Arbitration Report Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Arb has to be done before FA.   This isn't a lot of flexibility within the pre-season schedule. 

I fully understand the desire to move players when their demands don't fit your plans.   But this is a sim and some concessions have to be made.  We could extend every pre-season process to two days and someone would want three or four.  
3/4/2011 1:10 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
The decision to tender a contract or not has to be done before FA, I agree, but the actual arbitration doesn't have to be done till the end of FA, much like in real life. Right now, that's pretty much a distinction without a difference - but if you incorporate players having a number they will sign for that is somewhat lower than their arb number, it would have some meaning.

Right now, if you want to try and keep one of these guys and try to trade post-arb, you have to run the risk of paying the full arb number if you lose the hearing and can't find a deal for him. And anyone you're trading him to has to run that risk as well. But, if he has a signing number that's on average say, 85% of the arb demand, and you delay the actual arb hearing to closer to the end of free agency, now you've introduced some cost certainty that would make the player more palatable either to you to keep, or to potential trade partners. You can put a budget hold for the arb number on the team's budget in the meantime.

It's not perfect, because if the guy has a signing number that you can't justify paying under any circumstances, you're back in the same situation, but it's more realistic and would lead to more of these guys being kept or dealt than just released.
3/4/2011 1:45 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Actually, because of cap restraints, doing arb has to be done before FA.  Unless, of course, you want to freeze the potential arb loss amount.   Otherwise, owners will spend like drunken sailors on shore leave and have $203 in cap space with an arb guy demanding 7m.    What happens then?  Released into the wild after FA is nearing completion?   No good.

HBD is a game of decisions and acquistions.   That's just a decision you have to make within the allotted time frame.  And the allotted time frame is in the exact spot it has to be.
3/4/2011 2:35 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
I specifically said you put a cap hold for the arb number on the team's budget.
3/4/2011 2:37 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I now see that you did.   Not sure how that makes it "better".   Just gives you more time to trade the guy.     However, if you're desperate, you'll take fifty cents on the dollar in trade to be rid of the guy you don't really want.   That's not better.
3/4/2011 2:43 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
I can't imagine extending the amount of time to trade would result in more crappy trades than having 2 days to either move the guy or let him go for nothing, and even if it did, presumably those would come in situations where previously the player would have just been released, for 0 cents on the dollar.

But again, my primary purpose here is to bring in the realism of being able to avoid arbitration with most players by splitting the difference with them. Added flexibility in trading such players is just a side-effect.
3/4/2011 2:56 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
A release and signing is a one owner deal.  A trade requires two owners.   Releasing a player is a choice you make when you decide he's not an asset at a certain cost.   Signing a player is a choice you make when you decide he is an asset at a certain cost.   In any case, EVERYONE can bid for a player.   Not so with trades.
3/4/2011 3:07 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
I think some of that goes to far, but I'm not really going to dispute it because it's not central to what I'm concerned with and I don't want to get bogged down in a side argument. So, for purposes of this discussion, I'll concede that releasing one of these players is a better outcome for the game than trading them for next to nothing.

Setting the system up the way I'm advocating does the following:
1) Gives a team more time to advertise a player to the world and try to negotiate a good deal, also allowing them to maintain control of a player until the point where free agency starts shaking out and teams (including the original team) have a different idea of what their needs are.
2) Gives both the original team and a team trading for the player a max "risk" for what the player will cost that is clearly known and below the arb number (in most cases, again, I think a handful of players should insist on going to arb, based on patience or whatever)

I don't really see how those would lead to more 50 cent on the dollar deals for arbitration-eligibles than we currently have.

But regardless of any of this, I believe that the ability to avoid arbitration with most players by negotiating a 1 year deal for less than arb number is a capability we should have. If you want to force that decision to be made on the current arbitration schedule, I'd take it because it's still an improvement.
3/4/2011 3:29 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Well, in my experience, "available for prospects" arb-el players are released.    If the owners in question think they can get value in trade but don't, I think their desperation will lead to bad trades if they're committed to doling out salary they didn't anticipate.   But, that aside, I'm not sure why anyone would take a player to arb if he could get them to sign the one year deal at a cheaper rate.   We, the HBD community, let a lot of good players go because of their price tag.   Maybe this keeps some of those players from moving around but I'm not sure if that's better for the game.

 

3/4/2011 3:40 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2011 3:40:00 PM (view original):

Well, in my experience, "available for prospects" arb-el players are released.    If the owners in question think they can get value in trade but don't, I think their desperation will lead to bad trades if they're committed to doling out salary they didn't anticipate.   But, that aside, I'm not sure why anyone would take a player to arb if he could get them to sign the one year deal at a cheaper rate.   We, the HBD community, let a lot of good players go because of their price tag.   Maybe this keeps some of those players from moving around but I'm not sure if that's better for the game.

 

That's largely my experience as well - but I would argue that the deck is very much stacked against getting deals done for these guys. You've got 2 days to work out at a deal during a time there's plenty of other things going on or about to be going on. These guys are not studs or they wouldn't be on the market, there's invariably comparable/better guys on the free agent market at that point, so teams aren't going to be particularly inclined to give up anything for them when they think they can do better for just money.

I'm with you on the fact that there'd be very few arbitration hearings if this change would be made, but that would be realistic. As I said earlier, there was basically 1 arbitration hearing for every 3 teams this year in MLB. If I was implementing this in HBD, I wouldn't make the signing number a consistent percentage of the arb number, so the situation where you'd arbitrate is where a guy is insisting on a signing number pretty close to his arb number and you think the odds are good that you could get a much bigger discount in arbitration.

Really, all of this is created by the fact that HBD doesn't really take actual performance into account in arbitration demands/results. (And I'm not advocating making it that way - obviously ripe for abuse) But the kind of players that I generally see released over arb demands are the kind of players that would stay pretty cheap during arbitration in real-life, IMO, so I'd be okay with making it marginally easier/cheaper to keep those guys around.
3/4/2011 4:03 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

I guess I treat arb differently so I look at it almost as a negotiation.   As a general rule, I offer 50-100k more than the average salary listed.   Sometimes it's a nice savings, sometimes it pretty much what they're asking.    I haven't kept track but I know I'm winning 3 of 4 and maybe 4 of 5.   I do release the guy if I think I'm going to get saddled with a bad contract(big difference between the average and the demand).   That's a case where the "sign for less" would work for me.  

3/4/2011 4:13 PM
◂ Prev 12
Arbitration Report 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.