|
Post by agrimsley on Feb 16, 2016 11:04:06 GMT -5
Also you are gaming the system. You have a HUGE budget which you can frivolously toss onto huge team options that you don't have any intention of picking up but the majority of the other teams cannot afford to do this. Therefore the argument that other's can out bid you is simply not true.
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 16, 2016 13:27:37 GMT -5
The fact of the matter is that the rule is in place so either abide by it, leave, or continue to see those years get guaranteed or potentially see another year added onto the end.
|
|
|
Post by dodgersgm on Feb 16, 2016 15:02:16 GMT -5
I think I can answer this for you as well. 1) The issue is that the AI sees that 10 million as guaranteed. So one deal is 4 years/13 million, while the other is 3 years/6 million. The AI will take the first offer every time. 2) If a team with a large payroll, we'll use the Dodgers as a convenient example, offers a player a contract of 15/15/15/30, a team in a smaller market, the convenient example of Oakland here, may not have the 30 million in year 4 to match the offer. So it's negotiating contracts with a false final year to steer them into signing with the big market team every time. Hopefully that answered your questions. Now this is a response that makes sense. Everyone else here starts yelling and getting off subject as soon as u ask a question about the status quo: (I'll just address it to the OriolesGM) A) If the computer isn't able to differentiate between team options and player options, and thinks they are the same, that makes total sense as to why We have the rules in places. I'm suprised that ootp doesn't have that ability. B) now that we have a requirement that u pay 1/3 of any team option, shouldn't that aliviate any sort of issue? I mean if u wanted to offer a crazy 5/5/5/30 with the last year being a team option, you would still have to pay a 10 million dollar penalty for not picking up the option. Thanks OriolesGM
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Feb 16, 2016 16:08:55 GMT -5
Lol.....
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Feb 16, 2016 16:16:52 GMT -5
Its really a simple rule. Im not sure why this is so difficult.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExBlueJaysGM on Feb 16, 2016 18:49:44 GMT -5
I think I can answer this for you as well. 1) The issue is that the AI sees that 10 million as guaranteed. So one deal is 4 years/13 million, while the other is 3 years/6 million. The AI will take the first offer every time. 2) If a team with a large payroll, we'll use the Dodgers as a convenient example, offers a player a contract of 15/15/15/30, a team in a smaller market, the convenient example of Oakland here, may not have the 30 million in year 4 to match the offer. So it's negotiating contracts with a false final year to steer them into signing with the big market team every time. Hopefully that answered your questions. Now this is a response that makes sense. Everyone else here starts yelling and getting off subject as soon as u ask a question about the status quo: (I'll just address it to the OriolesGM) A) If the computer isn't able to differentiate between team options and player options, and thinks they are the same, that makes total sense as to why We have the rules in places. I'm suprised that ootp doesn't have that ability. B) now that we have a requirement that u pay 1/3 of any team option, shouldn't that aliviate any sort of issue? I mean if u wanted to offer a crazy 5/5/5/30 with the last year being a team option, you would still have to pay a 10 million dollar penalty for not picking up the option. Thanks OriolesGM Not sure I want to jump into this but here's an experience in another league to argue the point. Team A offers a $2m-2m-10m/TO** ( also happens to be a league with a 25% buyout on options but, at that time, did not have the other part of an SBL type of rule in place - it has since put in a rule similar to SBL about vastly overpriced option years) Team B (me) offers a $5m-5mThe Team A GM was openly thrilled in the league forum about signing the veteran player to a " cheap contract that will be worth $6.5mil over two years." So the GM was fully aware of his actions in "gaming" the system (not making an honest mistake), albeit WITHIN that league's rules at that time, and ends up signing the player. My issue, aside from gaming the AI, is that you shut out other teams from the process by doing this. Team A was years away from competing for the post-season while Team B (me) was consistently, at that point, a post-season team looking to land a veteran piece. Yes, the "AI" evaluates this as a 3-year vs 2-year deal, I suppose, but the "AI" took what it feels is a $14m deal over three years compared to a $10m deal over two years. While the GM steals a player for $6.5m (all in) compared to a $10m guaranteed deal. And the deal keeps a veteran player from experiencing the post-season in favour of playing for a 3rd or 4th place team and for less money. I am a big believer in letting the game do most everything, even in online leagues, but in my opinion, this is a needed rule at this time in online. I also sincerely hope OOTP17 does a LOT of work in the area of contract negotiations with both free agents (EVEN when competing with other GM's for talent in online) but even more with extensions (which in solo or online is essentially AI vs. human).
|
|
|
Post by m on Feb 18, 2016 0:21:41 GMT -5
I think I can answer this for you as well. 1) The issue is that the AI sees that 10 million as guaranteed. So one deal is 4 years/13 million, while the other is 3 years/6 million. The AI will take the first offer every time. 2) If a team with a large payroll, we'll use the Dodgers as a convenient example, offers a player a contract of 15/15/15/30, a team in a smaller market, the convenient example of Oakland here, may not have the 30 million in year 4 to match the offer. So it's negotiating contracts with a false final year to steer them into signing with the big market team every time. Hopefully that answered your questions. Now this is a response that makes sense. Everyone else here starts yelling and getting off subject as soon as u ask a question about the status quo: (I'll just address it to the OriolesGM) A) If the computer isn't able to differentiate between team options and player options, and thinks they are the same, that makes total sense as to why We have the rules in places. I'm suprised that ootp doesn't have that ability. B) now that we have a requirement that u pay 1/3 of any team option, shouldn't that aliviate any sort of issue? I mean if u wanted to offer a crazy 5/5/5/30 with the last year being a team option, you would still have to pay a 10 million dollar penalty for not picking up the option. Thanks OriolesGM Henri, you pay 25% of any team option, not 1/3. <---not yelling, just trying to be helpful
|
|