|
Post by Scott on Sept 19, 2007 23:54:54 GMT -5
Examples from my team:
Example #1: C George Mitterwald
2k4: Seeks 6.5M for 7 years before discount. (Discounted would be 5.2M)
2k8 set at -30%: Seaks 5.4M for 7 years after three negotiations.
He is 1 year away from peak, but has lost his rookie status.
Example #2: P Jack Fisher
2k4: Seeks 11.8M for 7 years before discount (9.44M after discount)
2k8 set at -30%: 6.5M for 7 years after 3 negotiations
He is a guy at the end of his peak.
Example #3: P Jim Shellenback
2k4: 2.8M for 7 years before discount (2.24M after discount)
2k8 at -30%: 1.2M for 7 years after three negotiations
He is a pre-peak minor leaguer
-So we certainly will not be going furthur than -30%. I bet we could go to -10 or -20% and be able to get rid of the home town discount.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 20, 2007 0:24:09 GMT -5
You get the same results than I have concerning pitchers: they seem to ask a LOT less in the 2k8 than in the 2k4.
Perhaps we can keep the discount or "a" discount for position players and not for the pitchers?
|
|
|
Post by Philthydelphia on Sept 20, 2007 3:05:59 GMT -5
I would prefer just the same percentage straight across the board (whether it be 30 or whatever). Perhaps the pitchers are asking less in 2k8 because they do not put up the God-like numbers that they did in 2k4. This may be a correct adjustment on the games part.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 20, 2007 8:46:12 GMT -5
I have a feeling that Dave is right although my negotations were taking place before the season simmed. But pitchers are terrible compared to 2k4, so they will undoubtedly ask for less.
They were asking ridicoulous prices in 2k4.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 20, 2007 14:01:08 GMT -5
I am still going to say -30% AND get rid of the home town discount at that level.
As our league adjusts with pitchers asking for less over time, we may be able to move that revenue number down from +90%.
That will probably take a few seasons to filter through though.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 21, 2007 2:57:20 GMT -5
Okay, I've studied salary demands and I'm left with many interrogations once again.
The salary demands as a whole are very different from what we were used to in the 2k4.
For instance, any pre-peak rookies, whether they are pitchers or not, ask for a lot more money when they can re-negociate. How much more money? CF Willie Montanez from BOS wants 3.6M discounted to 2.16M for 2 years in the 2k4. In 2k8, it goes from 8.6M (salary demands set at +0%) to 4.3M when set at a whopping -50%. This is still twice as much as in the 2k4. P Ron Reed from KC asks for a discounted 2.24M in 2k4; in 2k8, I needed to lower the salary demands to -60% in order to get a figure (2.3M) that was close to his 2k4 demands.
Okay. We know that rookies are going to ask for a lot more money. Let's continue.
Players that are in their peak. We get all kind of results. For instance, 3B Sal Bando from STL showed similar demands when salary demands were set at -30%. The pitchers I tested had different results.
How different? Quite.
A minor leaguer who hits his peak this season had similar demands when set at -40%. A pitcher in-peak was similar to 2k4 when demands were set at -20%. And a veteran pitcher who hasn't hit peak yet had similar demands to his discounted 2k4 demands when set at... even +0%.
This is just part of the problem. Whether we go with an in-game discount is one thing. But there is also the possibility that we allow some (limited) negociations from the part of the owners.
Say we put it at -30% and declare that's the closest we get to 2k4 demands in general. Okay then. Say we allow owners to negociate with the players, up to 3 times. Now, this could change a lot of things.
I have tested negociating a little bit, but some of the results I got hinted that we need to either go with an in-game discount and no negociations allowed, or allow negociations and drop the in-game discount.
Why? Try it. You'll see.
For instance, I negociated using the 3-offer system that had the most chances of being implemented. A pitcher is asking for 10.6M x 3 years.
Counter-offer #1: 6.5M x 7 years. He adjusts his demands to 7.5M x 7 years.
C-O #2: 7M x 7 years. He lowers his demands to 7.2M x 7 years.
I don't even need to continue the example to see that the player is on the verge of accepting an annual salary that is 3M below what he originally wanted - with salary demands set at -30%.
So, what do we do? Keep the negociations and do without discounts, or keep discounts and do without negociations?
Either system is fine with me, although no negociations would of course make my job simpler. We could also keep a little bit of both, say -10% and 2 negociations.
Is negociating a salary to lower the demands more important to you guys than a built-in discount that does more or less the same job? Maybe some of you think it's too much trouble having to test the negociations with your players; trouble for you and trouble for me. Or fun for you and trouble for me?
Express yourself. This is a discussion I would like to hear from all of you guys. The sooner we all talk, the sooner we come to a decision. It already looks like revenues will be set at +90%. If we can decide on what system should be adopted for re-signing players, then all we'll have left will be running tests for performance of players and also get free agency going.
Now let's hear those arguments, ideas and proposals! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Philthydelphia on Sept 21, 2007 3:38:41 GMT -5
I would say leave the negotiations in - they are a part of the game. Do away with the discounts, those were put in by us. If you have the 3 offer system, that would be concrete enough. The owners can play with it on their own until they get the scenario they want to sign the player with. Post it, and it doesn't take that long.
Most of them in MLC go something like this:
1st - offer 6 mil x 7 yrs 2nd - offer 6.5 mi. x 7 yrs 3rd - Accept his counter offer.
It really doesn't take much longer than figuring your discount you use now.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Sept 21, 2007 7:47:40 GMT -5
I'd say lets go with the +90% revenue and -30% salary demands, dropping the discount. We'll never find a combination that gives the same result as 2K4 with every player. The negotiations, as long as limited to three rounds, seems okay to me.
Don't forget that the game has some built-in adjustments. If our +90/-30 choice is too favorable, teams will start accumulating too much cash and the game will adjust attendance to counter that. If we're all losing money at that level, the game will also adjust.
One thing to note about the automatic adjustments by the game. In 2K4, if a few teams have a lot of cash, the whole league gets penalized with lower attendance. But in 2K7 and 2K8, individual teams are penalized if they accumulate too much cash. Try giving one team $500M in cash and run a season sim and you'll see what I mean. Because of this, I think we should get rid of the points-as-cash system.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 21, 2007 8:36:51 GMT -5
I'd say lets go with the +90% revenue and -30% salary demands, dropping the discount. We'll never find a combination that gives the same result as 2K4 with every player. The negotiations, as long as limited to three rounds, seems okay to me. Don't forget that the game has some built-in adjustments. If our +90/-30 choice is too favorable, teams will start accumulating too much cash and the game will adjust attendance to counter that. If we're all losing money at that level, the game will also adjust. One thing to note about the automatic adjustments by the game. In 2K4, if a few teams have a lot of cash, the whole league gets penalized with lower attendance. But in 2K7 and 2K8, individual teams are penalized if they accumulate too much cash. Try giving one team $500M in cash and run a season sim and you'll see what I mean. Because of this, I think we should get rid of the points-as-cash system. For the record, I completely agree with every point in this statement.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 21, 2007 16:06:47 GMT -5
We are dropping the calculate-ourselves discount. It would be pointless to set it at -x% and to add yet another manual discount.
But I have to point out that the game's discount doesn't really lower the demands the way we would think it does. For instance, a guy asking 10M annually goes down to 9.1M when salary demands are set at -20%. Seems to me that it should have dropped to 8M. I'm sure there is a reason for that, but since I was awarded the Economics Nobel Prize by mistake, I'm not really sure why it does that.
Letting teams get too much cash isn't something I would like to let happen. In the long run, this will lead those teams to sign every star in sight and lose money for a decade since their 500M accumulated fortune will allow them to do so. It's like encouraging teams to "sleep" for a while, get rich and then screw up with league balance by acting like there's no limits.
We could get rid of the points cash system, but we would nevertheless have to set a cash cap.
Back to our main concern, the re-signing of players. I'm afraid that keeping both the -30% and 3 negociations would be too much.
Example: Stan Bahnsen of the Detroit Tigers.
In the 2k8, with salary demands set at even, he asks 13.8M x 3 years. This drops to 10.6M when set at -30%. This is already below what he gets, discount included, in the 2k4. Then, we negociate with Bahnsen. Very easily, I get him down at 7.2M. This means that, from the moment he asked almost 14M to the moment he signed at 7.2M, almost half of his original demands were slashed.
Even if I sim the 2k4 engine to the end of 1970, Bahnsen's demands do go down, at 10.24M discounted, which is around what he asks in the 2k8 when salary demands are set at -30% with no negociations. Or when they are set at even and 3 negociations lower it to around that. Not both.
This is going to be the same with every player.
I'm not saying we need to get rid of one of the 2 systems absolutely (although I would prefer that). We can keep a little bit of both, but we have to lower them in order to keep salaries in line with the rest.
We could go -20% with 1 negociation, or -10% with 2 negociations. Something along those lines.
If we're to imitate revenues from what they were in 2k4, we can't allow signing players to half of what they used to in 2k4.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 21, 2007 16:16:26 GMT -5
I think I can live with -10% and 2 negotiations.
The hitters would be asking a little more at that price I think, but the pitchers even it out.
|
|
|
Post by Philthydelphia on Sept 21, 2007 16:31:15 GMT -5
Probably should experiment with hitters and negotiations instead of pitchers and negotiations. Pitchers should be asking less because they are no longer "gods" as they were in 2k4 - the 2k8 games adjusted this.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 21, 2007 17:08:28 GMT -5
While that is true, Terry does make a good point about the +90% revenue. If we are matching that with 2k4, then we should try to match the salary demands as well.
So the hitters asking for more is probably ok, because the pitchers asking less will even it out and we should be in the same spot as 2k4 at that point.
|
|
|
Post by Yankees on Sept 21, 2007 19:49:53 GMT -5
Can somebody negotiate Rick Mondays contract, best i can do is over 20mil for 7yrs which is insane! he was asking 8mil for 7yrs with 2004. If this is normal for and unplayed rookie. Then I'm in favor of unlimited negotiation's plus a large discount 50% or higher
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 21, 2007 20:13:35 GMT -5
Well, I think you and rest of us are going to have to change resigning strategy.
I think if you sign him for 2 years at 6.8M or so, which it appears you can do at -10%, then play him for those 2 seasons, he will no longer ask for that amount of money. Unplayed hitting rookies are asking for a fortune if you try and sign them to a long term contract.
Once they are played, that asking price should drop dramatically.
Test it though. I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 21, 2007 23:38:44 GMT -5
Can somebody negotiate Rick Mondays contract, best i can do is over 20mil for 7yrs which is insane! he was asking 8mil for 7yrs with 2004. If this is normal for and unplayed rookie. Then I'm in favor of unlimited negotiation's plus a large discount 50% or higher Rick Monday doesn't seem to be your typical unplayed rookie, at least not concerning his salary demands. I thought the demands you got might have been because you could have been running on an earlier patch version. But I got similar demands from Rick Monday as well. There are 24 unplayed rookies right now that are re-negociating in 1970. This includes a handful of players who have little experience such as a dozen at-bats or 9 innings pitched. But all 24 players are rookies. I checked every single one of them, with the salary demands set at -10%, allowing myself 2 negociations. This was made to see if Monday was a unique case or if we had a huge problem on our hands. Although I found 5 other players to raise their demands instead of lower them, none of those players raised their demands anywhere near where Rick Monday raises his. I don't know what's up with that. Maybe being the first ever player drafted in real MBL back in 1964 (or so) got to his head. The other players who raised their demands were: a 1B that went from 6.85M to 9M, a past-peak 30 year old rookie pitcher that went from 2.7M up to 7.8M, another 1B who asked 8.1M instead of the original 5.6M, a 2B who went from 6.05M to 9.85M and a SS who raised his original 5.65M to 8.15M. To make sure I hadn't gone down too much, I reloaded the game, made sure the settings were identical and talked to those players again. It didn't change much. The rest of the players, 18 of 24, all reviewed their demands to lower terms. I don't have a precise number, but I could say that they usually accept a contract that is approximately 1.5M lower than the number they asked for in the first place. I have no idea why a bunch of them don't want to act the same way. Their predicted stats aren't way over other players. The only thing that is sure is that none of them is a pitcher. More tests need to be run to see whether Rick Monday becomes reasonnable as the season advances, both if he's playing with the big club or in the minor leagues. One thing is sure, though: we are not going to unlimited negociations with a super discount of at least -50%.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Sept 22, 2007 7:13:20 GMT -5
Hey Terry I am running the latest file and using V10.31 and when I look at Stan Bahnsen I have him wanting 3yr - 13.1 million Any thoughts as to why?
Some examples I've got with salary demands at -10% 1) Sal Bando - wanted 4yr @ $8,050,000 after two offers he signs for 7yr @ 6.2M / In 2k4 he signed w/discount for 6,160,000
2) Fritz Peterson - wanted 4yr @ $7,700,000 after two offers he signs for 7yr @ 5.7M / In 2K4 he signed w/discount for 7,200,000
3)Now for the fun one - Jimy Williams (SS) is a rookie and only played a little last yr he wanted 2yr @ 5,650,000 if you offer 7yr's you better go big or man does he get PO'd. - more testing needed with rookies? - LOL so say I took his first offer of 2yr @ $5,650,000 / In 2k4 he signed for 7yr @ $3,840,000
My thoughts are that we will never get this perfect but I believe that the -10% Salary reduction and two negotiations are the way we should go. But I still have open ears - ;D
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Sept 22, 2007 7:13:23 GMT -5
I've played through about 12 or 15 seasons and find that if you are patient, people resign for less at the end of the season....sometimes... That being said, SOME players are looking for some serious green and do not reduce asking price. I would say (opinion) that overall they are asking for slightly too much.
Personally, I like to be able to negotiate a "few" times 3 or so...I think (2) is too few. I think that each person's computer is slightly different and an honor system is part of this process. Besides, making Terry recreate each nuance of a negotiation is tedious and a huge time constraint for him.
I agree with making the negotiated salary the final number, but would like to retain the 10% loyalty resigning. It keeps the nucleus together.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Sept 22, 2007 9:55:30 GMT -5
What are we doing about the player requests for "player option" years on a contract? Will they be part of our game? They seem to be a big negotiating tool used by the players. As far the setting is concerned, -10% seems okay with 3 negotiations or -30% with no negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Sept 22, 2007 12:58:30 GMT -5
I have been tweaking the setting for contract length to anywhere from -50 , -70 even -100. It enables very nice results (with -20 or -30) salary demands. Players are in an acceptable range for short years and realistic numbers for long-term.
Someone test it please and post your results. The above is an opinion, of course.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Sept 26, 2007 12:05:05 GMT -5
Can somebody negotiate Rick Mondays contract, best i can do is over 20mil for 7yrs which is insane! he was asking 8mil for 7yrs with 2004. If this is normal for and unplayed rookie. Then I'm in favor of unlimited negotiation's plus a large discount 50% or higher Don't try to sign him for 7. He'll take less than half the amount you got for a shorter term contract because he's not calculating in his potential future value, and some owners really need to get out of the habit of signing everyone to long term contracts anyway. Although I found 5 other players to raise their demands instead of lower them, none of those players raised their demands anywhere near where Rick Monday raises his. I don't know what's up with that. Rookies tend to want a lot more for long term contracts. It was the same way in 2k4 (maybe a bit less extreme). Overall finances: Unless exploring the SM forums tells us that this patch is working as intended, I think we should revert to the last official patch. We were a whole lot better off, and as far as I/we know at this moment the finances in this patch could be a bug that's being worked on. Remember, SM patches almost always add about as many new bugs as they eliminate. Unless someone has more information about that?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 26, 2007 12:12:04 GMT -5
I think we have got it pretty close to what it needs to be for now with this patch.
We will need to keep up to date about what is happening with the patches to see if we need to do anything furthur. But for this season, I think it is a go right now.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Sept 26, 2007 13:09:15 GMT -5
I think we have got it pretty close to what it needs to be for now with this patch. We will need to keep up to date about what is happening with the patches to see if we need to do anything further. But for this season, I think it is a go right now. I'll try to get to the SM board today and check, but part of my point is that if this is a bug that's supposed to get fixed in a later patch release, the finances will change again. If they're still doing official patches for this version.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 26, 2007 13:42:58 GMT -5
Yeah, if that occurs though, we could deal with that and change our ways again next offseason.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Sept 26, 2007 13:49:29 GMT -5
I've only seen a few mentions of finances so far, but have you folks looked at the list of problems with 10.31? They go on forever, which is why it's taking me so long to find the topic I'm trying to focus on. Click here to read all about it.
|
|