Bad Contract Thread Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by mrauseo on 5/7/2012 8:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2012 8:01:00 AM (view original):
I agree that giving yourself more options is always the better route.   But, to the best of my knowledge, mutual option means the player can opt out.   There are times when I don't want that to happen.
Yes, but in the situations where you don't want the player to OPT out you would rather have him for 5@50 than 4@50. 

BTW:  Definitly think their are situations you don't want to have a mutual option.  This participar example though I'm struggling to come up with one beyond the far fetched one I mentioned before.

For example you definitly wouldn't want a mutual option in 3@9 contract where you paid out an 8mm dollar bonus.  Thats a contract structure I use fairly frequently and you obviously don't want the mutual included.

Maybe you have a prospect in your system who you feel will be ML ready in S5 to replace this guy.  So you definitely want him for guaranteed S1-S4, but not for S5.  That's when you might give him 4@50 with no option as opposed to 5@50.
5/7/2012 9:09 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by mrauseo on 5/7/2012 8:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2012 8:01:00 AM (view original):
I agree that giving yourself more options is always the better route.   But, to the best of my knowledge, mutual option means the player can opt out.   There are times when I don't want that to happen.
Yes, but in the situations where you don't want the player to OPT out you would rather have him for 5@50 than 4@50. 

BTW:  Definitly think their are situations you don't want to have a mutual option.  This participar example though I'm struggling to come up with one beyond the far fetched one I mentioned before.

For example you definitly wouldn't want a mutual option in 3@9 contract where you paid out an 8mm dollar bonus.  Thats a contract structure I use fairly frequently and you obviously don't want the mutual included.

Depends on the situation.   Do I have a player to take his place in S5?  Do I expect him to be a legit player in S5?   What's my FA/arb status over the next 4 seasons?   Do I have to reach minimum wins?  Does the world limit cash in trades?   Lots of things to consider.
5/7/2012 9:28 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Of course, that's really my problem with the "contract template" that jvf and deano insist can be used for all situations.
5/7/2012 9:29 AM
mrauseo
Posts: 77 (0)
Hall of Famer
78
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2012 9:09:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mrauseo on 5/7/2012 8:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2012 8:01:00 AM (view original):
I agree that giving yourself more options is always the better route.   But, to the best of my knowledge, mutual option means the player can opt out.   There are times when I don't want that to happen.
Yes, but in the situations where you don't want the player to OPT out you would rather have him for 5@50 than 4@50. 

BTW:  Definitly think their are situations you don't want to have a mutual option.  This participar example though I'm struggling to come up with one beyond the far fetched one I mentioned before.

For example you definitly wouldn't want a mutual option in 3@9 contract where you paid out an 8mm dollar bonus.  Thats a contract structure I use fairly frequently and you obviously don't want the mutual included.

Maybe you have a prospect in your system who you feel will be ML ready in S5 to replace this guy.  So you definitely want him for guaranteed S1-S4, but not for S5.  That's when you might give him 4@50 with no option as opposed to 5@50.
So you would rather pay $50mm for that player than $40.6mm?  Where you get the same player for the same seasons?

I mean, maybe their is some extremly unique situation where that would make sense.  But it would be amazingly rare. 

5/7/2012 9:34 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Players accept the highest total contract.
5/7/2012 9:38 AM
mrauseo
Posts: 77 (0)
Hall of Famer
78
Prospect
Both of those contracts are $50mm in total value from a game play perspective.  The difference is the non-buyout portion of the option. 
5/7/2012 9:41 AM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 119 1 52
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2012 6:58:00 AM (view original):
I guess, in kahtrmen-world, all situaitons are the same.   

Seems insane to me that people think throwing away money in the final year is always the best route.    Insane.
Please, you haven't been to the playoffs in a million years in MG because all you do is make dumbass moves and then justify them by saying that it suited your team's precise disposition.

I know it's only natural for you to find one logical angle in an argument and beat it to death, but maybe if you STFU and considered that you don't know everything for once you'd learn something.
5/7/2012 9:50 AM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 119 1 52
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2012 9:29:00 AM (view original):
Of course, that's really my problem with the "contract template" that jvf and deano insist can be used for all situations.

Do you ever look around and see that you're on the same side of an HBD argument as tec and the opposite side as me and wonder if maybe you should re-consider?

I mean you're terrified of trading with me in MG, yet you seem to be pretty confident telling me my HBD opinions in general suck.  That's sorta funny to me.

5/7/2012 9:51 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by mrauseo on 5/7/2012 9:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2012 9:09:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mrauseo on 5/7/2012 8:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2012 8:01:00 AM (view original):
I agree that giving yourself more options is always the better route.   But, to the best of my knowledge, mutual option means the player can opt out.   There are times when I don't want that to happen.
Yes, but in the situations where you don't want the player to OPT out you would rather have him for 5@50 than 4@50. 

BTW:  Definitly think their are situations you don't want to have a mutual option.  This participar example though I'm struggling to come up with one beyond the far fetched one I mentioned before.

For example you definitly wouldn't want a mutual option in 3@9 contract where you paid out an 8mm dollar bonus.  Thats a contract structure I use fairly frequently and you obviously don't want the mutual included.

Maybe you have a prospect in your system who you feel will be ML ready in S5 to replace this guy.  So you definitely want him for guaranteed S1-S4, but not for S5.  That's when you might give him 4@50 with no option as opposed to 5@50.
So you would rather pay $50mm for that player than $40.6mm?  Where you get the same player for the same seasons?

I mean, maybe their is some extremly unique situation where that would make sense.  But it would be amazingly rare. 

Why would I want to commit maximum buyout to a player I have no intent of keeping in S5?  If I'm going to tack on a MO for S5, why wouldn't I want to go with throwing away a lower/minimum buyout?

Again, what you're suggesting might make sense more often than not.  But it should not be an automatic "always do this" cookie-cutter approach to contracts.  One needs to look at all the factors that pertain to their particular situation and do what makes the most sense.
5/7/2012 10:09 AM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 119 1 52
Prospect
Tec stop being so wrong.

It absolutely should be an automatic "always do."  And you have it backwards, people need to worry less about their particular situation and just make GOOD MOVES that also happen to suit them.  Huge shocker that the two people who are ******* over context also happen to always have sub-.500 teams.
5/7/2012 10:19 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by deanod on 5/7/2012 10:19:00 AM (view original):
Tec stop being so wrong.

It absolutely should be an automatic "always do."  And you have it backwards, people need to worry less about their particular situation and just make GOOD MOVES that also happen to suit them.  Huge shocker that the two people who are ******* over context also happen to always have sub-.500 teams.
Making decisions with a "one size fits all" framework, without regard to context, is dumb.

Even if one ends up doing as you suggest 100% of the time, they should at least think through what they're doing while evaluating their own particular situation for the pros and cons.  Not working through the decision process is just plain irresponsible.
5/7/2012 10:39 AM
mrauseo
Posts: 77 (0)
Hall of Famer
78
Prospect
?Why would I want to commit maximum buyout to a player I have no intent of keeping in S5?  If I'm going to tack on a MO for S5, why wouldn't I want to go with throwing away a lower/minimum buyout?

 
Because you get him for $10mm cheaper over the same term.   Its a dynasty game, if you are paying $10mm over 5 years  more than you need to for all of your core players then you are at a signifigant disadvantage to your comeptitors and you always will be. 

I'm not saying you should always do it,  but in a situation like the example, you're base case should be "this is how I'm going to do it", then think about it.  If you can come up with compelling reasons to do it a different way think about it again because your giving away a **** ton of value if you do it the other way.
5/7/2012 10:46 AM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 119 1 52
Prospect
It shouldn't take very much thought to realize that saving $4M in S1-S4 is always better than saving $1M in S5.  It actually took zero thought for me, because it was just completely ******* obvious from the moment I started playing HBD.  You're only hurting yourself by overthinking here.

All I ever do is make decisions with a "one size fits all" framework and I'm in the playoffs every damn year.  OTOH you and Mike are all about situational awareness and never make the playoffs.  If my mantra is dumb, what does that make you guys?
5/7/2012 10:53 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by deanod on 5/7/2012 9:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2012 6:58:00 AM (view original):
I guess, in kahtrmen-world, all situaitons are the same.   

Seems insane to me that people think throwing away money in the final year is always the best route.    Insane.
Please, you haven't been to the playoffs in a million years in MG because all you do is make dumbass moves and then justify them by saying that it suited your team's precise disposition.

I know it's only natural for you to find one logical angle in an argument and beat it to death, but maybe if you STFU and considered that you don't know everything for once you'd learn something.
I make dumbass moves in all my worlds to keep myself out of the playoffs.

Nonetheless, to dispute "always" is the logical angle.   Don't be a dumbass and make incorrect definitive statements and I'll have nothing to beat to death.

Agree?
5/7/2012 11:02 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by deanod on 5/7/2012 9:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2012 9:29:00 AM (view original):
Of course, that's really my problem with the "contract template" that jvf and deano insist can be used for all situations.

Do you ever look around and see that you're on the same side of an HBD argument as tec and the opposite side as me and wonder if maybe you should re-consider?

I mean you're terrified of trading with me in MG, yet you seem to be pretty confident telling me my HBD opinions in general suck.  That's sorta funny to me.

I'm pretty sure your **** still stinks.   Don't think you're ALWAYS right.   Because you aren't.

I wouldn't say I'm terrified of anything.  Especially internet games.  I just don't like trading high draft picks for players I can acquire in FA.    If your simple "always do this" is wrong, I'll tell you your opinion sucks.  Yuk it up.
5/7/2012 11:05 AM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8...10 Next ▸
Bad Contract Thread Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.