2040, Spring Training Sim #1 Chatter

[RonCo]

I don't mind the AAV variance on Garcia (I have done some wacky ones myself) but the 750 PA vesting option is a bit extreme. This might be something the GB looks at going forward but to my knowledge we have nothing on the books against it now.

If you guys set parameters, you can set them in S+ and it will keep a list of illegal contracts. It covers just about every contract option. It's a nice feature.

You can also grandfather previous contracts, which I would probably do unless they are egregious, like this case.

We've chatted about them in the past--and, in fact, StatsPlus has some of those warnings toggled (Note the VAL contract on Wilton Rivera is currently toggled as illegal for having a player option after a team option, despite the fact that this is not, indeed, illegal for us).

It's still a manual process to look at them, though, and I struggle to find a lot of evidence that these things actually influence much of a difference beyond their optics--which, admittedly, are not great. Operationally, Garcia signed a 1-season contract for a raise over last year. I'm much more "concerned" (if that's the right word?) that he opted out of $5M than I am that he accepted a contract with untenable options/bonuses.

[RonCo]

I did. Don't remember the exact terms but I believe it was north of 2/20.

I had an offer for Garcia too...but honestly I don’t know what it was.

Were these active offers in the sim he signed with Louisville? If they were, then it's an indicator that the bonus/option additions made a difference. If they clearly do make that kind of difference I want to report it, because the OOTP guys are quite firm in their claim that players essentially ignore those kinds of offers.

Yes, I just made the offer last sim.

Ok. Hmmm...I'd love to have the exact details, but I can work with that. Do you happen to have the email response Garcia gave?.

[bcslouck]

We've chatted about them in the past--and, in fact, StatsPlus has some of those warnings toggled (Note the VAL contract on Wilton Rivera is currently toggled as illegal for having a player option after a team option, despite the fact that this is not, indeed, illegal for us).

It's still a manual process to look at them, though, and I struggle to find a lot of evidence that these things actually influence much of a difference beyond their optics--which, admittedly, are not great. Operationally, Garcia signed a 1-season contract for a raise over last year. I'm much more "concerned" (if that's the right word?) that he opted out of $5M than I am that he accepted a contract with untenable options/bonuses.

Well you're kind of looking at an OOTP issue while I'm looking at a BBA issue. Theortically, he got a 3 year deal worth more annually and gives him the option to take or not. The more I look at it, it's a weird deal in general. And I haven't even looked at it in OOTP.

Anyway, it really doesn't take long to take care of. I've done it. I checked it probably twice a season when I was commish in my former league. Doesn't take long to adjust the contracts either. To me, it's worth implementing to keep things in check.

[RonCo]

are you implying that the OOTP team is occasionally full of shit... Say it isnt so!!!

Heh.

The OOTP dev team has, on occasion, been full of it. Shaw and Recte can attest to me pulling my hair out at them since probably before Taylor was born (grin). Matt has walked me through their logic in this situation though, and it seems proper. I also just haven't seen egregious cases to discount them--this might be one, though. The only way to really test it, though, is to actually have side-by-side offers on the table and see how the game reacts--which is a time-intensive thing to do as a solo process--or at least a boring one.

Definitely interested in Will's numbers.

[RonCo]

Well you're kind of looking at an OOTP issue while I'm looking at a BBA issue. Theortically, he got a 3 year deal worth more annually and gives him the option to take or not.

I guess I'm confused. Garcia got:

$3.5M
$7M (Unachievable vesting, and player opt out)
$14M (Player option)

So to me, from the BBA view, he signed a 1-year deal for $3.5M.

[RonCo]

If OOTP views it as a true $24.5M value over three years ($8.1 AAV), then there's an OOTP problem.

[bcslouck]

If OOTP views it as a true $24.5M value over three years ($8.1 AAV), then there's an OOTP problem.

Right. That's where I was saying the deal got weird. I didn't realize there was an opt-out after year 1 until I was looking at it. It's definitely a 1 year $3.5M deal. And yeah, that is a problem if he signed it because of the other stuff. Unless he thinks his option will vest and he'll opt-in. Well, we know the option won't vest for multiple reasons. And if the plan is to have the option vest and then opt-in, why even have the opt-out? It seems like a convoluted deal a player wouldn't sign, especially taking the pay cut in year 1. So that's where it's an OOTP issue.

The contract originally got brought up because of that stuff and the bonus for AB's. That's a BBA issue in that we can't have bonuses for unattainable goals. 1 player in the reports history has over 750 AB's, and that looks like it was a screw up. It says the player plated over 162 games that year. 500 AB's is probably the most it should be. That should be something monitored. I guess that's an OOTP issue too if the game has a player thinking they will get to a number that high and get the bonus. I don't think any part of the weirdness of that deal should be discounted.

[jleddy]

@RonCo, I think your BBA view and OOTP view are both correct, which is leading to the underlying discourse.

@bcslouck, keep in mind that it's plate appearances, not at-bats. Still unattainable, but just wanted to clarify.

[RonCo]

We're probably arguing semantics.

1) If there's something broken in OOTP, then we need to put a BBA rule in place to fix it.
2) I'm not yet convinced OOTP is broken here (meaning I'm not convinced Garcia was swayed to sign by the weird contract structure), but Will's report has my attention.

Or: When you say "I guess that's an OOTP issue too," I say that yes, if the player is reading this contract offer as anything but a 1-season deal, then this is an OOTP issue. If he's valuing it as a 1-season deal, then all the rest is just optical dross.

[RonCo]

To be pedantic:

If Garcia had three deals on the table:

Deal 1:
$3.5M
$7M (Unachievable vesting, and player opt out)
$14M (Player option)

Deal 2:
$3.5M

Deal 3:
$3.6M

All other things being equal, I think the player should rank these offers as:

• Deal 3
• Deal 1 (with all its junk being weighted something like .000000001)
• Deal 2

So if time is drawing short and Deal 3 is not on the table, he would still take Deal 1. If this kind of simplified weighting isn't happening, then we need to fix things. If that weighting _is_ happening, then we're dealing with an issue that's mostly optics. That alone may still be worth putting a rule in place, but I admit I dislike adding more policing to the system than is necessary.

[jleddy]

Don't disagree with your assessment, however I'm betting there were a lot more offers closer to the unlisted Deal 4, which is 3/$24.5 (the overall value of the actual deal if you parse out all the options) than there were of Deal 2.

I'd just like to point out that Ron used "optical dross" and "pedantic" in back-to-back posts. This may be fake baseball but the linguistics are 100% real.

[RonCo]

Don't disagree with your assessment, however I'm betting there were a lot more offers closer to the unlisted Deal 4, which is 3/$24.5 (the overall value of the actual deal if you parse out all the options) than there were of Deal 2.

That's why I'm interested in Will's report of an active offer at that level available when Garcia decided. If Garcia had:

Deal 1:
$3.5M
$7M (Unachievable vesting, and player opt out)
$14M (Player option)

Deal 2:
$10M
$10M

actively on the table at the same time, and chose deal 1, then something is clearly wrong inside the game's decision algorithm.

[ae37jr]

The important thing here is that Garcia signed before opening day. So Brooklyn gets a comp pick out of the deal that they will likely use on a marginal RP named Rodriguez that will lump to oblivion by years end.

[ThePreyingManta]

[/img]=172246 time=1569432761 user_id=3881]

Were these active offers in the sim he signed with Louisville? If they were, then it's an indicator that the bonus/option additions made a difference. If they clearly do make that kind of difference I want to report it, because the OOTP guys are quite firm in their claim that players essentially ignore those kinds of offers.

Yes, I just made the offer last sim.

Ok. Hmmm...I'd love to have the exact details, but I can work with that. Do you happen to have the email response Garcia gave?.

If I'm remembering right, and I think I am, the offer was for $11,125,000 for Year 1 and $12,125,000 for Year 2 with a team option and $1,500,000 buyout.

Here's the response:

[jleddy]

You shoulda added a third year that vested if he figures out string theory.

[sjshaw]

Again, I'm happy to have the vesting criteria adjusted to something more acceptable. I'll cap my PA criteria at 700 in the future. Hope that's OK with everyone.

[ThePreyingManta]

I have no problem with exploiting the game if it's not in the rules. If this is something we want to prevent going forward, it needs to be added to the constitution.

[indiansfan]

I think that vesting options and bonus incentives should be reasonable. I have several players with bonuses if they have 400 PA. If I can get the guy to sign for a little less per season to preserve cap at the cost of a bit more money overall, I will do it. However the bonus is expected to be achieved unless the guy gets injured. Same is true if signing a guy that is wrecked, the bonus or vesting threshold is to protect the team in case the guy can't play, not to set an unachievable goal. So I think Puckett makes an extra mil or 2 if he gets 400 PA. I fully expect to pay it, unless he gets hurt. Same with a SP, I may set it at 150 IP which for a SP he will easily reach unless he gets injured. Ron says that those things shouldn't have a big impact on whether the player signs, but I know I have gotten several players to sign for 500K less per year if they are offered a realistic bonus for 800K to 1 mil as a tradeoff. I'm not saying there should be a rule, just saying that personally I pick realistic numbers and that they do impact whether a guy signs or not. Now most of the cases I am thinking about were not FA signings but rather extensions.

[JimBob2232]

Anybody else offer on Garcia?

I did. Don't remember the exact terms but I believe it was north of 2/20.

I had an offer for Garcia too...but honestly I don’t know what it was.

Were these active offers in the sim he signed with Louisville? If they were, then it's an indicator that the bonus/option additions made a difference. If they clearly do make that kind of difference I want to report it, because the OOTP guys are quite firm in their claim that players essentially ignore those kinds of offers.

I am pretty sure mine was. I think it was 2 years, with some kind of option on that 2nd year (but not a vesting option, maybe a PO or a TO). But i suspect year one was more than he got.