Player Under Club Control Refuses to Negotiate One Year Deal

[Charley575]

So I feel like this sort of an oversight:
I don't like to go to arbitration with anybody. I always try to negotiate with arb. eligible players. However...
I have a Closer who has 3 yrs and 26 days of service time, so he's arbitration eligible, refusing to negotiate a one year deal for next season because he doesn't like the manager.
Oversight, right?
I mean, effectively the player is refusing to negotiate a new one year deal to play under the current manager and demanding an arbitration hearing after which he will be playing for the current manager on a one year deal. The numbers are irrelevant because the player will not even listen to any offers. This is not a rational act.
Players under club control should not act as if they are in a walk year when it's time to negotiate their salary for next season. The player seems to think he has leverage that he does not have, or at the very least, seems to think he can just walk away, which he cannot do, unless he wants to retire from baseball at the ripe old age of 26 and go coach his old high school team, or sell used cars, or whatever.

Or is there something I'm missing? Can anybody think of a rational reason why this should happen?

[NoOne]

just edit arbitration offer to what you offered in the 1-year deal.

they want to go to arbitration. nothing you can do about it. there's no rule that says they must accept your offer or even negotiate with you at all before arbitration. they can't walk away unless you release them, so i'm not sure where that is coming from?

players go to arbitration for all sorts of reasons.. it could be a protest to a work environment they don't appreciate. there's a plethora of reasonable causes. it's really hard to fault a player whom is hamstrung by a system created to take away all of their bargaining power.

i'd do it out of spite too... cost them more in lawyers, lol. try to raise there costs as much as possible for low-balling my contemporaries...

[Airdrop01]

Originally Posted by NoOne

players go to arbitration for all sorts of reasons

No. They do not.

Money is the only thing that is addressed at arbitration.

Everyone, especially the player, wants to avoid it. It’s ugly. You sit there with your guy and hear how many failings he has in his game and thus isn’t worth the relative pennies from differing settlement numbers that got the parties to arbitration. The club doesn’t like it for the same reason. They are pointing out faults in a guy they like and want to do well.

It is unpleasant for the player and club. Everyone loses if a case goes to arbitration.

It’s definitely a poor implementation of the real world in the game.

That said, the game still is really great.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

No. They do not.

Money is the only thing that is addressed at arbitration.

Everyone, especially the player, wants to avoid it. It’s ugly. You sit there with your guy and hear how many failings he has in his game and thus isn’t worth the relative pennies from differing settlement numbers that got the parties to arbitration. The club doesn’t like it for the same reason. They are pointing out faults in a guy they like and want to do well.

It is unpleasant for the player and club. Everyone loses if a case goes to arbitration.

It’s definitely a poor implementation of the real world in the game.

That said, the game still is really great.

Yes they do! See link

https://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/ml...ase-blue-jays/


They couldn't split the difference? The Jays and about 18 other teams are known as a file and go team or some other name, but it means they don't negotiate with arb players. They make an offer and the player has to take it or file for arb.

Up to about 3 seasons ago arb cases were at an all time low (2014-15) now they are increasing due to hardline stances by a majority of MLB teams.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by RchW

Yes they do! See link

https://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/ml...ase-blue-jays/


They couldn't split the difference? The Jays and about 18 other teams are known as a file and go team or some other name, but it means they don't negotiate with arb players. They make an offer and the player has to take it or file for arb.

Up to about 3 seasons ago arb cases were at an all time low (2014-15) now they are increasing due to hardline stances by a majority of MLB teams.

That would be fine if this were over money. It's not. The player will not hear any offers. He doesn't like the manager. That's irrelevant. He's under club control for 3 more years, which means he's playing for whatever manager I choose to employ for those 3 years. I could hire a guy who dresses like Bozo the Clown and sprays players with a seltzer bottle when they strike out if I like, and he has to put up with it for 3 more years. My point is that I think it's a minor oversight on the part of the dev team that the game does not seem to have a check for players under club control when it decides whether the player is willing to negotiate or not and hopefully it's a small thing they can fix in a patch.
I agree this game is awesome and the fact that I'm on here nit picking a tiny flaw is proof of how great it is.

[Airdrop01]

Originally Posted by RchW

Yes they do! See link

https://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/ml...ase-blue-jays/


They couldn't split the difference? The Jays and about 18 other teams are known as a file and go team or some other name, but it means they don't negotiate with arb players. They make an offer and the player has to take it or file for arb.

Up to about 3 seasons ago arb cases were at an all time low (2014-15) now they are increasing due to hardline stances by a majority of MLB teams.

You are saying what I just said. It’s money. The Jays don’t negotiate. It’s not about “workplace environment.”

[Silfir]

It's possible the developers didn't think of this circumstance; I think it's more likely that they did, but decided they didn't need to do anything. It's not implausible for a player to engage in acts of protest against managers they despise, even if it's just symbolic protest in the end. He might just be one in a line of many players to speak up about how impossible to work with your manager is, and that may lead to the manager eventually getting the sack. He's not going to make that happen by meekly submitting to the ball and chain of club control, is he?

[Airdrop01]

If it’s gonna happen in real life, Gabe Kapler is going to be the guy it happens to...and deservingly so..... LOL.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by Silfir

It's possible the developers didn't think of this circumstance; I think it's more likely that they did, but decided they didn't need to do anything. It's not implausible for a player to engage in acts of protest against managers they despise, even if it's just symbolic protest in the end. He might just be one in a line of many players to speak up about how impossible to work with your manager is, and that may lead to the manager eventually getting the sack. He's not going to make that happen by meekly submitting to the ball and chain of club control, is he?

Let him request a trade, then. Let there be a (small, let's not get carried away) morale penalty for "manager is an a-hole". I'd be fine with all that.

Seriously, am I the only one who has encountered this and been like, "Huh."?
Oh, well. I guess this serves as further confirmation that I am different than all the other people in the world. Yay me.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

If it’s gonna happen in real life, Gabe Kapler is going to be the guy it happens to...and deservingly so..... LOL.

Ami the only one who gets the sense that Kapler is a child playing a video game?
Poorly?

If Kapler is the future of the sport than the sport is in trouble.

[malor]

I've seen a few times. Just chalked it up to the Morale system kicking in with a way for the player to tell me he is unhappy with the organization.

I went to Arb with an offer lower than I was planning to offer on the contract and won. So I saved money.

[dkgo]

you can't think of a single world in which an unhappy player just wants to settle things in arbitration?

newsflash, sometimes humans are irrational. it doesn't effect anything as you said so who cares?

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by dkgo

you can't think of a single world in which an unhappy player just wants to settle things in arbitration?

newsflash, sometimes humans are irrational. it doesn't effect anything as you said so who cares?

Thank you for your thoughtful opinion.

Shall I check with you before I post in the future?

I've clearly irritated you with my existence.

I'm sorry.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

No. They do not.

Money is the only thing that is addressed at arbitration.

Everyone, especially the player, wants to avoid it. It’s ugly. You sit there with your guy and hear how many failings he has in his game and thus isn’t worth the relative pennies from differing settlement numbers that got the parties to arbitration. The club doesn’t like it for the same reason. They are pointing out faults in a guy they like and want to do well.

It is unpleasant for the player and club. Everyone loses if a case goes to arbitration.

It’s definitely a poor implementation of the real world in the game.

That said, the game still is really great.

it's not an evil process, lol. a neutral third party ways quantitative, and maybe a few qualatative reasons are unavoidable due to human element, to set a particular value on the player.. it's neither good or bad in nature.

any feelings a person has is of their own control and choice.

they only mostly avoid it because they were offered a comparable contract before that point. trust me, if the common trend was the opposite, players would make sure of arbitration to get a better salary.

if you ignore that the system is mostly created and controlled with the owner's interest in mind, it's a very objective process of comparing service time and similar player's salaries.

you go to arbitration when the team low-balls you... this value they should get is mostly known before they go into the meeting... because of the fact i mentioned above.. it's mostly based on quantitative reasoning. that's why only 27 players filed for arbitration in 2017.

you do the simple math, and if you can likely get more in arbitration you file for arbitration.. it's not a good vs. evil thing at all. (considers any additional fees or costs associted too, for any rational mind)

if they can't hear criticism, that's their own fault.. facts are facts. quit acting like a child is what i'd say so any complaint in that realm about the process. if you are not as good as your counterparts, pretending that you are amazing doesn't help anyone. probably won't improve in those areas if they feel that way either.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Charley575

That would be fine if this were over money. It's not. The player will not hear any offers. He doesn't like the manager. That's irrelevant. He's under club control for 3 more years, which means he's playing for whatever manager I choose to employ for those 3 years. I could hire a guy who dresses like Bozo the Clown and sprays players with a seltzer bottle when they strike out if I like, and he has to put up with it for 3 more years. My point is that I think it's a minor oversight on the part of the dev team that the game does not seem to have a check for players under club control when it decides whether the player is willing to negotiate or not and hopefully it's a small thing they can fix in a patch.
I agree this game is awesome and the fact that I'm on here nit picking a tiny flaw is proof of how great it is.

when any human feels unappreciated by their employers they are capable of all sorts of irrational behaviour.

i'd make them run through as many hoops as possible, for one, out of spite. if it costs them more in fees and lawyers, that's the route i'd go. bcause this system is completely one-sided and just because their are rules doens't make them fair. it clearly pays them less than their value and you can measure that.. it's not qualatative reasoning.

their coutnerparts get paid less becaue they have no bargaining power... so they get paid less... it's a system of payroll control.

some good comes from it.. but a bit too extremem imo.. just like the the nfl put restrictions on draft pick salaries so that vets would get a larger share of the whole. some in baseball.. but they don't have the same dynamics.. they have no Cap that all teams must spend with ing X% of it each year etc etc...

on the other hand, their money is guaranteed which is bettter than the nfl... so you sacrifice a bit of money for security.. . it likely saves baseball owners a ton more money than their nfl counterparts, though.

and to the other post a couple above: of cours e you can, just liek you will liekly receive a few opinions in return. how's being the fascist, lol? may we respond to what is said? LoL. in ootp i believe what you say is true.. but in real life i know their are other concerns than just money. it starts to be a symbol of unhappiness etc... you do what you can within the system to show your distaste. it's the only form of protest they'd have.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by RchW

Yes they do! See link

https://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/ml...ase-blue-jays/


They couldn't split the difference? The Jays and about 18 other teams are known as a file and go team or some other name, but it means they don't negotiate with arb players. They make an offer and the player has to take it or file for arb.

Up to about 3 seasons ago arb cases were at an all time low (2014-15) now they are increasing due to hardline stances by a majority of MLB teams.

heh... drhay and charley should go read some of our initial interaction, rich




we end up agreeing more often than not, but when we don't it's a fun little debate. i write with too much theatrics on occasion and i'm sure it rubs people the wrong way, but it's all in fun, usually. i'm sure a few have me on ignore list if this forum has that functionality, LoL

even the most rational minds will disagree... not that i am in that category. so, if they do, all will.

[RonCo]

There is no reason for a player to go to arbitration except for the fact that he's not being offered as much as he thinks he can get. If the player has other issues with the club (the manager or his usage or whatever), then there are other actions to take. He can request trades or go to the press with his complaints. Or he can sulk and pout and be a bad influence. While it's certainly _possible_ for a player to act so rashly as to go to arbitration for some other reason, it should happen almost never, and especially not without some kind of weird provocation.

If you change the situation and make it about the end of an actual contract, then things change, and of course he may not negotiate.

But with arbitration, he has no leverage whatsoever for that issue. Arbitration is about money. Players understand that. Their agents understand that. The media understands that.

I don't understand why this is even slightly controversial.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by charley575

thank you for your thoughtful opinion.

Shall i check with you before i post in the future?

I've clearly irritated you with my existence.

I'm sorry.

roflmao...........Z

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by RchW

The Jays and about 18 other teams are known as a file and go team or some other name, but it means they don't negotiate with arb players.

File and trial my good man. File and trial.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by RonCo

There is no reason for a player to go to arbitration except for the fact that he's not being offered as much as he thinks he can get. If the player has other issues with the club (the manager or his usage or whatever), then there are other actions to take. He can request trades or go to the press with his complaints. Or he can sulk and pout and be a bad influence. While it's certainly _possible_ for a player to act so rashly as to go to arbitration for some other reason, it should happen almost never, and especially not without some kind of weird provocation.

If you change the situation and make it about the end of an actual contract, then things change, and of course he may not negotiate.

But with arbitration, he has no leverage whatsoever for that issue. Arbitration is about money. Players understand that. Their agents understand that. The media understands that.

I don't understand why this is even slightly controversial.

I totally agree with you. (Not that it will matter much.)😜...............Z