Arbitration Rule Discussion

Discussion in 'The Dugout - OOTP Online League' started by NeuroticTruth, Sep 4, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NeuroticTruth

    NeuroticTruth dont know , dont care

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    10,037
    Featured Threads:
    1
    There seems to be a large amount of split opinions and, what I feel, misunderstanding about the new Arbitration Buyout rule. As to not clutter the media day thread, feel free to post thoughts / questions here.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

    The rule change we put in place simply states that you may not offer a player a contract (unless he's a FA obviously) if he still has arbitration years left.

    The reason was this was due to the multiple contracts that have been signed by players with arbi years left that sign for long term 6+ years and for less than their arbitration estimates. Here are a few examples:

    William Davis - Arbi estimate $7.5M
    Davis.JPG

    Craig Matthews - Arbi estimate $3.8M
    Matthews.JPG

    Joe Quate - Arbi estimate $9.3M
    Quate.JPG

    Those are just a few examples of contracts on guys who are or will likely be stud ML players (in Matthews case) who are signed long term for substantially lass than they should make. I'm not blaming anyone or trying point fingers, I just grabbed the first few I could remember off the top of my head. There have been many more than these. Like I said, stopping them all together isnt perfect by any stretch, but making contract rules even more complicated isnt the right way to go (in my opinion) either though. We already have enough rules and restrictions as is that people dont always remember, adding more (especially since they would likely be rather complicated to remedy this) isnt the right direction.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2014
  2. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    Thank you.

    Is there anywhere (I can't find the thread) where you detail what the changes are and why you made the decision? For posterity, can we put it in the OP?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Fmode11

    Fmode11 MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,484
    This:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. NeuroticTruth

    NeuroticTruth dont know , dont care

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    10,037
    Featured Threads:
    1
    I'll do this when I get home.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. BobJr

    BobJr To each their own

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    7,123
    Featured Threads:
    2
    Can we just keep it civil, that is all I ask.
     
  6. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    Sure we can, because I say so.:)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Timpegoose

    Timpegoose Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    7,157
    I agree there needs to be a rule, but I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it. I wonder if it would be doable to say arby can only be bought out if the contract is $3M more than the arby estimate? That number could be different, just tossing it around. This would also be way more difficult to track so I see where the rule in place now would be much less of a load on ty and nt
     
  8. NeuroticTruth

    NeuroticTruth dont know , dont care

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    10,037
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Updated OP with this information.
     
  9. abolishthefed

    abolishthefed Specializing in mediocrity

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    4,156
    I like Timpegoose 's line of thinking here. Maybe make the arbitration # be the lowest contract that can be offered. I did not realize that the game logic was flawed and teams were abusing it. SF is a high cap team, so I always have players go all the way through their arbitration, so they don't die during long contracts.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Dru50

    Dru50 Still Chicago's #1 son

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    16,270
    I honestly don't recall Matthews arbi number being that high, my recollection was that it was around what he got for each annual year of the deal, but I'll assume I'm old and misremembering.
     
  11. moshingpenguin

    moshingpenguin Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Messages:
    108
    What if we set the rule to where you could ONLY set extensions for arbitration years and can't go past that? That way players would have to hit FA after 5+ years of team control, but would still give teams an affordable option for a shorter term extension? I agree that with the examples above that no plaer would sign a 5-8yr deal at at 2-4 mil/year, but I don't think that buying out ONLY arbitration years is a bad practice. Does that make sense at all?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. ty5oke

    ty5oke Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,551
    You got him for about half of his arby estimate at the time of the signing.
     
  13. Dru50

    Dru50 Still Chicago's #1 son

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    16,270
    Well then, I'll change my tune to - "I just copied what Roggie and HarkTheSound did"
     
    • Like Like x 4
  14. Ken Welsch

    Ken Welsch BTFD!

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2011
    Messages:
    493
    So does this mean that the league has to go out of its way to exascerbate the problem? Big market teams have the advantage because they can outbid for players. So now the league has to make a rule to make sure they have an even larger pool of talent from which to pull?

    The game is programmed to simulate very similar to real life. Sometimes these guys have outrageous demands, so a small market team has no choice but arby him or trade him. But sometimes they are willing to stay and sign for less. Is it unfair that the Diamondbacks have Paul Goldschmidt locked down? Is it fair that the TB Rays have been locking their guys down for years (Moore, Price, Longoria, et al)?

    If you take away the early signings, then take away market sizes and create a salary cap. Let's make it completely fair across the board. We're already completely stretched from reality at this point, so let's go another step.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. NeuroticTruth

    NeuroticTruth dont know , dont care

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    10,037
    Featured Threads:
    1
    The only thing this does is increase the quality of FA classes. That goes both ways though, even for the large budget teams. With the contracts I have now there is no way I could sign some of my budding younger players, its all about how you manage your team.

    In terms of reality, teams do buyout arbi years; but those contracts are much more than what teams are offering now, which is the main issue. Take Jedd Gyorko for example, SD bought him out for 5 years $35M. Compare that to William Davis (who was basically an MVP caliber player when he signed his extension) who signed a 6 year $13M extension.

    That is the problem. Not that people are buying out arbi years and that its unrealistic, but they're buying them out at these completely ridiculous contracts that no player would ever sign. Signing a contract for less than your arbitration estimate for every year of the contract is not how the game was intended to work and wouldnt be signed irl.

    Like I said, its not a "perfect" solution to the problem, but we need to see it played out and go from there. The only other alternative is to make some crazy detailed restrictions on extensions, which would create more issues as people already have a hard enough time with the current contract rules.
     
  16. Fmode11

    Fmode11 MVP

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,484
    The game logic is broken. It's a dead horse that has been beaten time and time again in the ootp forums.

    Big market teams are ALWAYS able to outbid small market teams - welcome to baseball 101.

    Owners in this league have been abusing the ability to sign their arby guys for way under market value for years and thus the resulting FA classes have been terrible. Loyalty was created as a personality trait to act as a measurement of a local discount a player may give it's owner. But it's obviously broken when this happens: What do you do about the owners who make low-ball offers only to crash their game because they pissed off the player low-balling him to death and he is walking?

    They are not exacerbating anything.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Roggie

    Roggie Back 2 Back

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,102
    Featured Threads:
    2
    The only issue I have with the OP is that those arby estimates are not the estimates at the time of signing the contract. Davis is 7.5 million now a couple of seasons after signing the contract. Quate was also lower than his quoted arby price.

    Are those contracts ridiculous underpayments? Definitely. Did a rule need to be put in place? You bet. Am I a fan of the current rule? No, but it is much better than having none.

    I do have a question, though. If a guy has arbitration status of "Arbitration, possible FA" are we allowed to extend them or not?
     
  18. NeuroticTruth

    NeuroticTruth dont know , dont care

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    10,037
    Featured Threads:
    1
    They may not be the arbi estimates at the time, but that just shows you how broke the contracts are. There is virtually no risk compared to the gain you get form signing them.

    Yes.
     
  19. Ken Welsch

    Ken Welsch BTFD!

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2011
    Messages:
    493
    Thanks for my welcome to baseball 101. I've been in this league since late in year 1 and have done it without inheriting the top team in the league and a large market. So I appreciate your wisdom, as always.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Roggie

    Roggie Back 2 Back

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,102
    Featured Threads:
    2
    Definitely agree there that it's broken. Going off of memory, Quate's arby estimate was around $4.5 mil the year he signed his deal, so still definitely broken.

    I know I've given my suggestion for making it so no year can be lower than their arby estimate at the time of signing, but that would be annoying to manage. Still trying to think of a suggestion that would work without mass micromanagement.
     
  21. Ken Welsch

    Ken Welsch BTFD!

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2011
    Messages:
    493
    None of this still holds water. With ANY free agent contract, it's a gamble on the part of BOTH parties. Arizona has two real life examples. One is Paul Goldschmidt, arguably one of the top 3-5 position players in the NL. He signed away his arby years and has outperformed that contract. But he decided to take the security of having a long term deal. He could have easily been injured or just tanked and become a .200 hitter. Arizona one that one.

    Now take the case of Arizona's Trevor Cahill. He signed away his arby years after a good year in Oakland. He has since come to Arizona, been mediocre at best for the past couple of years, demoted from the rotation and earlier this year sent down. Arizona lost this one (I don't believe they gave him the contract, but they agreed to take it on). They were banking on him becoming a right handed Tom Glavine. He didn't.

    Every single contract is a gamble. And every owner who has played this game for a few years understands that. A bad, long-term arby contract hurts the team (especially a small market team) financially just as bad as if the player was plucked from free agency. I've had some notoriously bad free agents and extensions, and since I have a small market, it typically takes me YEARS to right the ship (see: Dilios Platea, Jon Alexander and even my 2-year Cy Young candidate Augusto Martinez after his career ended at 24 years old). But if I have an enormous budget, I can still work around a bad contract or two and still be active in the free agent market.

    And this is why I still think that if we're going to go to this extreme, I think we should eliminate market size and go to a salary cap system. It makes things 100%, completely fair across the board. If you're going to admit that big market teams always have the advantage, why follow the lead of MLB and instead follow the NFL model? This step would take my arguement away and I wouldn't say a word because certain teams wouldn't be walking away with a completely unfair advantage.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. NeuroticTruth

    NeuroticTruth dont know , dont care

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    10,037
    Featured Threads:
    1
    There is virtually no risk in a 6 year $13M deal compared to the gain you get from it (upwards of $6M+ a year potentially). Also, you generally have a pretty good idea by the time the player becomes arbi eligible of what type of player they'll be in OOTP. Comparing the risks team take irl isnt the same, because like I showed earlier, their arbi buyout contracts are generally much more money than what is being offered in the game. Like I said, its the fact that they're being bought out at such minute amounts thats the problem, not that they're getting a good deal.

    I dont really see how you think big market teams have an even bigger advantage here due to this. Will the FA classes be stronger? Probably eventually, but they're absolutely horrendous at the moment. If it wasnt for NBL and random new INT FAs that pop up in the offseason we would have virtually no FA's. Money wise this change this both teams the same. I can save $10M in buying out arbi years just like you can, not being able to do it affects everyone equally. Saying this rule is bad because it increases FA classes and big market teams have more money is a terrible excuse not to fix an obvious flaw, imo.

    On a side note, I will never remove market size, etc.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Roggie

    Roggie Back 2 Back

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,102
    Featured Threads:
    2
    The issue with this is that you're saying it gives more of an advantage to big market teams due to FA classes. This is not true at all. I was able to overpay a catcher in FA this year due to having extra money from locking up Orlando Ortega and Joe Quate (who was traded but still had that low cost contract on my team this offseason) at way lower than market value.

    If Ortega and Quate were at market value for me (9 mil and 10.625, respectively), I would not have been able to sign Yamaguchi to that deal. I wouldn't have been able to overpay for Luis Pena 3 years ago either.

    So saying it only helps big market teams is false. It has zero change on big market and small market teams hitting FA. Big market teams will still have more money to use to sign guys. All it did was inflate FA contracts because everybody had more money available than had they not been able to sign unrealistically cheap contracts.
     
  24. Ken Welsch

    Ken Welsch BTFD!

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2011
    Messages:
    493
    Of course you wouldn't remove market size, now that you have the Yankees. I wonder if this would even have come up if you were still with the Padres.

    Free agent classes stink overall. It is what it is, and a good manager has to be able to maneuver around it. If free agents are good, they need to plan for that, just like if they are poor. This is a management game and if a manager has to rely on free agency to cover up their deficiencies in managing their minor leagues (or trading away all of their prospects), it's part of the game. If you know that free agents stink, then plan on it not helping your team.
     
  25. Roggie

    Roggie Back 2 Back

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,102
    Featured Threads:
    2
    This is baseball. Everybody knows how baseball works. There has NEVER been a cap and market size has ALWAYS mattered in baseball. Why the hell would that get removed?

    They're trying to fix something that is broken in game due to working at a horribly unrealistic level, and you're complaining about it because you're imagining it putting you at a bigger disadvantage than everyone else when in reality it has the same effect on every single team.

    The problem with using real life examples is that they are not even close to the same as these contracts. Those players are paid FAR closer to their arby levels than guys in game are. That is the issue at hand, not that people are buying out arby years.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page