OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post - OOTP10 Suggestions: Player and Staff Contracts

Le Grande Orange · 12-07-2008, 12:23 AM

SUGGESTION

Better support and recreation of the reserve clause era in terms of player contracts and team finances.

REASON

Right now, there is relatively little support for recreating the reserve clause era in the game's financial aspects. You can turn off free agency, but that's not really sufficient. The reserve clause era requires several additional aspects to be implemented in order for it to be more authentic to that era and more interesting and challenging to the OOTP user.

PRIORITY

Medium/High.

The Suggestion in Detail

In terms of player contracts, the three main aspects of the reserve clause era which would need to be included in OOTP would be: 1) player hold-outs; 2) different termination pay provisions; and 3) contract lengths, renewals, and incentives; and 4) player sales.

Player hold-outs. These are an important item. In the reserve clause era, the team had the right to impose a new salary should the player and team not be able to agree on one. The player's only option at that point was to either accept the new salary or become a hold-out. While long hold-outs were rare, there were cases of players holding for thirty days or more of the season, and a few even sat out the entire season. Having to deal with a hold-out would add an interesting twist for the user, though of course the AI regarding contract demands and whether to hold out and for how long would need to be balanced well.

Termination pay provisions. Differences in how these operated meant it was much less costly for a team to release a player during the reserve clause era. Before 1947, when a player was released during the regular season he only received 10 days (1/18th of the season) severance pay; if released during the off-season or spring training he received nothing. From 1947-1970 a player released during the regular season got 30 days (1/6th of the season) termination pay; he still got nothing if cut during the off-season or spring training.

Starting in 1972, players received, for the first time, severance pay if cut during spring training: they got 30 days (1/6th of the season) pay. If they were released during the regular season before May 15th they got 60 days (1/3rd of the season) severance pay; and if released after May 15th they received the entire year's remaining pay. By 1990, with free agency well-established, players still under the reserve clause (i.e. those not yet eligible for free agency) recieved 30 days (1/6th of the season) pay if cut during the off-season and first half of spring training; 45 days (1/4 of the season) severance pay if cut during the second half of spring training; and their full season's salary if released during the regular season. Free agents, with guaranteed contracts, were of course entitled to their full contract amounts if released.

The above thus shows that, during the reseve clause era, releasing a player was far less costly, in financial terms, compared to the free agency years, thus making it much easier to cut a player and bring in someone else.

Contract lengths, renewals, and incentives. Nearly all contracts during the reserve clause era were for one year; only rarely were multi-year contracts offered. As a result, this means that players and clubs renegotiated their contract each year, though of course the club had the huge advantage of being able to impose a new salary should there not be an agreement. For OOTP purposes, the AI governing these negotiation should be simpler and quicker than that for the free agency era, but there should be a few players who prove troublesome to deal with, thus raising the possibility of having to impose a salary and risk triggering a hold-out.

In terms of incentives, one incentive used, particuarly in earlier years, was waiving the termination pay clause. Removing this turned the contract into a one-year guaranteed contract. So, for example, a player in 1925 who had this clause removed meant that if he was released during the season, instead of only getting 10 days severance pay, he got the rest of his salary for the season. Other incentive clauses used during the reserve clause era included bonus money for the club exceeding a stated attendance number, the team finishing at or above a specified position in the league, at achieving certain performance goals (e.g. wins for pitchers, batting average for hitters). Incentive clauses more similar to today's, such as for winning certain awards or playing in a specified number of games, were also used.

Player sales. These were very common in the reserve clause era. Major league and minor league players were often sold only for cash rather than traded, particularly by teams needing to raise some quick cash. Some clubs made a handsome profit by selling their excess players to other organizations. Buying a player, rather than trading for him, offered a different way of acquiring a desired or needed player.

12-07-2008, 12:23 AM	#21 (permalink)
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Scheduleslovakia Posts: 9,847 Thanks: 2 Thanked 1,010x in 586 posts	SUGGESTION Better support and recreation of the reserve clause era in terms of player contracts and team finances. REASON Right now, there is relatively little support for recreating the reserve clause era in the game's financial aspects. You can turn off free agency, but that's not really sufficient. The reserve clause era requires several additional aspects to be implemented in order for it to be more authentic to that era and more interesting and challenging to the OOTP user. PRIORITY Medium/High. The Suggestion in Detail In terms of player contracts, the three main aspects of the reserve clause era which would need to be included in OOTP would be: 1) player hold-outs; 2) different termination pay provisions; and 3) contract lengths, renewals, and incentives; and 4) player sales. Player hold-outs. These are an important item. In the reserve clause era, the team had the right to impose a new salary should the player and team not be able to agree on one. The player's only option at that point was to either accept the new salary or become a hold-out. While long hold-outs were rare, there were cases of players holding for thirty days or more of the season, and a few even sat out the entire season. Having to deal with a hold-out would add an interesting twist for the user, though of course the AI regarding contract demands and whether to hold out and for how long would need to be balanced well. Termination pay provisions. Differences in how these operated meant it was much less costly for a team to release a player during the reserve clause era. Before 1947, when a player was released during the regular season he only received 10 days (1/18th of the season) severance pay; if released during the off-season or spring training he received nothing. From 1947-1970 a player released during the regular season got 30 days (1/6th of the season) termination pay; he still got nothing if cut during the off-season or spring training. Starting in 1972, players received, for the first time, severance pay if cut during spring training: they got 30 days (1/6th of the season) pay. If they were released during the regular season before May 15th they got 60 days (1/3rd of the season) severance pay; and if released after May 15th they received the entire year's remaining pay. By 1990, with free agency well-established, players still under the reserve clause (i.e. those not yet eligible for free agency) recieved 30 days (1/6th of the season) pay if cut during the off-season and first half of spring training; 45 days (1/4 of the season) severance pay if cut during the second half of spring training; and their full season's salary if released during the regular season. Free agents, with guaranteed contracts, were of course entitled to their full contract amounts if released. The above thus shows that, during the reseve clause era, releasing a player was far less costly, in financial terms, compared to the free agency years, thus making it much easier to cut a player and bring in someone else. Contract lengths, renewals, and incentives. Nearly all contracts during the reserve clause era were for one year; only rarely were multi-year contracts offered. As a result, this means that players and clubs renegotiated their contract each year, though of course the club had the huge advantage of being able to impose a new salary should there not be an agreement. For OOTP purposes, the AI governing these negotiation should be simpler and quicker than that for the free agency era, but there should be a few players who prove troublesome to deal with, thus raising the possibility of having to impose a salary and risk triggering a hold-out. In terms of incentives, one incentive used, particuarly in earlier years, was waiving the termination pay clause. Removing this turned the contract into a one-year guaranteed contract. So, for example, a player in 1925 who had this clause removed meant that if he was released during the season, instead of only getting 10 days severance pay, he got the rest of his salary for the season. Other incentive clauses used during the reserve clause era included bonus money for the club exceeding a stated attendance number, the team finishing at or above a specified position in the league, at achieving certain performance goals (e.g. wins for pitchers, batting average for hitters). Incentive clauses more similar to today's, such as for winning certain awards or playing in a specified number of games, were also used. Player sales. These were very common in the reserve clause era. Major league and minor league players were often sold only for cash rather than traded, particularly by teams needing to raise some quick cash. Some clubs made a handsome profit by selling their excess players to other organizations. Buying a player, rather than trading for him, offered a different way of acquiring a desired or needed player. __________________ . "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." .