Arbitration Age Contract Extensions

[aaronweiner]

Proposed rule change:

The league's current standards for arbitration-age contracts allow for a three-year contract at any dollar amount the player will accept. This has been called unbalancing, and exploitative of the game engine.

I see only one reasonable fix for this idea. I'm not sure I support the fix, notably, but I can't think of an alternative idea that makes any sense. I'd like to see some healthy debate as to whether this is a good idea or not.

[hr]
[hr]

1) All arbitration-age extensions will revert to no less than $1 million below the players' projected arbitration amount. This means that if an owner signs a player with a $5 million arbitration number, that extension can be no less than $4 million per year.

AND

2) We shorten arbitration-age contracts to year-to-year deals. This doesn't mock real life, but it might provide balance for the game engine. Contracts may be signed while a player is under automatic renewal but cannot cover more than one year of arbitration eligibility.

OR

3) The same as above, but we shorten them to two years.

AND

All current contracts of all sorts will be grandfathered in.

[hr]
[hr]

[recte44]

There is one other option.

***Extensions may only be offered to players in their last year of arbitration, or who are pending free agents.

[indiansfan]

I prefer the current system. I think it fixed the problem of long term cheap deals and it works for the most part

[crobillard]

Despite starting the discussion, I don't think anything should be changed until we see what OOTP 16 can do with it. Then, I think we should revisit this topic and decide whether it is still an issue.

[aaronweiner]

There is one other option.

***Extensions may only be offered to players in their last year of arbitration, or who are pending free agents.

Oh, golly no. That puts us at the mercy of the game in the other direction - much worse than the current system. I'd prefer a half-measure than simply sending everyone to arbitration.

[cheekimonk]

I vote for 1 & 2. If I'm reading correctly, this would mean you could only extend an arby eligible player in his last year and only for 3 years. Correct?

[aaronweiner]

I vote for 1 & 2. If I'm reading correctly, this would mean you could only extend an arby eligible player in his last year and only for 3 years. Correct?

No. What I'm saying is that you can only extend an arbitration-eligible player for one or two years, and that only at a million below his arbitration number. You CAN, however, do it as many times as you want, which lends itself to year-to-year "extensions" to avoid arbitration.

[bschr682]

There is one other option.

***Extensions may only be offered to players in their last year of arbitration, or who are pending free agents.

Oh, golly no. That puts us at the mercy of the game in the other direction - much worse than the current system. I'd prefer a half-measure than simply sending everyone to arbitration.

Serious question here. Why are you so averse to arbitration? I mean the whole reason its part of the MLB system is to make sure players get paid a reasonable amount compared to other players of similar production at similar stages of their career. Honestly I've always thought the game did a reasonable job of dishing out 1 year deals.

[aaronweiner]

If we were uncapped, I'd have no problem with arbitration salaries ruling in all cases. Since we're capped, it creates uncertainty from year to year that can be made certain with an extension.

No other sport with a cap lets players go to arbitration. They have a designated salary scale.

[bschr682]

I tried to find this but couldn't because all the links were broken. In our current engine setup, what are the salary baselines for the different player qualities? OOTP 15 defaults are...

Super Star - 18,000,000
Star - 13,000,000
Good - 9,000,000
Above Average - 6,000,000
Average - 4,000,000
Below Average - 2,500,000
Fair - 1,000,000
Poor - 750,000
League Minimum - 500,000

What are we set at?

[aaronweiner]

It's this:


Super Star - 14,000,000
Star - 11,000,000
Good - 8,500,000
Above Average - 6,000,000
Average - 4,000,000
Below Average - 2,500,000
Fair - 1,000,000
Poor - 750,000
League Minimum - 500,000

[bschr682]

Seems pretty legit. So Mr. Thomas, who is a superstar, should (with no other factors at play) want a deal around 14 mil a year. Low Greed must knock that down some. High Loyalty must knock that down a bit. Buying out a league minimum year must knock that down even further. But 2.5 million for a super star? That's a problem.

[aaronweiner]

Seems pretty legit. So Mr. Thomas, who is a superstar, should (with no other factors at play) want a deal around 14 mil a year. Low Greed must knock that down some. High Loyalty must knock that down a bit. Buying out a league minimum year must knock that down even further. But 2.5 million for a super star? That's a problem.

And suddenly, you've brought my players into a neutral conversation. We're discussing the rule change here, which I presume you favor.

[bschr682]

Just an example. We can use someone else if you like. He is just the single most effective guy to highlight the issue. Pete King from Seattle works too. Another super star player who took a little less than 3 mil a year when he should want more.

EDIT- Maybe you are right. King might be an even better example because supposedly he is greedy.

[cheekimonk]

Extending year-to-year seems very extreme.

[bschr682]

Ok. An even better example. Someone brought this up in the other thread where we are ranting. That they thought the system was fine and we had at least nixed the long term sweet heart deals. I present Mr. Bartolo Melendez. Actually went through arby his 3 years. Got paid quite a bit. And then when eligible for a long term deal under our rules, he goes from making 11.625 million in year 6 of his career alone to a 7 year deal worth a TOTAL of 28.72 million. An amount he should have made in less than 2 years.

So yea our fix doesn't completely work.

Also side note. Why are all the sweetheart deals in the Frick league?

[bschr682]

It's this:


Super Star - 14,000,000
Star - 11,000,000
Good - 8,500,000
Above Average - 6,000,000
Average - 4,000,000
Below Average - 2,500,000
Fair - 1,000,000
Poor - 750,000
League Minimum - 500,000

Is this maybe part of the problem? We have a 110 million cap. Is 14 million for a super star too much? With 27 man rosters if even 4 players on your team are of super star quality you have damn near used up half of your cap. Instead of concentrating on whacking the few players that are on a sweetheart deals, should we consider lowering the rest of the league down to them?

Wouldn't lowering these numbers would have the effect of lowering arby numbers and free agent demands across the board and make the sweetheart deals look less game breaking and more like just savvy moves?

Just spitballing...

[aaronweiner]

Now you're roughly on the wavelength I'm at.

This isn't such a terrible idea.

It's this:


Super Star - 14,000,000
Star - 11,000,000
Good - 8,500,000
Above Average - 6,000,000
Average - 4,000,000
Below Average - 2,500,000
Fair - 1,000,000
Poor - 750,000
League Minimum - 500,000

Is this maybe part of the problem? We have a 110 million cap. Is 14 million for a super star too much? With 27 man rosters if even 4 players on your team are of super star quality you have damn near used up half of your cap. Instead of concentrating on whacking the few players that are on a sweetheart deals, should we consider lowering the rest of the league down to them?

Wouldn't lowering these numbers would have the effect of lowering arby numbers and free agent demands across the board and make the sweetheart deals look less game breaking and more like just savvy moves?

Just spitballing...

[aaronweiner]

Extending year-to-year seems very extreme.

Well, that's why I suggested maybe two years. Whatever impact would be felt over two years would be heavily diminished.

I think the keystone of this is the $1 million below arbitration, though.

[trmmilwwi]

If New Orleans and Carolina can get "sweatheart" deals then other teams should be able to do likewise. Marquette, Tucson, Vancouver and a bunch of others will be able to take advantage of this when their farm becomes ready for big league play. Food for thought... It may be the salary/cap/budget/revenue numbers that are the real culprit. Again, not sure but throwing it out there for thought.