I drafted someone #1 overall. I took him to arbitration a couple of times, I signed him to a long term contract. He is now in the final season of his long term deal. At the start of the season I look to see if I can extend him, no dice, refusing to even talk about it. He's insisting on testing FA, this just isn't realistic.

With the way the current system works, the time at which. I signed my guy was the last time I had any negotiation with him. If I'm unable to negotiate an extension prior to final season of his contract I should have a period at which I am able to enter negotiations, even if he asks for double his normal demands at the start of his final season. The fact I don't even get to have the discussion of "what will it take for you to resign?" is what is so unrealistic, and frustrating.

The end of ST is typically the point at which RL future FA decide that they'll test the market and end negotiations, can we have some sort of pre-ST/regular season window, where we get to at least have a contract demand discussion with someone who will otherwise go to FA? As it stands the last time I had a contract discussion was 5 seasons ago, and although he's been in my virtual clubhouse every day for the last 5 years, I've had zero option to negotiate an extension on any sort of terms.

I'd have no problem with the current owner being allowed to offer a max deal in that situation.    Otherwise, it's another reason to tank for the #1 pick because, rather than being able to lock him down for 11 seasons(like it is now), you can lock him down for his entire career for less than max money.

I don't think the #1 has much to do with it (aside from they are usually better players), it's more to do with people drafting/signing their own players, which in turn somewhat handcuffs those owners who tank drafting budgets to sign FA. You can make an argument, based on contracts and the FA pool in MLB, that the top players don't get to FA, unless they aren't wanted by their previous team (see Pujols, A.), in most modern cases, they are extended before they get to FA.

I don't have a problem with his demands differing from his usual demands (i.e. those set as his demands at the beginning of FA), you could use a modified arbitration demand, or double his system derived demands for 5 years and a no-trade clause, at least i have the option to "negotiate" and choose whether to take the terms, what really gets me is the nature of the system, such that the choice is made for me by the system and I have no decision to make. It's even more distinct in HBD since you are limited to the length of contract you are able to offer in the first instance, in my example i'd have happily gone over 5 years, but I can't, so when that contract comes to expire, the fact i am blocked from offering an extension, grates that much more. The system is in essence forcing my players into the FA pool, when the choice of whether he goes to FA or not  should be mine.

The number of players who spend their entire careers with one team in MLB is a very tiny percentage.  I'd disagree with the top players don't get to FA.    Looking at A/S teams and award winners, I'd say 90%, or more, played for different teams during their careers and not just because their first team didn't want them.   More like their original team couldn't/wouldn't meet their demands.     That's why I'd have no problem with a max offer.   No one can offer more in the open market in HBD than 5/110, player option, no trade.    They just can't.

BTW, I think it's silly to say the Cardinals didn't want Pujols.   They wanted to give in 7-8 years at the same rate he got for 10.    Like most teams that give those deals that extend into a player's 40s, the Angels will hate the last 3-4 years of that contract.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/18/2012 8:57:00 AM (view original):
BTW, I think it's silly to say the Cardinals didn't want Pujols.   They wanted to give in 7-8 years at the same rate he got for 10.    Like most teams that give those deals that extend into a player's 40s, the Angels will hate the last 3-4 years of that contract.

What i meant to say was that he was willing to negotiate, but the Cardinals, didn't want to meet his demands, as such he went to FA. It wasn't a case of "I don't care what you offer, I'm going to test FA", It was a case of, "I'm happy to stay, but I'd like this amount for this long to do so". They were unwilling to offer that, so he went. what really bugs me, is that i don't get to have the conversation and make the decision to meet those demands, or let him walk.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/18/2012 8:49:00 AM (view original):
The number of players who spend their entire careers with one team in MLB is a very tiny percentage.  I'd disagree with the top players don't get to FA.    Looking at A/S teams and award winners, I'd say 90%, or more, played for different teams during their careers and not just because their first team didn't want them.   More like their original team couldn't/wouldn't meet their demands.     That's why I'd have no problem with a max offer.   No one can offer more in the open market in HBD than 5/110, player option, no trade.    They just can't.

I think MAX is slightly to much, because that is then a risk free contract extension for the FA player.
If i extend him for MAX in his final contracted season, I'm taking on all the risk, while he's taking on none. Any additional risk i take on should be offset by a lower salary demand, a true FA contract assumes less risk, because i'm offering the contract a season before it becomes effective, he could get seriously injured in the intervening period, any contract takes that risk into account.

I'd go with double their required default FA demand as the starting point, rather than goign to Max. If you then think that an AS 1B would be asking for 15M->MAX and an AS MIF would be asking 17/18M->MAX, that doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.

Of course you think it's too much.  You want to keep your player for his entire career.   The rest of the world wants to get the previous #1 pick.    My guess is we're talking about Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Frank Jenkins.  And I think we both know he's getting a max deal.    Even ol' Fake Frank Jenkins knows this. 

Yes and no, that's what made me think about it, but it's more a general annoyance/frustration. I likely wouldn't have got Pedro Park in Coop if the above were true, so it helps in one place and not in another, just saying "i'll only sign for MAX", seems rather arbitrary and in essence we're arguing over a few Mil a season. Fair compromise 20M/year, and 0 signing bonus, I save some $ for taking the risk he might get significantly injured in his final season, he gets a yearly salary on par with what he might get in FA.

With regard to Frank, considering he's declining, there's a slim chance, he may resign next season, but as a general rule, having zero chance to negotiate with someone in 5 seasons, is incredibly unrealistic, and it's very hard to plan ahead, when someone arbitrarily may refuse to give you option of extending them.

At the end of the day, we're going to disagree.    I find it incredibly unrealistic that we can ALWAYS lock a player into 11 seasons, all at a peak, if we play the game right.   20 game call-up, 3 minimum seasons, 2 arbs and a 5 year deal.   If a player makes the bigs at 22, we have him until he's 32 EVERY TIME.    And that's when he'll start losing ratings. 

Looks like you kinda mucked up Jenkins' deal so you're not getting that from him.   You live, you learn.

If players set their demands based on what FAs really get, that would probably be more realistic.

Currently, top players almost always ask for less than they would get in FA, or refuse to sign for any amount.  Neither is very realistic.

Lower end players ask for ridiculous contacts. Often not lowering their demands to a reasonable market rate until well into the season.  Or the next season. And they get rating hits along the way.  Not realistic.

If demands were based on game data, players whose stats are at the very top would ask for the max contract, as there would not be comparable players.

The problem, even though I agree with you about 90%, is that owner dumbassery will set the market.     Which, in truth, would be fine if said owners were around to deal with their dumbassery.   Unfortunately, it seems most leagues have 10-15% turnover every season.   So an owner offers a max deal to a 34 y/o, helps set the market for 5 years and leaves before year 3 of the deal.   The rest of the world has to deal with it.

As for the lower end guys, don't worry about them.  They're lower end guys.   Build a farm system.  You'll have plenty of cheap, lower end guys.

Yes, that would impact the initial demands. And it should, because there's a good chance another owner in the league who would offer a similar amount. You might think that's over paying, but that's not your call to make. It's not your job to approve all contracts and void the ones you think are overpaying.

If nobody offers the player their first demand, they should drop their demands, as they do now.

I think you said you consider it a flaw in the game that we can lock up any player for 11 years. Players demanding closer to the market rate for their services would help solve that.

As Mike said, the flip side is you had that guy under control (or at least should have but you messed up 2 seasons of playing time at minimal cost) for most of 11 major league seasons.  You only had to buy out 1of his arbitration seasons to extend him for an additional 4 seasons of control.  In the real world, you would have had to buy out 2 or 3 of his arbitration seasons, perhaps even 1 or 2 of his pre-arbitration seasons to get him under control for 11 seasons.

If everyone played the game of develop for 2-5 seasons (ie 1 year at a time for an 18 year old, perhaps less for an older draftee/IFA) no player would reach the majors until they turned 22+.  Then if they're under our control for 11 seasons, they're not hitting the ML free agent market until they hit the age of 33+, which means many guys are in the early stages of decline, while any guy worth a 5 year deal will see some decline by the time they hit the market again.  I think it should be the opposite, some guys should refuse to sign a contract that takes them beyond their arbitration seasons so that they hit the market at a younger age. 

You also never see huge arbitration demands; there are guys asking for $8-$9 mil in arbitration that would easily make a push for a $15 mil to max FA contract on the open market.  Your guy won the MVP award in season 10.  He asked for $1.4 mil in arbitration in season 11.  following another all star year in season 12, he got a 5 year deal for $36.5 mil total.  He likely would have got that much in a 2 year deal on the open market.

You can't have the best of everything.