Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bidding Comments  (Read 9993 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fairfax
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,004



« on: April 03, 2012, 06:06:41 PM »

Don't post on the topics (makes it harder to monitor the deadlines), post here.
Logged
Richmond
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 316



« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2012, 07:50:20 PM »

I really hate the way we have free agency organized.  66 hours later one of my bids gets raised.  This happens every season and I find it makes it pretty impossible to budget.  Do we really need to give teams 72 hours to make an opening bid?
Logged
Marrakesh
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,588



« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2012, 11:41:05 PM »

All threads through Valverde can be stitched up.
Logged

"Lord of the rebel fiefdom"
Memphis
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 945



« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2012, 08:53:45 AM »

The Wakefield bidding is getting stupid.
Logged
New England
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,251



« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2012, 10:12:59 AM »

I'd argue that the Bumgarner bidding may be worse.  Did he get a bump as a FA??
Logged
Alaska
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2012, 10:26:47 AM »

The Wakefield bidding is getting stupid.

First time ever I can throw stupid money at free agents!
Logged

A whole lot of stolen bases and runs scored since 2032.
Ushuaia
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,289



« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2012, 11:03:10 AM »

I'd argue that the Bumgarner bidding may be worse.  Did he get a bump as a FA??
He got a double bump in ATL right before entering the FA pool.
Logged
Marrakesh
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,588



« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2012, 11:06:18 AM »

I think Brooklyn's latest bid on Hill was late.
Logged

"Lord of the rebel fiefdom"
New England
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,251



« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2012, 12:31:49 PM »

I'd argue that the Bumgarner bidding may be worse.  Did he get a bump as a FA??
He got a double bump in ATL right before entering the FA pool.

Ah.  That explains some I suppose.  Still risky Wink
Logged
Fairfax
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,004



« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2012, 02:57:50 PM »

I really hate the way we have free agency organized.  66 hours later one of my bids gets raised.  This happens every season and I find it makes it pretty impossible to budget.  Do we really need to give teams 72 hours to make an opening bid?

If you put some logic behind your frustrations I'm glad to listen. Whether it is 2 hours, 24 hours, or 72 hours, I don't see the difference.
Logged
Richmond
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 316



« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2012, 06:28:50 PM »

I just find three days excessive, especially when the owner is around during those 3 days.  If it is an expensive free agent, you sit out all the other free agent bidding.
Logged
Philadelphia
Guest
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2012, 07:34:37 PM »

Whoops missed fa
Logged
Fairfax
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,004



« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2012, 09:03:38 PM »

I just find three days excessive, especially when the owner is around during those 3 days.  If it is an expensive free agent, you sit out all the other free agent bidding.

It used to be 2 days, and it wasn't enough. Everyone is playing by the same rules. Whether it is 2 days or 3 days, the clock ends at the same time for all players, so if you make a large bid, you are precluded from bidding on other players if the owner waits until the last minute to outbid you. This would happen whether it was 2 hours, 2 days, or 3 days. It makes no difference. Owners will wait til the last minute.
Logged
Philadelphia
Guest
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2012, 09:21:53 PM »

what if we went back to using the ootp5 in-game logic?  salaries via bidding are kind of out of control at this point and maybe it is playing a part in owner turnover...
Logged
Wichita
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 594



« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2012, 09:42:12 PM »

what if we went back to using the ootp5 in-game logic?  salaries via bidding are kind of out of control at this point and maybe it is playing a part in owner turnover...

I would think the large amount of cash/income in the league causes high salaries, rather than the FA system?
Logged

Levi
WCH Linemen

NL Wildcard: 2046
Philadelphia
Guest
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2012, 10:26:04 PM »

what if we went back to using the ootp5 in-game logic?  salaries via bidding are kind of out of control at this point and maybe it is playing a part in owner turnover...

I would think the large amount of cash/income in the league causes high salaries, rather than the FA system?

so are you proposing a multi-pronged approach that doesn't lead shitty players to make big bucks, or critiquing my argument?
Logged
Wichita
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 594



« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2012, 10:44:57 PM »

what if we went back to using the ootp5 in-game logic?  salaries via bidding are kind of out of control at this point and maybe it is playing a part in owner turnover...

I would think the large amount of cash/income in the league causes high salaries, rather than the FA system?

so are you proposing a multi-pronged approach that doesn't lead shitty players to make big bucks, or critiquing my argument?

If the purpose of changing the FA system is to prevent out of control salaries, then changing to use OOTP5 instead of the current system won't work.

If the cash is there, it will be spent. It's still possible to make a $25m bid in OOTP5 FA.

So, IMO, the way to reduce FA salaries is to reduce the amount that teams have available to spend. I'm not sure of the best way to do that however.
Logged

Levi
WCH Linemen

NL Wildcard: 2046
Chicago
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 871



« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2012, 02:26:00 AM »

Not sure I'm a huge fan of open bidding...closed bids (basically the in-game system) might lead to some outrageous starting bids, but less oneupmanship overall. Another league I was in also used to limit re-signs to improve the FA talent pool...more good players=more money spread around, or at least that was the theory. I didn't love it in that league, but it's not the worst rule in the world.
Logged
Texas
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 352



« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2012, 03:02:52 AM »

I haven't signed a single free agent.  But it has not hampered my chances.  I think FA is fine in this league the crazy salary's going around, well to prevent that lock up your good players!  Munoz for me was a stretch, but hell I don't know what he would have gotten on the open market.  I play in another league where cash means next to nothing because the salary's are depressed so much.  I prefer where this league is at by far.  Develop your Arby type players and the wins will come just like in real life. 
Logged
Memphis
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 945



« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2012, 09:48:25 AM »

I'm fine with this system. The OOTP5 logic was pretty wacky at times.
Logged
Fairfax
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,004



« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2012, 05:53:44 PM »

It's an overall problem with OOTP5.

In almost all scenarios, extensions can be signed *very* cheaply.  That leads to a lot of extra revenue space to spend on the limited FA pool.

The revenue space is much more problematic than the cash available. WCH had a bazillion in cash a couple years ago and went crazy. They've already churned through 20 years of cash savings.

The fix would be to make extension signing costs more competive somehow. That would be a manual process of some sort. Anything extensive would fall out of the range of time I have available to devote. Can anyone think of any simple, fair, straightforward ideas?
Logged
New England
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,251



« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2012, 06:38:16 PM »

It's an overall problem with OOTP5.

In almost all scenarios, extensions can be signed *very* cheaply.  That leads to a lot of extra revenue space to spend on the limited FA pool.

The revenue space is much more problematic than the cash available. WCH had a bazillion in cash a couple years ago and went crazy. They've already churned through 20 years of cash savings.

The fix would be to make extension signing costs more competive somehow. That would be a manual process of some sort. Anything extensive would fall out of the range of time I have available to devote. Can anyone think of any simple, fair, straightforward ideas?

What if we added 50% (or some other amount) to the agreed dollar amount for extensions.

ie.  2B - Donald Coppa agrees to a 3 year extension at $4 mill per year.. The actual contract signed is $6 mill.  Still lower than he'd get in FA, I'd think.. but I also think we may get more FA's so maybe prices will come down? Maybe.. Probably not.
Logged
Wichita
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 594



« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2012, 07:25:01 PM »

The revenue space is much more problematic than the cash available. WCH had a bazillion in cash a couple years ago and went crazy. They've already churned through 20 years of cash savings.

Plenty of time to cut payroll and go crazy again in a couple of years time Cheesy
Logged

Levi
WCH Linemen

NL Wildcard: 2046
Texas
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 352



« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2012, 08:37:25 PM »

I don't think its a great idea to limit a team trying to keep its own FA's.  I do think getting handcufffed by over paying for free agents, and nippon imports keeps things competitive.  If it were up to me I'd go with status quo. 
Logged
Richmond
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 316



« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2012, 10:24:56 PM »

I think the gap between the have and have nots is pretty huge.  That happens in all leagues that are over 10 or so seasons old.  Some teams have revenues around 50-60 and others are over 100. 
Logged
Ushuaia
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,289



« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2012, 02:50:03 AM »

I think the gap between the have and have nots is pretty huge.  That happens in all leagues that are over 10 or so seasons old.  Some teams have revenues around 50-60 and others are over 100. 
Yes, but methinks there're reasons other than the FA rules to explain that. Say ballpark tickets badly set up (STL being the extreme here), no use of promotions, funky spending, etc. I like the current FA rules. Some guys prefer to go nuts over a mediocre player instead of losing a 1st rounder to get a solid yet somewhat old performer. Thus, usually get financially hadcuffed for years and can't keep their FA's to-be. Of course, the rules could be vastly improved, but this always translates in the commish having to spend more time doing stuff.
Logged
Marrakesh
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,588



« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2012, 10:47:07 AM »

Can anyone think of any simple, fair, straightforward ideas?

I'm thinking of a system where everybody HAS to let their guy go to FA. Then they can have the first crack at offering a guy an "extension". If the FA rejects the initial offer, other teams can then bid for him.
Logged

"Lord of the rebel fiefdom"
New England
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,251



« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2012, 01:51:53 PM »

Can anyone think of any simple, fair, straightforward ideas?

I'm thinking of a system where everybody HAS to let their guy go to FA. Then they can have the first crack at offering a guy an "extension". If the FA rejects the initial offer, other teams can then bid for him.

Not a fan of this one, personally.  I don't like the idea of one crack at the guys I drafted/traded for/etc.
Logged
Wichita
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 594



« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2012, 04:16:43 PM »

Can anyone think of any simple, fair, straightforward ideas?

I'm thinking of a system where everybody HAS to let their guy go to FA. Then they can have the first crack at offering a guy an "extension". If the FA rejects the initial offer, other teams can then bid for him.

I've always wanted to try a restricted FA system somewhere.

A system where extensions aren't allowed, but the team that did have a player gets the opportunity to match the best offer he received in FA.

e.g., if a player I had goes to FA and the top bid was 4 x $5m, I can keep him at that price or let him go to the winning bidder.
Logged

Levi
WCH Linemen

NL Wildcard: 2046
Alaska
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2012, 04:51:29 PM »

I don't see much need for any changes to be honest.
Logged

A whole lot of stolen bases and runs scored since 2032.
Brooklyn
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,757



« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2012, 05:09:59 PM »

well, if a team can, or has the option to 'match' a certain offer, if said team doesnt match the offer, would that team get a compensary pick in the ammy draft?
Logged
Wichita
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 594



« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2012, 07:03:41 PM »

FWIW, I wasn't suggesting this be adopted for CBL. I actually think CBL's system is pretty good.

well, if a team can, or has the option to 'match' a certain offer, if said team doesnt match the offer, would that team get a compensary pick in the ammy draft?

I wouldn't think so. Currently there's a situation where cost of extension < FA value, this would make them equal.

If it's not ideal that cost of extension = FA value, then you could modify it with compensation picks (e.g., mimic a MLB like system, with picks for players offered over $12m). Or you could have the original team able to keep the player at 85% of the final FA bid.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 07:06:30 PM by Wichita » Logged

Levi
WCH Linemen

NL Wildcard: 2046
Brooklyn
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,757



« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2012, 07:56:45 PM »

I think that would certainly be interesting, but would make for alot more work for the commish, i would think
Logged
Philadelphia
Guest
« Reply #33 on: April 12, 2012, 08:24:21 PM »

here are the facts, as eye c it:
1. very few players make it to FA b/c owners can generally retain FAs-to-be at a relatively reasonable price (relative to cost of getting someone on FA)
2. many teams have a lot of money
3. b/c of low supply, and high demand and lots of $$$, players in FA get contracts that are disproportionate to their worth (too much annually or too many years, but usually both)
4. rebuilding takes time and it seems funner (especially for new owners) to splurge in FA... until those players suck/take a PD, and become financial albatri (plural of albatross?)


as i read them, most of these suggestions only address the 3rd point, or add complication/work for Eric to the league.  changing just the FA mechanism without adjusting anything else wouldn't work.  If it did, I'd recommend going to the ootp5 in-game model, as this would fix things and reduce work for the commish.

Here is how I would address each point I enumerated for myself to address right here:
1. increase the # of rounds in the draft.  everyone seems to like to trade draft picks, and many teams have very few players.  so we need more players in the league (this would also lead to more FAs every year)
2. how about some of the teams with a lot of money "donate" any $$$ over a certain amount ($50M?) to something, maybe even something that would benefit them: a second "nippon" league, perhaps set up to bring in South American players or players from somewhere foreign (Israel?). And then, from that point forward, we put a cap on how much cash a team can have.
3. use the in-game ootp5 [il]logic
4. the above three will synergistically fix this one.  for example, having more draft picks would allow teams to rebuild more quickly (imagine having 40 picks in 1 draft!).  having a second league would also bring more talent in.  

aaaaaand breath
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 08:27:08 PM by Philadelphia » Logged
Philadelphia
Guest
« Reply #34 on: April 12, 2012, 08:28:39 PM »

also, matt carpenter (canada) says he quit the league right before FA... sad
Logged
Brooklyn
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,757



« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2012, 08:43:59 PM »

also, matt carpenter (canada) says he quit the league right before FA... sad

whaaaaat? that sux
Logged
Texas
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 352



« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2012, 09:36:20 PM »

Really?  Thats a shame about Matt.   
On the topic of league changes I think fiscal responsibility for some of the teams would fix some of the problems of revenue.  And I really don't think contracts should be devalued, If you develop  your players, or trade for them at the right time you should reap the rewards.  Adding a player via r some other league could be a neat idea.  But then make the player eligible for the draft, so that the worst team gets a crack at him 1st, with a entry level contract.  This would instantly improve the receiving team, instead of hampering them, like what we seen with Takahashi.  The Nippon import would remain for teams that had the extra cash, with the pick automatically going to the bottom half of the standings.  Just my 2 cents leave F/A and extensions alone!
Logged
Wichita
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 594



« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2012, 09:41:03 PM »

1. very few players make it to FA b/c owners can generally retain FAs-to-be at a relatively reasonable price (relative to cost of getting someone on FA)
2. many teams have a lot of money
3. b/c of low supply, and high demand and lots of $$$, players in FA get contracts that are disproportionate to their worth (too much annually or too many years, but usually both)
4. rebuilding takes time and it seems funner (especially for new owners) to splurge in FA... until those players suck/take a PD, and become financial albatri (plural of albatross?)

I think addressing these as four separate issues doesn't work, as they're all dependent on each other.

I'm not sure that #4 is an issue. If an owner would prefer to dabble in FA rather than sit through a bunch of losing seasons waiting for draft picks to develop, then I think they should be allowed to.

#3 happens because of #2 - more cash means more to spend.

#1 follows from #3 - if it's cheaper to keep my player than obtain similar performance on the FA market, then that's what I'm going to do.

#2 follows from #1 - It's relatively easy to keep an income that's higher than your payroll.

So, you could lower the amount of cash in the league (luxury tax or similar) which would mean reduced FA spending, means lower FA prices, means less extensions (because there's more chance of getting someone cheaper through FA), means more players in FA.

Or, the restricted FA approach addresses #1 - it cuts out the price difference between extensions and FA signings, means less extensions, more players in FA, yada yada yada.

This assumes it's a problem anyway. As an owner you have a choice on how to build your team. FA prices are what they are, and owners should plan accordingly. Personally, this is my preferred option.
Logged

Levi
WCH Linemen

NL Wildcard: 2046
Wichita
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 594



« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2012, 09:46:53 PM »

This would instantly improve the receiving team, instead of hampering them, like what we seen with Takahashi.

I disagree that Takahashi hampered me.

The FA splurge was a calculated risk - I thought that my existing players (some young guys just hitting the majors) + the FA guys would give me a playoff team. WCH went from a 100 loss team to a 88-89 win team. Unfortunately that wasn't enough for a playoff spot.

WCH still has enough cash reserves to wait out most of the contracts taken on too. I wouldn't have chosen this strategy with less cash on hand.
Logged

Levi
WCH Linemen

NL Wildcard: 2046
Texas
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 352



« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2012, 09:54:47 PM »

Well no disservice to you grabbing Takahashi, but I think a player like that should go to cash heavy teams trying to win now with a contract like that.  You were rigth there in the playoff hunt until the end.  But a team with limited finances on a total rebuild would benefit from a developed player on a entry level 300K contract with 0 days service time.  But I think that player should come at the cost of a 1st round pick.  16.5 is alot of cash.  I do see the calculated risk, and made one much in the same fashion with Yu Darvish my first offseason in the league.  Sorry if that came out as a slight to Wichita. 
Logged
Wichita
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 594



« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2012, 10:03:21 PM »

Sorry if that came out as a slight to Wichita. 

No offense taken. WCH is a team that should be discussed regarding the FA system - Hopefully as a positive. Given that FA can be used to take a 100 loss team to competitive in one season shows that it is a viable method of building a team. A lot of leagues I've seen require building only through the draft/trade because no one good ever hits FA.
Logged

Levi
WCH Linemen

NL Wildcard: 2046
Marrakesh
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,588



« Reply #41 on: April 12, 2012, 11:54:18 PM »

This talk is reminding me of the days where I was able to game FA by offering a bunch of 300k contracts with no time for other GMs to respond. Ahh, the good old days...
Logged

"Lord of the rebel fiefdom"
Chicago
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 871



« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2012, 03:33:11 AM »

I didn't even think of it but the first thing I noticed when I joined was how ridiculously flush with cash every team was...What's the cap system now? No more than $10M per year if I remember correctly? There should be an overall cap though too. Or even a salary cap, but that would make the current cash worthless.
Logged
New England
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,251



« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2012, 11:37:35 AM »

We could also have a rule where, once a team exceeds a certain amount of total $$, they can only profit a lesser amount per year.

IE, once total cash is $100 mill, the max a team can bank is $5 mill plus playoff revenue.

Though, that being said, I think the problem is less about total cash teams have on hand and is more about how much certain teams generate each season.  They go hand in hand, I know, but if teams start generating money than they can start banking some of it.

I still think the simplest solution is my original comment about raising the dollar value to extensions.  In theory, extension prices go up, there will be more FA's, thus FA spending should decrease.  Or, at the very least, FA spending should decrease on the ancient and mediocre.

This said, I'm not sure how viable a solution this is for the teams already having trouble generating $$.

Maybe a simple revenue reset would help?  I know we tackled this somewhat a few seasons ago.  How did that pan out?
Logged
Chicago
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 871



« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2012, 05:48:37 PM »

I don't really like that idea...that just blows the top off. I want to be able to find value when I can. (Although salaries are pretty inflated IRL so maybe in a way it's realistic.) I'd prefer something that brings finances under control...
Logged
New England
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,251



« Reply #45 on: April 13, 2012, 05:54:19 PM »

Responsible ownership then, I think Wink  Which, IMO, means avoiding a lot of FA.
Logged
Chicago
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 871



« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2012, 09:00:10 PM »

Yeah, well exactly...Rather stick to extensions and avoid FA altogether, rather than getting punished for extending my own guys.
Logged
Texas
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 352



« Reply #47 on: April 13, 2012, 09:49:52 PM »

How about making a team responsible for a entire contract if the player signed retires mid contract.  It would prevent 5 year 100+ million dollar deals to 37 year old pitchers.  That would go a long way in driving price down.
Logged
Memphis
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 945



« Reply #48 on: April 14, 2012, 10:04:06 AM »

How about making a team responsible for a entire contract if the player signed retires mid contract.  It would prevent 5 year 100+ million dollar deals to 37 year old pitchers.  That would go a long way in driving price down.

I do hate that.
Logged
Ushuaia
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,289



« Reply #49 on: April 14, 2012, 10:09:01 AM »

I actually like TEX's idea.
Logged
Minneapolis
Guest
« Reply #50 on: April 15, 2012, 02:52:23 AM »

I like that idea from TEX. I've done it, we've all done...overpaid for a guy near the end, knowing (hoping) he'll just hang 'em up and we can save the dough.

Also, I'd add this to it: If you trade a FA, you are fined one year's salary for what you signed him. Say you sign a guy for 15 mil for five years, trade him in year two...you get hit 15 mil the FOLLOWING season as well. That will also bring prices down. I think that's the key here: we need to bring FA prices down so the poorer teams have a better shot.

Another way to bring prices down is to have more FA's available. FA's are way overpaid partly because there are not enough of them. If there is knowledge that there will be more FA's available in the offseason, there won't be such an urge and rush to re-sign guys you already have at more than what they are worth.

And I know some guys have said the extension prices are too low...I call bullshit on that, I find extension prices way too high. So if there were going to be more FA's at a more affordable price, the extensions would become less commonplace, IMO. The sim is way too biased in favor of teams that have long term success when it comes to extension prices. Again, the poorer teams suffer because some guy they've developed gets to FA status and says "I want to play for a winning team". I know, I know, that's how it is in real life. But like others have said, we're NOT supposed to be "lifelike" in this league. I mean really, who wants to join a league knowing they are going to be akin to the real-life Pirates or Royals?
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 02:55:57 AM by Minneapolis » Logged
Minneapolis
Guest
« Reply #51 on: April 15, 2012, 03:01:08 AM »

Oh, and one more thing...what about exploring making a player pass through waivers before being traded? Gives the other clubs a) a chance to put in a waiver claim (and in some cases, then, win the services of a guy making 7 mil that might be good for team A but is a salary dump for the team trying to trade him) and b) giving other clubs the opportunity to block the trade. All of our fights in this league are based on how stupid some of us feel a trade looks. The commish has the power to veto, but that's unfair to Eric. If we put a "must pass through waivers", then we all become the judge and jury, and nobody can bitch.

Plus, I like the strategy if a team you're fighting with is trying to add a player. If no one likes that idea, we can always say the team putting in the waiver claim also has to give something back to the team losing the player, and make it a player of similar star-rating or age or salary or whatever. Is it worth discussing? I'd like to think so...it might finally be a way of stopping our Kansas City A's from feeding our New York Yankees, if y'all know what I mean.
Logged
Texas
Owners
General Manager
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 352



« Reply #52 on: April 15, 2012, 12:49:03 PM »

Yeah extension prices are not to cheap, except for those for the freak pitchers that have 1 star ratings, 8 in walks and 8 in home runs and zero in everything else.  Those could be looked at but look at Kubel I just paid him 18 mil, and almost lost him.  You could alter the mood of the player with your participation points proactively thus preventing losing a top guy to FA. 





.
Logged
Fairfax
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,004



« Reply #53 on: April 15, 2012, 03:45:25 PM »

Here are some changes that may help that wouldn't require a lot of extra work. Also, some reminders about the cons of the game's FA system

OOTP5 ingame FA system large drawback :
Many players cannot be bid on by bad teams (want a winning team, don't like organization)

Potential small changes that could help :
- No offering contracts past age 40 in Free Agency (if 37, 3 year max offer, etc)
- All signed players will be promoted to major league roster of signing team automatically when signed, even if it means demoting other players (so veterans on ML contracts can't as easily be stashed in AAA)
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 03:50:27 PM by Fairfax » Logged
Chicago
Administrator
General Manager
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 871



« Reply #54 on: April 16, 2012, 04:38:38 PM »

I like automatically promoting FAs to MJB...say, anyone who signs for over a mill.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: