contract negotiations Topic

jimmystick
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
88
Prospect
This one falls under the category of a complete overhaul, not a tweak, so if you don't like complete overhaul suggestions, stop reading, turn around, and walk away.

One thing I've never really liked with contract negotiations is that the player states his demands and if you meet his demands, he will sign with you as long as no other team offers more money.  To make things SLIGHTLY more realistic, I'd like to see player demands hidden.  It's up to each GM to evaluate how much they're willing to pay a guy.  To go along with this, I'd also like to occasionally see an agent shoot back counter offers.  Some other ideas to play off this change:

1) The GM could query the agent/player for their initial demands.  Sometimes the agent declines to state his demands, sometimes by querying the player might unrealistically raise his demands in an attempt to squeeze out more money. 
2) If an offer to a player is close to their demands salary wise, but off in years (or vice versa) the agent might state that in his response ("The annual salary is close, but we want more guarenteed years").
3) An agent could throw back a counter offer, and if accepted by your franchise, it doesn't mean the player is automatically yours.  The player could still hold out to see if somebody else tops your deal.

I'd like it to have more of a feeling of negotiations rather than an all out bidding war.
1/12/2011 3:43 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

I stopped reading before you started your listing.

The current way is pretty realistic.   An agent says "I want 6/120!"   Teams say "Good luck with that!" or offer him a deal.   Other teams join the fray or he signs with the team that offered him 6/120.    If no one offers 6/120, the negotiations go underground and the player eventually takes 3/30 from whoever ponies it up.

The only thing that would make it more "realistic" would be if the HBD player's initial visual demand never changed but his actual "demand" dropped as the FA period moves along.   We just wouldn't see it.

1/12/2011 3:54 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Not broken.
1/12/2011 3:59 PM
jimmystick
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
88
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/12/2011 3:54:00 PM (view original):

I stopped reading before you started your listing.

The current way is pretty realistic.   An agent says "I want 6/120!"   Teams say "Good luck with that!" or offer him a deal.   Other teams join the fray or he signs with the team that offered him 6/120.    If no one offers 6/120, the negotiations go underground and the player eventually takes 3/30 from whoever ponies it up.

The only thing that would make it more "realistic" would be if the HBD player's initial visual demand never changed but his actual "demand" dropped as the FA period moves along.   We just wouldn't see it.

How is that more realistic than my suggestion? Are you telling me you don't believe a player EVER makes a proposal to a team? If you stopped reading before I finished then your comment is irrelevant, please delete it.
1/12/2011 10:58 PM
jimmystick
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
88
Prospect
Posted by deathinahole on 1/12/2011 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Not broken.
Lots of things aren't broken, it doesn't mean they can't be made better. Albert pujols is pretty good, he still works out and takes BP.
1/12/2011 11:02 PM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
Posted by jimmystick on 1/12/2011 11:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by deathinahole on 1/12/2011 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Not broken.
Lots of things aren't broken, it doesn't mean they can't be made better. Albert pujols is pretty good, he still works out and takes BP.
What you're suggesting – by your own admission – is not BP. What you're suggesting is that Albert Pujols change his batting stance and approach at the plate, just because. Free agency works just fine.
1/13/2011 8:37 AM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
Posted by jimmystick on 1/12/2011 3:43:00 PM (view original):
This one falls under the category of a complete overhaul, not a tweak, so if you don't like complete overhaul suggestions, stop reading, turn around, and walk away.

One thing I've never really liked with contract negotiations is that the player states his demands and if you meet his demands, he will sign with you as long as no other team offers more money.  To make things SLIGHTLY more realistic, I'd like to see player demands hidden.  It's up to each GM to evaluate how much they're willing to pay a guy.  To go along with this, I'd also like to occasionally see an agent shoot back counter offers.  Some other ideas to play off this change:

1) The GM could query the agent/player for their initial demands.  Sometimes the agent declines to state his demands, sometimes by querying the player might unrealistically raise his demands in an attempt to squeeze out more money. 
2) If an offer to a player is close to their demands salary wise, but off in years (or vice versa) the agent might state that in his response ("The annual salary is close, but we want more guarenteed years").
3) An agent could throw back a counter offer, and if accepted by your franchise, it doesn't mean the player is automatically yours.  The player could still hold out to see if somebody else tops your deal.

I'd like it to have more of a feeling of negotiations rather than an all out bidding war.
When WiS starts matching my current salary so I can spend 40 hours a week farting around with market value, etc., this might be doable. But given that I must pay them $25 every three months and work in free agency around my job and other responsibilities, in addition to the other teams I run, this is entirely too vague and complicated.

As it is now, players tell us what they're looking for and, if our budget permits, we decide whether we value their expected production that much or not. That's a good (and realistic enough) system.
1/13/2011 8:41 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jimmystick on 1/12/2011 10:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/12/2011 3:54:00 PM (view original):

I stopped reading before you started your listing.

The current way is pretty realistic.   An agent says "I want 6/120!"   Teams say "Good luck with that!" or offer him a deal.   Other teams join the fray or he signs with the team that offered him 6/120.    If no one offers 6/120, the negotiations go underground and the player eventually takes 3/30 from whoever ponies it up.

The only thing that would make it more "realistic" would be if the HBD player's initial visual demand never changed but his actual "demand" dropped as the FA period moves along.   We just wouldn't see it.

How is that more realistic than my suggestion? Are you telling me you don't believe a player EVER makes a proposal to a team? If you stopped reading before I finished then your comment is irrelevant, please delete it.
Players "make proposals" to every team right now.  You decide if you want to accept it.   

What you're suggesting only muddies the waters and complicates FA to the point where most people won't be interested in dealing with it.   
1/13/2011 8:51 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by jimmystick on 1/12/2011 11:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by deathinahole on 1/12/2011 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Not broken.
Lots of things aren't broken, it doesn't mean they can't be made better. Albert pujols is pretty good, he still works out and takes BP.
Ok, try this; Not better.
1/13/2011 8:59 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
It's funny when someone's suggestion complicates a process that seems to work well enough and he gets all defensive because he can't get any support for his "upgrade".

Happens to all of us, jimmy.  Sometimes your idea just sucks.
1/13/2011 9:28 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
I'm sure everybody was holding their breat, waiting for me to weigh in.  So here goes.

What jimmy is suggesting is not bad, and it probably does add some sense of realism to the game, more so than what is already in place.  His suggestion is not perfect, and needs some work, but in essense it's not a bad suggestion.

BUT . . .

What we currently have in place works just fine as it is currently implemented.  Likewise, it could be tweaked some to make it a little better.  But it works fine.

With that in mind . . . it really makes no sense at all to ask WIS to perform a complete redesign of a function of the game for what would essentially be a wash . . . taking a function that works fine just the way it is, and replacing it with an equally OK but radically different implementation of that same function.  In the end, it's a lot of work for zero net-gain.  Not to mention the risk of WIS f'ing things up, and the ******** that would occur form people who just don't like change.
1/13/2011 9:38 AM
mhulshult
Posts: 982 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 3 63
Prospect
Sometimes we get so focused on our teams and our experience that we put blinders on to what WifS has to consider for all users (and potential users) of HBD.  Right now HBD borders on the line between awesomely in-depth and overwhelming for new users.

Your FA process proposal would be cool for those that have the time and have a good grasp of all other elements of the game.  It would a pain in the rumpus for others.  But as to not throw out and trample on your suggestion completely, here are some thoughts...

1) The GM could query the agent/player for their initial demands.  Sometimes the agent declines to state his demands, sometimes by querying the player might unrealistically raise his demands in an attempt to squeeze out more money. 
     -This is the part that I would find frustrating, and ultimately a waste of time.  If I like a player, take the time to query his demands, then find out that he's asking $5MM more per year than I'm willing to pay him, that would quickly become less than fun IMO.
2) If an offer to a player is close to their demands salary wise, but off in years (or vice versa) the agent might state that in his response ("The annual salary is close, but we want more guaranteed years").
     -The way I understand the engine to be built, the player is more concerned about dollars and less about years.  I'd be in favor of average annual salary being the deciding factor.  After all, 3/45 should be preferred over 4/45.  I can't be sure, but I'd say that today those are treated the same.
3) An agent could throw back a counter offer, and if accepted by your franchise, it doesn't mean the player is automatically yours.  The player could still hold out to see if somebody else tops your deal. 
     -Today, the player lists their MINIMUM demands, which is why he won't accept less.  To accommodate for a negotiation process, the players' initial demands would have to increase so that you'd be able to offer less, though his minimum would remain the same.  If no one offers their minimum demands, they drop them (which does happen today).  So this may feel neater since it feels like you're negotiating, and it may be preferred by some, but I think you'd end up with the same result.

1/13/2011 9:43 AM
mhulshult
Posts: 982 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 3 63
Prospect
For some reason it feels like tec is always getting in similar responses a couple minutes before I do...does this date back to some childhood issue that I've never dealt with?
1/13/2011 9:46 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
No, you're long-winded.
1/13/2011 9:55 AM
jimmystick
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
88
Prospect
Fair enough guys.  While I disagree that the current system is flawless, I can see why you'd think changing it would complicate things.  There are certainly other features of the game I want to see upgraded before this.  Maybe I'll save this one for further down the line
1/13/2011 10:03 AM
12 Next ▸
contract negotiations 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.