2037-2038 Opt Out Decisions Part 3 - What Are They Asking For?

[Ted]

Our study of OOTP's opt our and player option decision continues now that free agency has started. In the first two editions of these features, we looked at what various types of players decided to do with various amounts of years and money remaining. Let us look now at what the players who decided they could make more money by going to free agency ended up asking for. (All demands are from the game file immediately after they filed for free agency). For convenience, I've cut and pasted the individual player info from the last two articles. Old information will be in italics. As a last note, we're trying to largely understand the game's logic. This is important in that their player demands are more important here than what they'll actually get. We'll save that for part 4 of this series. I'll talk about both, but try to focus on their demands versus what they left on the table.


Older vets:
Elroy Hinson turned down 16 mil for one year and possibly 30 for two and will enter FA at age 38. He just posted 2.2 WAR. Game calls him a 60. 23% though he should opt out. 77% thought he shouldn't. 13 total votes.

- FA demand unknown as he signed a 3 year extension with Madison for 15, 13, 11.5 (TO-2.4). Looks like opting out was the right choice for him.

Mark Dempsey turned down 22 mil over two years after a 3.7 win season in 99 games, and will be 35 in 2038. The game calls him a 65. 58% thought he should not opt out.

- Asking for 5 years at 14 mil per, for a total of 72 mil. Even structure with the last year a TO. So this makes his opt out decision "make sense" in a way, and that's the way we expected. First, many of us already thought the game's logic would have a tough time having a player realize he had what is likely an unsustainably good year at his advanced (for baseball) age. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the player to assume he would remain that good. Our analysis of decisions last time also proposed that the game would ask for too many years by older players, and that's exactly what happened here. However, at this rate, he will only have to get two years at his asking price to make opting out the right choice. Will he? Our recently crowd sourced podcast indicated he would most likely get 2 x 10 to 2 x 12. Still, we weren't sure in our voting as to whether he should opt out. We will see.

Mike Bailey opted out of a 1.6 million buyout at least, and at most 8 million for one year after being a 0.9 WAR pitcher. He will be 36 and the game calls him a 45. 93% thought he shouldn't opt out.

- Asking for 2.8 million x 1 year. Or basically only 1.2 million more than he would have gotten from just taking the buyout. Opting out was clearly the wrong decision here if this is his eventual contract. Will have to get 2.6 mil x 8 to beat his assumed contract from last year. The reason I say this is that the opt out pattern seemed to indicate players consider mutual options the same as they do PO's, in that they don't seem to know when they are likely to have team options decline. So in reality, Bailey's decision make have been to turn down 8 x 1, and then ask for 2.8 x 1. If so, yeah, that's pretty broken. Curious that older FA's only ask for short term deals on low value contracts.

Leon Sandcastle opted out of 1.875 mil buyout and potentially a one year deal for 7.5 mil, then retired. Wasn't very good last year. Would have played at 42. 100% thought he shouldn't opt out.

- Retired. So we won't know. Although if he played out like Bailey, it would be pretty dumb.

Alfredo Salazar turned down one year for 12 million after a 2.0 WAR season. He will be 37 and the game calls him a 60. 80% thought he should not opt out.

- Asking for 10, 10, 10, 8.5, 8.5 (PO) or 47 million over 5 years. Crowd-sourced opinions projected 2 x 10. Most ways, this is likely Salazar's last deal. If he beats that, he beats the value of the last deal. But what kind of deal would Salazar have gotten in one year? That's harder to project. Maybe 6 x 2? 8 x 1? IF that's the case, getting the predicted 2 x 10 would be a wash, with only the slight advantage of not having to go back to FA and risk CEI or some other injury related decline. His decision looks better than we thought. So we'll see how this goes. The very clear thing is that the opt out decision itself is largely based on an extension price at a lower AAV that is absurdly long for a player of his age.

These were my takeaways from the previous feature:

1) The game likely overestimates the length of deals older guys will sign. This I am certain of. So if you want to gamble, there might be an inefficiency here in offering extra years after an opt out to 35 year old guys. It looks like if they are good, they will opt out of ever two years. I wouldn't take the gamble, but it's definitely a possibility.

2) Similarly, it probably doesn't take into account whether the upcoming deals will have the years guaranteed. This is a huge flaw in logic, especially for older players.

3) I'm guessing that OOTP decides OPT outs based on a players asking price, as though they were a free agent, not base on what similar players are currently making. This would also be a huge flaw. I don't have a lot of evidence for this, but if it IS doing this, these decision make more sense.

I don't think much is different. Although we may have been too pessimistic. The thing we forgot, is that each FA deal for these guys, either after their contract had run out, or now after opting out, is likely the last big one they can get, so in that way I can see more tendency to go to FA sooner.

We're going to go with simpler categories for grades this time. No obvious "good decisions" in this group. For "Okay, I see it" we have 2 (Salazar and Dempsey). "Fire your agent" goes to just one (Mike Bailey). Two N/A's (Hinson and Sandcastle).





The second group was standard vet age players considering short term (<3 year) options.

Standard age free agents (and one young guy) with decisions on short term deals:

Victor Guerra opted out of 3.6 million in buyouts and 8.5 and 9.5 in salary over the next two years if those team options were picked up. He was a league average hitter, bad defender and worth 1.0 WAR last year. The game calls him a 50 and he will be 32. 100 % of twelve voters thought he shouldn't opt out.

- Apparently he was bought out. And did not opt out. Thanks, Ron for the update. Total below are fixed.

Jorge Rodriguez turned down 25 million over two years after a 2.7 WAR year, the game calls him a 55 and he'll be 33. 91% of voters thought he shouldn't opt out.

- Asking for 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7.5 (PO) or 6 years, 45 mil. In short, twice the money, three times the length. He'd have to do worse than 4 years for 25 mil at age 35 (when he would have gotten to FA) for this to make sense. In some ways, it makes sense. He seems to be saying that he may not be good enough later to get a big deal, but then, that's what we think, too. We predicted a shorter (2-3) year deal for him when you gave opinions.
This is the contract length issue for older players (this would take him through 39), not considering that teams are unlikely to guarantee all six years of the next deal. Again, here it really seems to say that players choose to opt out based on future demands rather than an analysis of current contracts of similar players. I think some of the games logic isn't bad here, but some of it contradicts itself. If you're good enough at age 33 to get a 6 year deal at 66 percent of your old value, shouldn't you think you'll be good enough at age 35 to get 3-4 years at half your current value? Maybe not. Maybe you are considering injuries. I see where the player is going here from a game logic standpoint, again, the game logic just doesn't seem very sophisticated.

Alfredo Martinez turned down 3 million over two years after a 3.7 WAR season. He will be 32 and the game calls him a 70. Only 34% of voters thought he shouldn't opt out.

- Asking for 23, 23, 23, 23, 23, 23 (PO). Finally. One where the logic makes clear sense. Thought he was worth more. Asking for more, regardless of how the chips would have fallen if he'd stayed in.

Jesus Ramos opted out of a single year for 9.81 million after a 2.7 win campaign. He will be 33 and the game calls him a 60. ZERO percent though he should not opt out.

- Didn't go to FA, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA! WHAT?! Took 2 x 6 million from Edmonton. Opted out for one extra year and 2.19 million dollars more. That's right. Had he opted in, he'd have had to do worse than 1 x 2.19 million a year from now in FA for this to make sense. LOL. Fail.

Gerardo Guzman opted out of 15 for one year after a 2.1 WAR season. The game calls him a 50, he will be 32. I didn't poll this one.

- Asking for 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7(PO) or six years, 42 mil. This seemed bad before and does now. Why would you not just wait a year? The game seems to have the ability to know he was overpaid. Whether or not it looks at it that way is another question. He'd have to get a less than a five year x 5.4 million AAV to come out behind. Does it expect one year to decrease his value by 23%? Is all the game's internal logic simply A is more money than B? Is that all?


Our takeaways before were:
1) OOTP at least gets it right on guys who will definitely make more. At least they get the no brainers.

2) We can be really certain at this point that OOTP doesn't know to predict that later years of contracts for guys over 30 will be non guaranteed

3) And this further reinforces my idea that OOTP used contract demands to decide on options (partly because players never ask for team options, and so the money is always guaranteed to them and partly because you can see how guys like Guzman and Rodriguez might think they could make more).

4) OOTP struggles with declining early 30's players understanding their own value. Opt outs here might not be a bad ploy, because it seems like the idiots take them, at least in this version.

5) OOTP on the other hand does better with younger players than older ones, again reinforcing the idea that they don't have realistic contract length expectations for older players.



I don't think anything in these contract demands changes these assumptions. The Guerra demands do make me wonder about #3. I know I've repeated that en in the new stuff, but I'm starting to wonder if there just isn't much decision logic at all, and it's just "I'm a 55. 55's ask for X. Is X > Y? If so, opt out." But even with that, Guerra is asking for less than he opted out of, unless the game DOES consider that TO's aren't guaranteed, but then so many other things don't make sense. So maybe it's "[I'm a 55. 55's ask for X. Is X > Y? ] x random number generator = If YES, opt out."

In this group of the typical opt out type guys, we had 1 "good decision" (Martinez), 2 "Okay, I see it" (Rodriguez and Guzman <-I'm being charitable)
and two N/A (Ramos, who should murder his agent and Guerra, who opted in and should even be in this article but I made a mistake.).





Last group is longer term contracts

Guys with 3+ years to consider.

Jayden Harsnett opted out of 36 million over two years that could potentially by 78.7 million over four. He just posted a 2.3 WAR year and will be 31. The game calls him a 65. No one thought he should opt out. 13 votes.

- He won't talk to me. I think I remember Randy telling me during the podcast he wanted five years. That would make sense because I remember the total dollars being 69 mil. So he goes to FA to make less AAV than the deal he opted out of to make 30 mil more in three more years rather than hit FA at 33. Above, we saw 33 year old Jorge Rodriguez ask for a six year deal, so we know the game will do that. Also, the deal he's asking for now will take him to 36, which the game SHOULD recognize is NOT a big long term deal age. Let's make two scenarios. One where he opts out, and one where he didn't. If he hadn't he'd get 39 mil and go to FA at 33, then get Rodriguez's 42 million or a similar deal for a total of 81 mil. IN this scenario, he gets 69 mil, and then has to beat 12 mil at 36 years old to beat that scenario. Given that OOTP doesn't seem to take into account TO's and player decline, I see where it's going here. It's just not very realistic.

Jimmy Greenwood opted out of 39.39 million over three years after a career best 6.7 WAR season. He will be 32 and the game calls him a 60. 21 percent thought he shouldn't opt out. 14 votes

- Asked for 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16(PO) or 6 years and 96 mil. Took a deal for 6 years and 80 mil in FA 1. Should still probably fire his agent, but for different reasons. Why would you sign for significantly less than you asked for in the first month of FA. At that asking price, which isn't unreasonable, it made sense to opt out of 13 mil for three. Even at what he signed for it made sense.

Our takeaways on this group were minimal, because the game just seems to handle longer options on younger players better, as it should because they are simpler to figure out.

In this group we had one "good decision" (Greenwood) and one "Okay, I see it" (Harsnett).

In total:
Good Decision 2
Okay, I See It 5
Fire Your Agent 1

So, better than I expected. Still, this is from the standpoint of assuming OOTP's contract demands will be met. That's rather optimistic even if they were realistic, as that's just not how free agency works. Finally, 11% of the decisions to opt out ending up as fire-able offenses is better than it was when the earlier version of this article had Guerra involved. Still not great, but not bad for a small sample. If around half of the middle group works out, then we're around 50-50 on opt out decisions.

Next time, in the final installment (unless I come back to this in five season), we'll look at the deals these guys actually got.

[crobillard]

I have to read through this entire post, but Ramos caught my eye. I felt really good about my Ramos deal. Shocked that e actually signed for that much. I felt like he was trolling.

[7teen]

Older vets:
Elroy Hinson turned down 16 mil for one year and possibly 30 for two and will enter FA at age 38. He just posted 2.2 WAR. Game calls him a 60. 23% though he should opt out. 77% thought he shouldn't. 13 total votes.

- FA demand unknown as he signed a 3 year extension with Madison for 15, 13, 11.5 (TO-2.4). Looks like opting out was the right choice for him.

I think it was still a good decision either way for Hinson. I was thinking he was guaranteed $13 million this year though and had an option for $17 next year. That still gets to the $30 million you noted but I didn't think next year was $16 million. Unless you're saying that $16 million was part of the buyout for year 3. After typing all of this out I'm assuming that's the case and I wasted a lot of my time and some of all of yours reading this rambling.

I wrote in my TN I think that what Elroy really got out of the deal was that $30 million you mentioned is now guaranteed by opting out and getting a new 3 year deal with Madison. Had he not opted out, I would have had to have picked up the T.O. for $17 million. Now he gets 28 million for the next two years and then either another 11.5 on top of that or the 2.4 option which gets him his $30.

[RonCo]

Victor Guerra opted in (decided not to opt out), and was then cut by Des Moines, thereby was paid his buyout fee. So this was a good decision by the OOTP algorithms.

[Ted]

Victor Guerra opted in (decided not to opt out), and was then cut by Des Moines, thereby was paid his buyout fee. So this was a good decision by the OOTP algorithms.

Missed it. Thank goodness. My faith in OOTP is somewhat restored. Thank you, sir.

[RonCo]

THe work you're doing on this is outstanding. Wish I'd been able to focus more while it was actually going on. As is, I'm mostly catching up.

[Ted]

THe work you're doing on this is outstanding. Wish I'd been able to focus more while it was actually going on. As is, I'm mostly catching up.

The problem I'm starting to see, is that while it seemed like a lot of players, a single offseason's worth of FA's is too small of a sample size for some of the decisions (mostly the truly bad ones), and I'm not sure I want to do it again.

[RonCo]

I don't know that you (or whoever) needs to go this this extent. But I think we could trade off each year for a few years doing a simple spreadsheet that captures

- Player
- Opt-in Deals (Captured in Nov)
- Opt-out Deals (Captured in Nov)
- Final contracts signed (Captured in March/April)
- Grade of decision (Assigned in April/May)

At the end of the day, the work to get consensus is interesting in itself, but I'm not sure if it's measuring the quality of OOTP's decision engine or whether it's better seen as a measure our own assessment of the BBA market.

[RonCo]

I've been focusing completely on guys who opted out and were signed by Frick teams, and to my mind all but one decision made by players has resulted in either a clear gain for the player, or a least arguably a wash. The one exception (I think) is Jayden Harsnett, who clearly lost a big chunk of money at the end of the day.

[Ted]

I don't know that you (or whoever) needs to go this this extent. But I think we could trade off each year for a few years doing a simple spreadsheet that captures

- Player
- Opt-in Deals (Captured in Nov)
- Opt-out Deals (Captured in Nov)
- Final contracts signed (Captured in March/April)
- Grade of decision (Assigned in April/May)

At the end of the day, the work to get consensus is interesting in itself, but I'm not sure if it's measuring the quality of OOTP's decision engine or whether it's measure our own assessment of the BBA market.

I'm totally with you on the last comment. I'm much more figuring out how OOTP's decision engine works in our environment that it's overall quality. The only true critique I feel confident making is that it really does seem to expect too long of deals for 37-38 players who opt out. That has more to do with FA demands (which I imagine the decision engine uses as inputs) than the decision engine itself.

I think, it's also really risk adverse, in that it seems to value total money over AAV in the extreme. I get that players could get injured, or may not get another deal due to lumping, etc, but the number of guys deciding to forgo 2 x the AAV on shorter deals (especially when it's a 1 year deal) to go ask for a 5-6 year much lower AAV deal seems high. On the other hand, this may be what actual players do. I haven't looked at that enough.

If you want to set up a spreadsheet, I'd be up for taking turns keeping it up to date.

[Ted]

I've been focusing completely on guys who opted out and were signed by Frick teams, and to my mind all but one decision made by players has resulted in either a clear gain for the player, or a least arguably a wash. The one exception (I think) is Jayden Harsnett, who clearly lost a big chunk of money at the end of the day.

There will be a part 4 where we look at what they got, and I'm inclined to agree with you looking at thins early on. I think we were overly pessimistic in our predcition/votes, and didn't really think enough about just how much more money there is in a longer deal.

Repeating my last post, I do wonder if though, that some of those players would have gotten the same or similar money anyway, if they just waited a year or two. Whether or not they should decide to do that is a difficult question.

[RonCo]

Yes, another factor that matters in this aspect of the game is how efficient our market is. By that, I mean how many dollars our teams leave on the table (money below cap/budget left unspent). Looking again at only the Frick League, the market was pretty strong by this metric. Unless I'm missing something, only Hawaii and Boise left bug chunks of money unspent. Between them, they probably could have spent another $80-$90M in 2038 dollars if they'd have wanted to...which would have pushed prices up even further...making opt outs relatively worth even more.

We also had teams like Long Beach and California using some "advanced bonus techniques" to use their budget above cap to get players extra money that won't show in the base figures. Jimmy Greenwood, for example, will almost certainly make $16M this year, $17M if he makes the AS team, but his base salary is only $10M in guaranteed AAV, because $6M of his salary is buried under a pretty easily achievable 100 IP bonus. Same for Chris Rios (not an opt-out, but fits the conversation for how major players can get additional comp that doesn't show up on some registers). Same for California's Alfredo Martinez (who will essentially make $22-24M this year, not counting the buy out he'd get if you don't execute your team option).

[RonCo]

Repeating my last post, I do wonder if though, that some of those players would have gotten the same or similar money anyway, if they just waited a year or two. Whether or not they should decide to do that is a difficult question.

Yes, at some point you can just look at it and say "If they got something that was about the same either way, it's a wash." I think MLB player strategy has, in general, been to go to the market whenever you can in the expectation that scarcity and unique team need will drive prices up, then weigh AAV vs. guaranteed money in your deal. So this would say that unless the decision is obvious, go ahead and opt-out. But recent MLB market trends are turning that strategy on its ear.

Your working idea that decisions are being based on FA demand is interesting to chew on. I'll have to think about it a little. Reverse engineering Markus and Matt's algorithms is always fraught with danger.

[Ted]

LOL at "advanced bonus techniques". I'm all about advanced bonus techniques. I have no clue if they work, but I do it all the time. And when I whiffed on IFA, and had 50 million in unspent budget, I figured, "what the hell?"

[Lane]

LOL at "advanced bonus techniques". I'm all about advanced bonus techniques. I have no clue if they work, but I do it all the time. And when I whiffed on IFA, and had 50 million in unspent budget, I figured, "what the hell?"

I didn't do it until I saw Ron mention it. Definitely a light bulb moment. I can't say how much it impacts guys decisions, but it seems to be working ok. I figure it's a good way to use my $150 million budget.

[agrudez]

Advanced bonus techniques, salary cap circumvention... tomato, tomahto.

[Ted]

Advanced bonus techniques, salary cap circumvention... tomato, tomahto.

I think it matters a great deal on how much they care. In my own negotiations with players, I really haven't noticed it affecting AAV demands much.

For example, player asks for 10 mil AAV. The best I've even been able to do is maybe get just over 9 mil with 3-4 million in bonus per year and a bonus that kicks in at like 20 plate appearances or 20 IP.

I think one time I talked player from 17 mil asking to 15.8 or something with similarly huge bonuses. So I paid 19 mil to get the cap number to be 15.8 instead of 17.

So yeah, it's still salary cap manipulation. Is it fair? I think so. Everyone can do it. Part of a being good franchise is making money. Tons of money. Generative revenue is job 1. Not winning games, not winning division titles, not winning the Landis, not drafting well, not developing a good farm system. Make money first. Then it's way easier to work on the other things, which lets you keep making money. If you do the other things first, at the expensive of generative revenue (like tearing your team down to get prospects and get earlier draft position) you put yourself in a hole and at a competitive disadvantage.

But, I also see how it could be argued that it is against the "spirit" of the cap, and if we got rid of bonuses, I wouldn't care so much.

[agrudez]

I never front or backload contracts and never try to lower AAV with incentives because, in my strong opinion, all of that is gaming the cap and against it's spirit. Until it's illegal then by definition it's legal, though - so the only thing standing in your way is what you think is right or wrong (and which one you choose once you've decided on a delineation).

It is comforting that your anecdotal experience suggests that the game isn't too susceptible to this tactic, though. The 30-10-5-5 style front-loading seems like a much more prevalent issue.

[Ted]

I never front or backload contracts and never try to lower AAV with incentives because, in my strong opinion, all of that is gaming the cap and against it's spirit. Until it's illegal then by definition it's legal, though - so the only thing standing in your way is what you think is right or wrong (and which one you choose once you've decided on a delineation).

It is comforting that your anecdotal experience suggests that the game isn't too susceptible to this tactic, though. The 30-10-5-5 style front-loading seems like a much more prevalent issue.

While I can see your argument against bonuses regarding cap circumvention, I don't really agree with the contract structuring one. The idea that a player has to make the same amount every year is entirely artificial. (Things like player option after team options, or making the last team option year twice the value of a previous one are another story). You can pay 110 in salaries every year. If you choose to pay more to player one year so you pay less in another, I just don't see how that's getting around the cap. You didn't have that cap space in the year it was available. Putting together a team with a cap is a puzzle. No one said all the pieces have to be square. I know a lot of professional sports calculate a cap hit, that basically doesn't allow for this, but that's their choice. I can see the argument more if a team is not running up near the cap every year. Front or back-loading or using a balloon year and then just not trying to compete that one year is a bit questionable, but if you are near the cap, then all you are doing with oddly structured contracts is changing the shape of your puzzle. You're spending the same amount of money. As I think about this more, it's an interesting question.

[RonCo]

Every professional sport in the world that has a salary cap (that I'm aware of) has accounting elements that apply to the cap and other elements that do not. Things like signing bonuses and deferred compensation are the two most obvious that pretty much every league in existence does not apply to their salary caps. There are also side media deals and other revenue streams that do not count toward a salary cap. The BBA has similar but different dynamics, so we're no different.

For these reasons, I struggle to see use of bonuses (which do not count against the salary cap) as playing against the spirit of the rules. Being a GM is a complex thing because there are lots of nuances and strategies you need to engage, and these nuances and strategies are different at different times of a team's growth curves.

I have no idea why GMs in a simulation that uses salary caps would want to cut this tool out of the tool box. Because that's what using bonuses are: tools in the box (just like the act of leveraging comp picks are "just" a tool in the GM's tool box).

This is among the reasons I say that the skill sets of building a team and of maintaining a team are completely different things. You build through draft and trade and waivers and ... blah, blah, blah. But in a league with a strong salary cap, unless you get really lucky, you really can't maintain progress for a long time until you get good at using all the tools at your disposal to manage your salary structure. When your team is operating below salary cap, these tools are limited...but once you are operating at cap and with a budget a bit over cap, the toolbox gets bigger. One of those new tools that gets unlocked is realizing when you should use bonuses above cap and when you should not. It's not a one-size-fits-all question. Front loading and back loading contracts is another tool that real GMs of real sports utilize often. Again, I see no basic reason why we would cut tools from our toolbox that are in play in real life sports (it is, of course, fair to consider restricting access to the tools in situations where the game deals with those tools in totally wonky ways, but overall OOTP is considerably better at these things in today's world than it once was).

Regardless, (as Ted has often made strong points about) the fact that getting your budget up to the 130-150M level is what opens these tool boxes is why it's valuable to manage your finances well even when your team sucks. You want to be on very strong financial basis coming up the curve. Otherwise your stay at the top will be a quick couple seasons and you'll be rebuilding again pronto.