Quote:
Originally Posted by Qeltar
I think some tweaking is in order.
For example, in my game, Andrew Miller sat and rotted through the offseason. Before ST he wanted a 4-year deal worth $40m. Nobody would give him the time of day.
As soon as ST started, he dropped all the way down to a 1-year deal for $7.5m. Suddenly a bunch of teams got into a bidding war for over a month that pushed up near $30m for a single year. I can't imagine any real team paying that.
Perhaps a bit more gradual adjustment in player demands would help. As would some limits on the bidding war stuff. There was one good (not great) RP who was in a bidding war that went weeks into the regular season, a few teams nickel-and-diming each other. I am not sure an RP would really want to sit on the shelf for over 2 months waiting for that to play out (he didn't end up getting a lot extra for his trouble).
|
Ok, yea, in that example with Miller then rocketing-up to that $30 million for one year, seems a bit loopy.
But that sounds like it's less related to the player, than the teams. If this is occurring often, it would seem that the team's are losing focus once they get into a bidding war, as in that situation. There should be a sort of limit that each individual team would at some point based on the normal factors that would be taken into account in such a situation.
So, for example, let's say their "disposition" limits the last two teams in such a bidding war to $15,000,00. So, "we are not going any higher", but of course they don't know that.
Then perhaps at that point, the secondary factors or "soft" factors would start to come into play, and that would switch back to the player's makeup. Things like market size, team competitiveness, coach relationships, past history, did he play there, is he well liked in that market, no trade clause for longer term, if that's an issue for him.