing extensions until they hit FA at the end of the year (assuming they would have been free agents at that point). It prevents teams from passing players around until they sign an extension with one.

The AI around contract negotiations in general needs a ton of work though.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Ghost

I think what you're describing used to be the case many years ago. But for a while now, FA will negotiate with their old team and without any sort of penalty, as far as I can tell.

You'll usually get a much better deal with a player if you sign an extension before he reaches FA, even if it's just a day before FA opens. I think that's because the game uses an algorithm for a player valuing himself in the abstract, but once he's in FA the game takes into account supply and demand. The market dynamics tend to push players' salaries above what the algorithm projects their worth at.

One possible fix would be to have some sort of increase in the player's last year of control above what the algorithm calculates their value at. That is, a player will only sign the extension if he's getting more than what the AI projects as his market value. It could escalate the closer the player gets to FA. IDK.

This sounds like a good suggestion to me....if in fact this is what's taking place. Only the developers know for sure, and they don't seem very willing to talk about things like this lately.

[jimmysthebestcop]

ZenGm has a player mood algorithm that governs signing and resigning

[Pelican]

I can report only limited success (admittedly a small sample size) signing talented young players to extended contracts, before they reach free agency. And I think this mirrors IRL behavior. There are exceptions, but most guys seemingly cannot resist seeing what arbitration will yield, or what free agency could bring in terms of offers. The player agents of course encourage this. I gather the players (and the AI) figure they can always go back and negotiate a new deal with their teams, if they find they can’t do better. That temptation to test the market is irresistible. Makes it hard to lock up young players, even when they are several years from a big payday.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I can report only limited success (admittedly a small sample size) signing talented young players to extended contracts, before they reach free agency. And I think this mirrors IRL behavior. There are exceptions, but most guys seemingly cannot resist seeing what arbitration will yield, or what free agency could bring in terms of offers. The player agents of course encourage this. I gather the players (and the AI) figure they can always go back and negotiate a new deal with their teams, if they find they can’t do better. That temptation to test the market is irresistible. Makes it hard to lock up young players, even when they are several years from a big payday.

So your experience is that players outright tell you they are testing the FA market and refuse to sign extensions? If that's the case, that's really great! What types of players are these? Are they the better/more talented players?

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

So your experience is that players outright tell you they are testing the FA market and refuse to sign extensions? If that's the case, that's really great! What types of players are these? Are they the better/more talented players?

Yes and yes. I would target the guys who had strong rookie years, ideally a solid sophomore season, and offer long-term deals. So, the option for them was to make lots more money in the next few years, but potentially less than they might attract as free agents, if they stayed healthy and continued to perform and maybe improve. But these were five to seven year deals, so they could still look forward to a big payday around age thirty or so. Seems to me like the best of both worlds - financial security and stability now and the chance for more in the future. Of course, as GM, I wanted to lock them in and avoid the unpredictability of arbitration and free agency. (I don’t think the owner was enamored with the idea of paying way more than we had to, in the pre-arb and pre-free agency years, LOL.). Invariably they would turn me down, at least on the first offer. Sometimes we would get into a negotiation; but often they would simply say not interested, presumably at any price. (Maybe they saved me from myself. The Phillies offered such a deal to Scott Kingery, who took it, before playing a game in MLB. They are still paying him to sit the bench in AAA.)

[PSUColonel]

What about players who are hitting unrestricted FA for the first time? You know the players who are 28, 29, 30, 31 years old? This is going to be their major pay day, and these are the players I feel that should be insisting on testing the free agent market. There’s probably no way they sign a re-negotiated deal with their current clubs without at least dipping their toe in the water.

What I fear is that these players give a discount to their current club when renegotiating before they hit FA.

[Pelican]

I have not seen the current club discount (again, in a small sample size of only a few seasons and offseasons with modern rules). And you’re right, for those guys, the chance of a stupendous offer is more than enough reason to wait and see.

I have on occasion received (as GM) received a PM from a current player approaching FA, wanting to negotiate. But invariably those guys are not stars and may not be having great years. They would have doubts about free agency. And they may be guys I’m reluctant to commit to, even at a discount.