|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Feb 15, 2016 20:50:50 GMT -5
TB - CF Danny Lane - Corrected buyout on team option year. Was about 10% of the highest year
CLE - LF Jorge 'Inch' Ornelas - (6/6.5/7/7.5P/7.5T) - Option years were both 500k higher than highest guaranteed year. Year 4 has been guaranteed, now the 5th year option is within rules.
LAD - CL Jocopo 'Hooch' Ambriogiani - (10/12/14/16T) - Team option was 2 million higher than the highest guaranteed year. Year 4 has been guaranteed.
|
|
|
Post by dodgersgm on Feb 15, 2016 21:07:24 GMT -5
ah fuck- I keep making that stupid same mistake.
Doesn't it seem stupid to have that rule* if the teams are forced to pay a 1/3 buyout?
For arguments sake, if someone signed a contract for 500k/500k/500/10 million team option (with 4 million dollar buyout) - whats the difference? the team still has to pay the 4 million dollar penalty for getting out of the last year, right? So what about this makes it so unfair?
DodgersGM
(*team option cant be higher than salary from other years)
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Feb 15, 2016 21:44:16 GMT -5
Its tricking the game. 500k/500k/500k/10 million is absolutely ridiculous to use an example! It's taking advantage of the AI and I will not allow it. Simple as that. no player would EVER sign that deal.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Feb 15, 2016 21:48:13 GMT -5
Its a simple rule, we can't really make it much simpler. An option year may not be higher than the highest guaranteed year.
So by using the example you provided... You think that these two examples would be the same?
10-10-20-20 (T) 10-10-10-30 (T)
Both deals offer the same overall value.
The way the game operates, is it compares that contract and see all options are guaranteed. It doesn't take that into consideration during negotiations. So when you throw in one very high year thats a team option (regardless of buyout) the game will choose that contract over another deal thats guaranteed 4 years and a few less million. Thats why the rule is in place, and thats why the rule is not going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Feb 15, 2016 21:49:04 GMT -5
Buyouts are also 25% of the highest year, not 1/3.
|
|
|
Post by dodgersgm on Feb 15, 2016 22:37:32 GMT -5
i'm not asking to remove the rule. i'm just asking for the arguments and the reasoning behind the rule. that's all.
|
|
|
Post by dodgersgm on Feb 15, 2016 22:45:00 GMT -5
I'm confused as to how making sure that option year is no bigger than the guaranteed years helps, competition wise.
Hypo:
If I offer 1/1/1/with 10 million dollar team option, and you offer 2/2/2/with no option, do you think the computer will take the first deal: 3 guaranteed/13 total, before it takes the 6 guaranteed/6 total (Each over the same amount of years)?
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Feb 15, 2016 22:50:04 GMT -5
What is the point of even offering an option in that instance? I'm not sure why you would even want to structure a contract like that.
|
|
|
Post by dodgersgm on Feb 15, 2016 23:03:01 GMT -5
well, the idea behind the 'team only' option would be to have that last year be illusory, and no team would want to pick it up, and they would only pay for the first three years.
so, again, im asking, in a situation like above:
1/1/1/10 mill TO, vs 2/2/2, do we know if the computer would take the 3/13 or the 6 guaranteed?
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Feb 15, 2016 23:16:40 GMT -5
well, the idea behind the 'team only' option would be to have that last year be illusory, and no team would want to pick it up, and they would only pay for the first three years. EXACTLY WHY THIS RULE IS IN PLACE. Youre attempting to "game the system." This rule is in place to stop that and make it a somewhat even playing field for all 30 teams in contract negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by dodgersgm on Feb 16, 2016 0:12:44 GMT -5
1. Will you please answer the questions about the 1/1/1/10 vs 2/2/2, do we know which contract the player will sign with- i'd like to know the answer.
2. as to gaming the system, that's not a great argument. we have many GM's, some one could offer a guaranteed fourth year. the change doesn't make it any fairer. It would only be gaming the system if you didn't have 31 other GM's making live bids, just playing against the AI.
-Henri
(again, im not trying to make a change, just want to understand the reasoning)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah:OriolesGM on Feb 16, 2016 3:13:07 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.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Feb 16, 2016 8:20:41 GMT -5
1. Will you please answer the questions about the 1/1/1/10 vs 2/2/2, do we know which contract the player will sign with- i'd like to know the answer. 2. as to gaming the system, that's not a great argument. we have many GM's, some one could offer a guaranteed fourth year. the change doesn't make it any fairer. It would only be gaming the system if you didn't have 31 other GM's making live bids, just playing against the AI. -Henri (again, im not trying to make a change, just want to understand the reasoning) How is the "gaming the system" argument not valid? It absolutely is valid, ESPECIALLY when we have a rule against such contracts. I never thought I had to make a rule until you signed Seager to some ridiculous 5/5/5/17(t) which was just a ludicrously structured contract. Its taking advantage of the way the AI looks at contract negotiations. If you want to take advantage and rip the AI off.. Play a solo league. I will NOT allow it an online league.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Feb 16, 2016 8:21:35 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. Exactly. To both points.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Feb 16, 2016 8:26:46 GMT -5
If you have NO interest in ever accepting a team option when offering the contract... DON'T offer a team option.
This rule has been in place for 2+ seasons. Im not sure why its so difficult to follow.
|
|