OOTP10 Suggestions: Player and Staff Contracts

[Dogzilla]

SUGGESTION

Currently, the game uses a hybrid salary system when you run a league with reserve rosters and no minor leagues. When you draft a player, he will have a "minor league contract" until you promote him. If you sign a free agent, you can't offer a minor league contract (AI-controlled teams CAN sign players as minor league free agents, which is strange).

Since there are no minor leagues, I would get rid of "minor league contracts" all together. Every player in the organization should make at least league minimum.

Otherwise, at least make the rules the same for Human and AI-controlled teams, where all free agent signings require a major league contract.

PRIORITY

Low.

[mgom27]

Restricted Free-Agents like NHL has meaning like lets say the Mets have gave David Wright a q. offer meaning they can match any offer if they don't the team that signs him has to either give up Draft Picks or People or like a Unsigned Prospect by a certain date/year like lets the Indians have the rights to Joan Nelson who is at like UCF right now or Rocky Darnish of the Youmka Giants and there rights are up at like 5-31-2012 and don't sign them to a contract before then would either go back into next year's Draft or become a Free-Agent.

It would make the Game more fuuner and I could see how many good people my team would sign as one of my Retsricted Free-Agents or lose as a Unsigned Prospect.

[big freddy]

Suggestion

I know this maybe too late, but one thing I would like to see is Human General Managers receiving contracts.

Reason

I feel that it's really difficult to build a team from nothing if you don't know how long your going to be there. Plus right now, you are working for free. The owner should pay you and put it in your budget. This would make it more life like.

Priority

I would say medium.

[mubigben]

I realize that OOTP 10 is already out, so this is a suggestion for the next version, but I thought I'd post it here, as I don't see a forum yet for OOTP 11.

Suggestion: It would be useful to have more information from the player in contract negotiations, such as a range of contract options that player would be willing to accept.

Reason: Currently, the negotiation mechanic is frustrating to use, as there is very little give and take that one would have in an actual negotiation. For example, if a player states that he wants a 2 year contract, for $100k per year, but you want to offer a longer contract, you're just taking a shot in the dark about what might be acceptable, and risk irritating the player in the process. In a real negotiation, you would be able to say that you appreciate his desire for a 2 year contract, but he's really important to the team, and you'd like to make sure he's part of the team for longer, and what would it take in terms of dollars to get a longer deal done. The answer might be a minimum dollar amount, or it might be that the player simply won't take more years. Then at least there's a framework to work from to get a deal done, or additional information to avoid wasting time. Right now, only brute force is available, which gets really frustrating.

Priority: Low - the game works without it, but this would improve the gameplay experience.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by noel33

While having the options for these might be interesting, it's not realistic, as you are not allowed to have performance incentives, except for awards and IP or AB.

It's not allowed now, but such direct performance bonuses used to be allowed in MLB player contracts. If I recall correctly, the rules were changed to disallow such direct performance bonuses in the early 1950s or so (I'd have to check my reference books for a more exact time).

[lawrence97]

Suggestion

Cap what a player can ask for relative to the superstar player average in the game options.

Reason

In my historical leagues, too many 3/4 star players have had ridiculous high contracts because teams just kept bettering each other with contracts. If for instance, the avg superstar contract is $100,000, make the most a player can ever get $150,000. Otherwise teams will get loaded with excessive contracts. This will still mean you will have to manage your contracts and release expensive players to stay under budget. but it will make the game more accurate financial wise.(Rogers Hornsby once signed a $400,000 per year contact in 1942, when in real life, Ruth only ever got around 80/90k!

Priority

High for me, as it would make historical leagues that much more realistic.

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by twitt

Suggestion
Allow promotion of coaches to higher levels, but not just to Major Leagues. Also, include a development engine for the coaches (if there isn't one already).

I don't know about the development engine but you can already promote coaches. I do it all the time when a higher level has a vacancy that a lower level coach can fill better than available coaches on the market. Simply use the appoint as feature. You can demote or promote any coach. However, there are some bugs. For some reason I have seen some coaches I try to promote from one rookie or A level team to another refuse a demotion when it does not appear it is a demotion.

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by lawrence97

Suggestion

In my historical leagues, too many 3/4 star players have had ridiculous high contracts because teams just kept bettering each other with contracts.

It sounds more like there is a problem with supply or demand rather than team behavior. A couple of questions. Do the team revenues and budgets seem realistic for the time period. For instance do teams have 2009 budgets based on market size? Secondly what is the distribution of players, is the conversion of stats to rating causing a lot of players to be underrated in power and therefore overall because the game is putting a modern weight on power in the overall rating calculation? For instance Ceasar Cedeno was a star in his day, he rarely hit over 15 HRs, he would likely not even be rated 70/80 in the game if the ratings are done the same way as they are for modern players. His power numbers would kill him. This could cause a huge void in quality players for the era causing teams to have exterme demands for the few power hitters that get the 60-70 ratings (3-4 stars I believe).

I would say think supply might be the issue. In fictional leagues, when looking at trades it seems too many teams have too many guys in red rating numbers and not enough just yellow. In historical leagues, if you are only importing rookies and no drafting is occurring then it means you don't have guys in the minors who could be called up in case of an injury. Even if you have minor league players it is likely a lot of guys who didn't play much but could have been a replacement simply are not in the game. If your minors are relatively empty there is likely a lot fewer players available to bid on than in real life. Lack of players will drive up bids. Too much money chasing too few goods will always cause prices to rise. It could be a sign the markets are working perfectly, the problem is supply and/or demand may not be correct to get real world prices.

In my fictional leagues I draft with budgets that real teams have and the market levels adjust. I have made some mistakes without a doubt in my contract negogiations but I rarely find teams that can't make trades due not to be able to afford contracts. I also find I often sign free agents at less than what they demand. The demand side is properly controled by the budgets that the game creates after the draft, which were based on real world budgets. A good distribution of players and full minors keeps the supply side working right. Sure player demands are sometimes unreasonable but often the unreasonable demanders settle on a reasonable price. I think the problem lies somewhere in the historical importation of players and not in the game itself. If this is implemented please allow it to be turned off for players who do not play historical leagues.

"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenemom"
Milton Friedman

[lawrence97]

You do have a point with supply and demand, but i also think players ask for too much money when your just trying to give them an extension. I'm all for players trying to make as much money as possiblem but i do think there should be a limit. In historcal leagues i find that you are quickly over the average for their level of play. Basically after 10 years my players all were asking for at least 60/70% over what was the average for their skill level.

[drowtfs]

Suggestion
Have the Contract page under a player profile show clearly whether or not the player is currently on an option year.

Reason
It doesn't show clearly, unless it is the last option year, in which case it says exactly that. Perhaps one doesn't remember whether or not he has optioned the player, or one is not sure of the rules of triggering a minor league option.

Priority
Low