|
Post by David_ExBlueJaysGM on Nov 25, 2015 14:21:14 GMT -5
Two words for you - Michael - Pineda.
When I took over the Jays I was saddled with Pineda's contract. And I'm fine with that. It's something around which you have to work. If I was given a vote, I would say NO to the proposal. 1) I agree that the introduction of coaches, etc. to add REALISM shouldn't be followed by something unrealistic. 2) It doesn't always happen of course, but if someone assumes the GM position for their favourite franchise, that should keep them in the league despite any contracts. 3) If a GM gets relief, then turns around and does one or two of their own turkey deals, then they have proven they should not have had relief in the first place, HA! And you KNOW someone will!!! 4) And, in all seriousness, this could open things up to manipulation of the rule. For example, GM gets relief on a deal and then trades the player because the contract is now more appealing??? I might term that "double relief".
Plus, it's OUTSIDE the game. I personally HATE anything done outside the game. But that's just me! :-)
A much better idea, although IMPOSSIBLE, would be to shut down any monumentally stupid deals as they are done. But that also flies in the face of realism to a degree! HA HA!
|
|
|
Post by Tigers_GM_Sam on Nov 25, 2015 14:36:26 GMT -5
Plus, it's OUTSIDE the game. I personally HATE anything done outside the game. But that's just me! :-) And me! I still feel it might be a good idea to cut some of the new guys a break though.
|
|
|
Post by stefanyankees on Nov 25, 2015 14:40:36 GMT -5
I don't generally don't like contract amnesties but if it's only for new GMs then I guess it makes good sense - one or two teams are pretty much screwed thanks to previous management (NYY being the most ridiculous). I had seen this idea before so I had asked about Moustakas but I was told his contract was already changed to make it less horrible, so to me, I am happy just taking over the team as it is without an amnesty. It is a challenge but that is what I am here for. Seeing the history section of the yankees was motivation enough. No playoffs since 2013, no winning season since then. I am not going to blame bad contracts really, I still think this is doable. But thanks for acknowledging that previous management must have been subpar.
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 25, 2015 14:40:57 GMT -5
You all that are complaining about this are ignoring what Anthony has said about how this is entirely up to our discretion. It's not a freebie even if a team asks. More often than not we will refuse unless we think it's incredibly bad.
Kris Bryant is an example that Anthony and I had an actual conversation about and we would refuse to reduce that contract because of how much WAR he's been worth and still is worth. Not to mention he's still not even 31. His contract is entirely believable from a real baseball perspective. Mike Moustakas on the other hand was signed until he was 40 and he had already started declining. It was not a reasonable contract and the guy who signed him to that had a history of really, really terrible contracts.
For those that are bitter about not having it when they were first came into the league all I can say is "Sorry and thanks for sticking with your team through some bad contracts." This is a rule that I feel really strongly about because it's for the overall health of the league. At the end of the day this is a game, so we're going to take action to make sure everyone can enjoy it if it's necessary.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExBlueJaysGM on Nov 25, 2015 16:11:14 GMT -5
I did see the Moustakas....uh, wow!
Another factor to consider however is the GM (or GM's) that might have missed out on Moustakas when that deal was done. Not every, but many, ludicrous contracts do come through negotiation and trying to top another GM (one would hope). That is another reason for the contract to run its course. The GM's that might have made Moustakas a final piece to their puzzle, yet missed out, see no relief from having lost him to a higher bidder.
In the end, not really that big a deal, just more a caution about thinking BEFORE leaping into a huge deal instead of trying to clean up a mess after the fact. And yes, I can sympathize with a GM that takes on a new team with several dog deals.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExBlueJaysGM on Nov 25, 2015 16:14:09 GMT -5
And it would appear Moose has yet to win a ring and I might wager he never will. He can wipe away his tears with hundreds and blow his nose in larger bills of course!
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 25, 2015 17:23:58 GMT -5
I did see the Moustakas....uh, wow! Another factor to consider however is the GM (or GM's) that might have missed out on Moustakas when that deal was done. Not every, but many, ludicrous contracts do come through negotiation and trying to top another GM (one would hope). That is another reason for the contract to run its course. The GM's that might have made Moustakas a final piece to their puzzle, yet missed out, see no relief from having lost him to a higher bidder. In the end, not really that big a deal, just more a caution about thinking BEFORE leaping into a huge deal instead of trying to clean up a mess after the fact. And yes, I can sympathize with a GM that takes on a new team with several dog deals. It was an extension so there was no competition. Extensions are far more likely to be scrutinized by us than straight FA signings for your above reasons.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExBlueJaysGM on Nov 25, 2015 17:28:51 GMT -5
I did see the Moustakas....uh, wow! Another factor to consider however is the GM (or GM's) that might have missed out on Moustakas when that deal was done. Not every, but many, ludicrous contracts do come through negotiation and trying to top another GM (one would hope). That is another reason for the contract to run its course. The GM's that might have made Moustakas a final piece to their puzzle, yet missed out, see no relief from having lost him to a higher bidder. In the end, not really that big a deal, just more a caution about thinking BEFORE leaping into a huge deal instead of trying to clean up a mess after the fact. And yes, I can sympathize with a GM that takes on a new team with several dog deals. It was an extension so there was no competition. Extensions are far more likely to be scrutinized by us than straight FA signings for your above reasons. Eeek!
|
|
|
Post by mikejk on Nov 28, 2015 12:16:44 GMT -5
I definitely think the size of the market should play into the amnesty of a contract. Absolutely. Thats why it's on a case by case basis and somewhat a little vague. I also think we should take into account the fact that OOTP introduces gradual inflation, so contracts that seem ridiculous in 2015 might not be as ridiculous in 2023. Also, I think we should think about whether a stupid contract that could realistically be given in real life should be amnestied. Think Jason Bay with the Mets. Maybe realistic expectations at the beginning of the contract should be looked at more than current performance.
|
|
|
Post by marcus.dodgers on Nov 28, 2015 13:04:05 GMT -5
I did see the Moustakas....uh, wow! Another factor to consider however is the GM (or GM's) that might have missed out on Moustakas when that deal was done. Not every, but many, ludicrous contracts do come through negotiation and trying to top another GM (one would hope). That is another reason for the contract to run its course. The GM's that might have made Moustakas a final piece to their puzzle, yet missed out, see no relief from having lost him to a higher bidder. In the end, not really that big a deal, just more a caution about thinking BEFORE leaping into a huge deal instead of trying to clean up a mess after the fact. And yes, I can sympathize with a GM that takes on a new team with several dog deals. It was an extension so there was no competition. Extensions are far more likely to be scrutinized by us than straight FA signings for your above reasons.Wowowowowowow.....
|
|
|
Post by David_ExBlueJaysGM on Nov 29, 2015 19:01:45 GMT -5
Absolutely. Thats why it's on a case by case basis and somewhat a little vague. I also think we should take into account the fact that OOTP introduces gradual inflation, so contracts that seem ridiculous in 2015 might not be as ridiculous in 2023. Also, I think we should think about whether a stupid contract that could realistically be given in real life should be amnestied. Think Jason Bay with the Mets. Maybe realistic expectations at the beginning of the contract should be looked at more than current performance. I might argue the use of the word "inflation". In my opinion, and from what I've read, OOTP does NOT in fact have "inflation" in the game. For example, the base contracts for those entering the league will remain the same forever, unless the Commissioners intervene. And the money in the league fluctuates according to a number of factors: - ticket prices (and the resulting record you put up) to produce bums in seats and season tickets - your revenue will go up or down based on both - contracts, which in online can rise of course as GM's bid, but once those contracts move out of the league the game adjusts it's parameters for the money then in the league OOTP gears itself to how much money is in the game when it puts out offers. What GM's do after that is what the "market" will bear, but it's not true inflation (again unless there is manual intervention) IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Nov 29, 2015 19:08:10 GMT -5
I also have read there is no inflation in the OOTP world.
|
|
|
Post by stefanyankees on Nov 29, 2015 19:12:47 GMT -5
I have simulated 100 seasons or more in single player before and the contracts never get any crazier.
|
|