[Corsairs]

I'm noticing an issue in our league that has me considering a new house rule. Whenever the season start there's a small number of top players still remaining in the draft pool due to their excessive salary demands. Once the season begins they start asking for 1-year contracts and the amount they demand slowly lessens as we progress further into the season. So far, so good; that's exactly as it should be.

The problem I'm finding is that around July or so, these remaining free agents are getting so "desperate" that teams are able to sign them for ridiculously low multi-year contracts. As an example, we just had an elite catcher who had been asking for around $14M per season before the season started. By mid-July he was down to asking for a 1-year, $8M contract. A team was able to sign him to a 4-year, $8M contract... just $2M a year for one of the best-rated catchers in the league!

My first question is: has anyone else experienced this? If so, what do you do to combat it? I'd love to discover it's due to a mistake in the way I've configured the league settings. Barring that, I'm considering instituting a "house rule" that no free agent may be signed to a multi-year deal following the June Amateur Draft.

[Raidergoo]

In the draft pool, or Free Agent Pool?

One thing I have noticed in my online league is that if a player gets to Free Agency, that they have fundamental flaws, and bear great risk for the club that will sign them. In the eMLB, the FA pool has a couple of very good 35 year old relievers, a couple of #3 starting pitchers, a 35 year old future HoF 3B who can't play 3B anymore, and so on.

There's a lot of B-level talent to be had, guys that could hit 6th or 7th, and they tend to want the most ridiculous deals (4 years $45 million for .280 and 10 HR), but they do back down from their offers, and I do budget a little bit of cap space to snipe one or two of these guys each season. Two seasons ago, I landed Matt Watson for $3m in Spring Training. He was fantastic, and I spun him in a trade deadline deal for a pitcher who was undervalued. He signed at a 70% discount, primarily because people were afraid of his demands, and afraid of his age. Oops. The next season, I landed Harry Collins in Spring Training for $3.3 million (67% discount from his demands) for one year plus an option. He was supposed to be a fourth OF, but my starting CF had a SEI in the first week of the regular season. He was a fine addition, and I picked his option up recently for 2016.

It is a risk-reward thing. If all of your GM's leave talented players on the board because the risk to themselves is too high, then there's no need to strangle the risk-taking fellow who offers a contract that is "unfair" or "illogical" and gets it accepted. Some of these guys are going to suck, and it will blow up a budget for years.

Sometimes an online league is like being in a league with 20 other guys who have read Moneyball where they don't trust anyone under 30, and don't want to pay anyone over the league minimum. The true maxim of Billy Beane is to find illogically low priced talent and exploit it, not to draft college pitchers and sign hitters that like to draw walks.

This will work itself out, as the teams that fall victim to the late signings will resolve to offer late Wintertime or Spring Training contracts the next batch of players that initially price themselves out of the market.

[Corsairs]

These are players being signed from the free agent pool.

I'm definitely torn in that I don't want to stifle the creativity of my owners, so I'm inclined to do as you say and let it play out. However, these signings seem particularly improbable and potential unbalancing. The examples you listed were older players, mostly mid-30s. It's understandable that owners would shy away from signing them if their demands are ridiculously high.

The players involved here, though, are highly-rated and in their prime. Two examples: SS Héctor Castillo and C Jeffery Graham, both 26-year-olds signed in July for $2M/season (Castillo for 3 years, Graham for 4). Castillo, an outstanding defensive SS, posted a 38.9 VORP in his age 25 season. He had been asking for $19M/season and was still asking for an 8-digit 1-year contract when he agreed to sign for $6M over 3 years.

Graham, also an outstanding defender, posted a less impressive 18.9 VORP in his age 25 season. He them spent the first half of '08 playing in our AI-run Mexican league where he amassed a crazy 71.9 VORP (although, to be fair, the Mexican league skews heavily towards offense). He was asking for an $8M 1-year contract when he agreed to $8M over 4 years.

That's what I find really crazy about this situation: how do these players go from demanding a 1-year, $8-$12M contract at the start of a sim to settling for a multi-year deal at a fraction of that yearly salary by the sim's conclusion? That just doesn't seem logical. A number of my owners have noted this and have complained loudly. It's not helping that the beneficiary of these two examples was already far and away the best team in the league (not that they did anything wrong here; it's the game's logic I'm questioning, not their actions).

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

These are players being signed from the free agent pool.

I'm definitely torn in that I don't want to stifle the creativity of my owners, so I'm inclined to do as you say and let it play out. However, these signings seem particularly improbable and potential unbalancing. The examples you listed were older players, mostly mid-30s. It's understandable that owners would shy away from signing them if their demands are ridiculously high.

The players involved here, though, are highly-rated and in their prime. Two examples: SS Héctor Castillo and C Jeffery Graham, both 26-year-olds signed in July for $2M/season (Castillo for 3 years, Graham for 4). Castillo, an outstanding defensive SS, posted a 38.9 VORP in his age 25 season. He had been asking for $19M/season and was still asking for an 8-digit 1-year contract when he agreed to sign for $6M over 3 years.

Graham, also an outstanding defender, posted a less impressive 18.9 VORP in his age 25 season. He them spent the first half of '08 playing in our AI-run Mexican league where he amassed a crazy 71.9 VORP (although, to be fair, the Mexican league skews heavily towards offense). He was asking for an $8M 1-year contract when he agreed to $8M over 4 years.

That's what I find really crazy about this situation: how do these players go from demanding a 1-year, $8-$12M contract at the start of a sim to settling for a multi-year deal at a fraction of that yearly salary by the sim's conclusion? That just doesn't seem logical. A number of my owners have noted this and have complained loudly. It's not helping that the beneficiary of these two examples was already far and away the best team in the league (not that they did anything wrong here; it's the game's logic I'm questioning, not their actions).

My inclination is to tell them to shut up, ante up, and pay up. They valued a player in a manner that did not get them on their team. Someone else took a chance, and was rewarded. If owners let great players in the Free Agent pool go into the season without a lowball contract offer, then doom on them. There is nothing here that free market forces won't solve.

Castillo is a stud. Why did any team let him get to June 24th without a top dollar deal? Graham is pretty dog gone good, too.

Your league's finances may have issues related to media revenue being unequally shared

[Corsairs]

I believe Castillo made it that long without getting signed due to owners being overly cautious during their first free agency cycle. I think a lot of them are getting the feel of how the finances work and didn't want to risk overextending themselves. And of course he was asking for a nearly $100M contract!

The uneven media revenue is indeed an issue; you can chalk that up to my inexperience when the league was started. Rather than blow the whole thing up and create a wild financial swing, we've decided to give the smaller market teams the opportunity to increase their market size gradually over time (along with a few other benefits).

Now it happens that the team making the signings in the two examples above is actually on the lower end of the market size spectrum (and good for them for not letting market size get them down!). Again, I totally have no problem with the team making shrewd offers and getting themselves a good deal; that's exactly what mid-market teams need to do to survive.

The only thing I'm questioning is the reality of a player asking for $90M over 5 years signing a multi-year contract mid-season for just $2M/year. If this were a lowball 1-year contract, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. The player held out for top dollar, the market dried up and he was stuck with taking what he could get or not collecting a paycheck for the whole year. Teach you to hold out, pal! It makes sense that the player would take what money he could on a 1-year deal, build his value up by playing well and then try again in next year's free agency market (hopefully with slightly more reasonable demands).

But a 3-year contract at a miniscule salary for what comperable players are making? I can't understand why the financial AI would allow that. I've heard that OOTP 9's financial AI is improved over OOTP 8; maybe it wouldn't happen on that platform? I would hope so, because a contract like this has the potential to impact the league for years. These are players in their prime signed for (relatively) dirt-cheap salaries. I know everything's fair in love and war, but I can see the potential for trouble over the long-term here.

[Solonor]

I actually love the fact that the players are desperate enough to play that they drop their demands. One problem with the game in the past has been free agents who were too stubborn to lower their demands...so, they sit all season and then retire.

I don't care if you're Alex Rodriguez. If no one pays you what you want, you're gonna go play for someone eventually rather than quit baseball.

[Corsairs]

Originally Posted by Solonor

I actually love the fact that the players are desperate enough to play that they drop their demands. One problem with the game in the past has been free agents who were too stubborn to lower their demands...so, they sit all season and then retire.

I don't care if you're Alex Rodriguez. If no one pays you what you want, you're gonna go play for someone eventually rather than quit baseball.

I love that they drop their demands as well. Again, I have no problem with a player getting burned by his own excessive demands and finding himself unemployed come mid-season having to swallow his pride and lumping a lowball 1-year offer with the hopes of rebuilding his value for the next free agency cycle. That happens in real life as well, and it's great to see it modeled in OOTP.

What doesn't happen in real life is a star player asking for 8 digit salaries per season suddenly agreeing to sign a multi-year contract for less than league-average salary. That's just aberrant behavior by the AI, at least as far as I see it.

I'm curious: are any of you experiencing this behavior? I'd love to know if it's just our league or something more global. I'd also be interested to learn if this might be an issue that's cleared up during the conversion to OOTP 9.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

I believe Castillo made it that long without getting signed due to owners being overly cautious during their first free agency cycle. I think a lot of them are getting the feel of how the finances work and didn't want to risk overextending themselves. And of course he was asking for a nearly $100M contract!

The uneven media revenue is indeed an issue; you can chalk that up to my inexperience when the league was started. Rather than blow the whole thing up and create a wild financial swing, we've decided to give the smaller market teams the opportunity to increase their market size gradually over time (along with a few other benefits).

Now it happens that the team making the signings in the two examples above is actually on the lower end of the market size spectrum (and good for them for not letting market size get them down!). Again, I totally have no problem with the team making shrewd offers and getting themselves a good deal; that's exactly what mid-market teams need to do to survive.

The only thing I'm questioning is the reality of a player asking for $90M over 5 years signing a multi-year contract mid-season for just $2M/year. If this were a lowball 1-year contract, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. The player held out for top dollar, the market dried up and he was stuck with taking what he could get or not collecting a paycheck for the whole year. Teach you to hold out, pal! It makes sense that the player would take what money he could on a 1-year deal, build his value up by playing well and then try again in next year's free agency market (hopefully with slightly more reasonable demands).

But a 3-year contract at a miniscule salary for what comperable players are making? I can't understand why the financial AI would allow that. I've heard that OOTP 9's financial AI is improved over OOTP 8; maybe it wouldn't happen on that platform? I would hope so, because a contract like this has the potential to impact the league for years. These are players in their prime signed for (relatively) dirt-cheap salaries. I know everything's fair in love and war, but I can see the potential for trouble over the long-term here.

They took the deal because
1) it beats watching The Hallmark Channel
2) A lot of the team's financial situations stink

Players adjust their demands based on the time of year, and how much cash the clubs have. It's June, and a lot of your teams have bad finances. They took deals that get them onto the playing field.

When you value Profit over Wins, this sort of stuff will happen.

The logjam is already breaking. People in the PEBA see that Crystal Lake (where I grew up, I might add...right down the street from Elm St, and South Park...) looted two fellows at cut rate deals. I see that the Hitmen scored a guy for $4m, so did Aurora. The dam is starting to break. I can't imagine (if teams have cash...) that GM's will allow this to happen again. Next March, a GM will offer a deal at 33% of the player's demand, and the player will sign it.

[Corsairs]

Fair enough, and I see where you're coming from. It's a reasonable approach to say, "All's fair in love and war," and roll with it. I still see the situation as bothersome from the standpoint that I can't see a real star player ever agreeing to a deal like this, but I'm at least willing to consider holding off implementing a rule.

What I'm going to do is talk this over with my League Presidents, making sure to present both sides. They've proven themselves to be very level-headed guys who know how to put the league before their own teams. Raidergoo, any problem with me copy/pasting your argument into our private League Presidents forum for them to read? I think you made your case well and I want to make sure I'm presenting both sides fairly.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

Fair enough, and I see where you're coming from. It's a reasonable approach to say, "All's fair in love and war," and roll with it. I still see the situation as bothersome from the standpoint that I can't see a real star player ever agreeing to a deal like this, but I'm at least willing to consider holding off implementing a rule.

What I'm going to do is talk this over with my League Presidents, making sure to present both sides. They've proven themselves to be very level-headed guys who know how to put the league before their own teams. Raidergoo, any problem with me copy/pasting your argument into our private League Presidents forum for them to read? I think you made your case well and I want to make sure I'm presenting both sides fairly.

You can quote me.

[BruceM]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

Fair enough, and I see where you're coming from. It's a reasonable approach to say, "All's fair in love and war," and roll with it. I still see the situation as bothersome from the standpoint that I can't see a real star player ever agreeing to a deal like this, but I'm at least willing to consider holding off implementing a rule.

What I'm going to do is talk this over with my League Presidents, making sure to present both sides. They've proven themselves to be very level-headed guys who know how to put the league before their own teams. Raidergoo, any problem with me copy/pasting your argument into our private League Presidents forum for them to read? I think you made your case well and I want to make sure I'm presenting both sides fairly.

You're right, real star players would never agree to a deal like that, but IRL, real star players will never go unsigned during normal FA, and therefore won't be sitting around in August looking for a contract.

[Corsairs]

Not that I expect anyone cares particularly, but I thought I'd bring word of the decision reached in our league in case other commissioners encounter this issue and are wondering how to handle it.

My two League Presidents were initially split on the issue. After presenting both sides, the LP supporting the creation of a house rule was convinced that allowing the market to play itself out was an acceptable solution (Raidergoo, your arguments played in quite a bit here). Based on their consensus, I'm going to forego creating a house rule to handle multi-year in-season contracts.

I won't lie: I still very much dislike these contracts and wish the AI was smart enough to prevent players from accepting them. However, doing the right thing for the league is more important than satisfying my personal preferences. Of course there's going to be a contingent of owners who aren't going to be particularly pleased with my "solution", but I guess that's part and parcel with the whole commissioner thing.

So there you go: though it doesn't get nearly the traffic as the others, this forum does indeed work! Hey, if you make a difference with even one league, it's all worth it, right?

[DeSaxMan13]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

They took the deal because
1) it beats watching The Hallmark Channel
2) A lot of the team's financial situations stink

Players adjust their demands based on the time of year, and how much cash the clubs have. It's June, and a lot of your teams have bad finances. They took deals that get them onto the playing field.

When you value Profit over Wins, this sort of stuff will happen.

The logjam is already breaking. People in the PEBA see that Crystal Lake (where I grew up, I might add...right down the street from Elm St, and South Park...) looted two fellows at cut rate deals. I see that the Hitmen scored a guy for $4m, so did Aurora. The dam is starting to break. I can't imagine (if teams have cash...) that GM's will allow this to happen again. Next March, a GM will offer a deal at 33% of the player's demand, and the player will sign it.

Completely different situation. The Hitmen signed a guy who was asking for about $9 million per season. I signed him to a half season at $4 million, pretty close to his asking. If I had offered him 4 years at $4 million, he either wouldn't have signed, or shouldn't have signed. If the AI allows 5-star guys to sign for less than the league average for long term, that's ridiculous. For half a season, fine. But for multiple years, that's just stupid.

[DeSaxMan13]

Originally Posted by BruceM

You're right, real star players would never agree to a deal like that, but IRL, real star players will never go unsigned during normal FA, and therefore won't be sitting around in August looking for a contract.

IRL, teams are restrained by budgets as tightly as we are.

[JoseRijo]

see, I think if a player ends out having to accept a contract that is grossly under what he expects, it SHOULD be only a one year deal.

[DeSaxMan13]

I think the main problem with the OOTP model for this is the multi-year aspect as previously discussed.

If MLB teams were constrained to a set budget, it is likely that no one could have paid ARod what he wanted in the offseason. Let's say that no one would pay him $27 million per year because their budgets did not have that much room, and they can't go over budget. It gets to midseason, and he's so desperate to play, he takes a half-season contract for $8 million to play 3 months. That I could see. But I couldn't see him taking a 10-year deal at $8 million per. Maybe he goes into next offseason asking for $20 million instead of $27 because he overestimated the available budget room for teams, but he doesn't drop his long term demands by 70%.

But since in OOTP we have strict budgets, it can't mimic real life where a team like the Yankees can say "Hey, we really only wanted to spend another $10 million, but it's ARod. We'll give him the $27." So, it would be nice if OOTP gave the FAs some sense to say take a one year deal at reduced money if you really want to play, but don't sign a long term deal for such a reduced offer.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by DeSaxMan13

Completely different situation. The Hitmen signed a guy who was asking for about $9 million per season. I signed him to a half season at $4 million, pretty close to his asking. If I had offered him 4 years at $4 million, he either wouldn't have signed, or shouldn't have signed. If the AI allows 5-star guys to sign for less than the league average for long term, that's ridiculous. For half a season, fine. But for multiple years, that's just stupid.

Will the player ever take the chance of being unemployed by a bunch of teams that are operating in the red and acting in collusion to depress the wages of players, or is he going to take the first offer he actually gets?

[DeSaxMan13]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

Will the player ever take the chance of being unemployed by a bunch of teams that are operating in the red and acting in collusion to depress the wages of players, or is he going to take the first offer he actually gets?

Not sure I understand the point of the question. No one is operating in collusion, and it's not the first offer he got. And it's more likely he takes the offer for the rest of the season, not giving away 3 prime contract years for so little.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by DeSaxMan13

Not sure I understand the point of the question. No one is operating in collusion, and it's not the first offer he got. And it's more likely he takes the offer for the rest of the season, not giving away 3 prime contract years for so little.

When did the offers come? May or last November?

If you want realism, the PEBA player's union would have filed a grievance a long time ago for the owner's acting in concert to depress player wages by not offering high dollar contracts to free agents in the previous offseason, like when funny things happened to Tim Raines and Andre Dawson. Thes MLBPA guys took what their clubs had to offer in the 80's, and made up the difference and more with legal action.

[DeSaxMan13]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

When did the offers come? May or last November?

If you want realism, the PEBA player's union would have filed a grievance a long time ago for the owner's acting in concert to depress player wages by not offering high dollar contracts to free agents in the previous offseason, like when funny things happened to Tim Raines and Andre Dawson. Thes MLBPA guys took what their clubs had to offer in the 80's, and made up the difference and more with legal action.

The offers came last off season since he signed with a Mexican team. Not for what they were asking, which was ridiculously high in the off season.

These comments about grievances and such are laughable. No owners are colluding to keep FA signings down. A lot of our owners would have given their left nut to get some of these players, but they didn't have the budget room to come anywhere close to what the players were asking for. If you're telling me that it makes financial sense for a top player to take a below-average long term deal, then I don't even know what to say. To take a player who is demanding upwards of $12 million per year in the off season and then took a contract with a foreign league, and then that player not only signs a $2 million deal for the rest of the season, but signs on for the next 3 years beyond that at 80% of the league average, has no justification. I can barely see him dropping his demands from $12 million to $2 million within a couple of sims, but he must want to play. But to accept 3 more years at $2 million makes no sense. He suddenly decides not only is he not worth $12 million for one year, he's not worth $12 million for 4 years? When the league average is about $2.5 million and he is well above average and in his prime? And he's only be on the market for 3 days after his Mexican contract was up? And he accepts less than he made for Mexican AAA league?

Sorry, no one can convince me that this scenario is modeled correctly. Players are not accurately taking into account potential future earnings. If you take into account the budget room a lot of teams will have this next off season, the budget room and the cash some teams still had at the time of the signing, the average league salary, comparable salaries for players of his caliber at his position, etc...one year deal to get back into the majors, fine. Throwing away 3 more years at well below market rate, too stupid even for the dumbest player.