Player Under Club Control Refuses to Negotiate One Year Deal

[BirdWatcher]

I'm pretty confident that when faced with this my first response is nearly always, well, all right then- I guess I'm trading this guy pretty soon. And then I interpret his (yes, admittedly, irrational behavior) as a passive-aggressive request for just that. So I usually give him what he wants. (Being not entirely rational myself.) In other words, I trade his ass.
(Which is all pretty much not to take a position on the original question here, as I think you all make good points.)

[dkgo]

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.

you posted on a discussion board, sorry that you found discussion instead of just a bunch of people agreeing

here is the rational reason for this happening in the game:

the player is a human and humans are not always rational! people refuse to negotiate all the time in actual life even when there is technically no downside to hearing an offer out. the guy is mad and doesn't want to talk

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by dkgo

you posted on a discussion board, sorry that you found discussion instead of just a bunch of people agreeing

here is the rational reason for this happening in the game:

the player is a human and humans are not always rational! people refuse to negotiate all the time in actual life even when there is technically no downside to hearing an offer out. the guy is mad and doesn't want to talk

If you can find cases of this, I'd be happy to hear or see them. There are many, many cases of players under control deciding to go to arbitration for financial reasons, but I doubt you can find even a handful that decided to go to arbitration for other reasons. I'm open to having my mind changed here, though. I'm sure there must have been one or two that happened throughout the history of baseball arbitration. But, seriously, a guy refusing to even discuss negotiating a contract that the club owns rights to is just silly. They have agents for reasons.

If this happened once a blue moon in OOTP, that would be okay, I guess. But it's a moderately normal thing in the game. So, no, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Players who are being offered arbitration rather than go free agent are a different thing, of course. They can and should turn down arbitration for many reasons.

[NoOne]

history is evidence... the fact that the constitution has to be amended for things like color, gender or orientation.. when it was inclusive to start if you only read the preamble and ignore a bygone era;s choice of words... if you adhere to strict interpretation, even women aren't included in much, but clearly they are human beings aren't they? the fact we needed an amendment for womon's suffrage is proof of how irrational people can be. take a gander at the middle east or any number of countries and their cultures that cling to similar irrational concepts to this very day.

even in a newer generation, there's a large percentage that doesn't respect a woman manager/boss.

irrational behaviour is the norm, not the exception. most peopel don't have the knowledge to be anything else. they make all sorts of decisions based on unrelated and uncorrellated factors.

it was never about declining arbitration.. the op's context was that they declined to negotiate a one year deal before arbitration. and that can happen.. and does in RL.. low-ball a guy and they will know to go to arbitration based on players with similar stats and service time.

just because they don't want to work out a 1 year deal doesn't mean they want to leave or demanding to trade. maybe it correlates to probability of such a thing, but isn't guaranteed in year 2 or 3. .it really doesn't matter what the reason is.

now if you want to say they should at least listen and then decline, i'd hop on that bandwagon, becaue it's a rational conclusion made with reational reasoning. as of ootp18, they'd reply wiht a 1 year request that indicated they wouldn't sign long-term deal at all - almost always higher than what you pay in arbitration, fwiw. has this really changed? i have doubts they would. haven't played 19 enough yet.

if you offer 5M and arbitration estimate is 2M then you can rationally say no person would ever decline that 1 year deal. i'd also say it's poor financial management for paying too much relative to leverage and power that you have over the negotiating process.

if you perceive it as some slight or that you just don't like arbitration.. well? so?!? i'm still going to ignore it if they are amazing talents... i'll still handle the same way.. and only trade away if forced or they demand too much in an extension.

if you give away good talent over this, you are hurting your team. just because they won't negotiate this year, doesn't mean they won't negotiate in the years to come.

[NoOne]

*** i thnk i know the problem of the OP

check manager options... do you have the AGM setup to handle signings?

the only players that didn't wnt a 1 year deal were the ones that were angered in negotiations.

the only team i saw them on were the ai-controlled teams the ones with out a "#" wouldn't speak about anything... because they were upsaet by the AI's negotiations.

so, they still are willing to sign a 1 year deal, i haven't found one that doesn't... check you manager's office options. this is 99% likely self-inflicted phenomenom, because i cannot recreate the problem without the AI-gm screwing it up for me.

[RonCo]

The problem is not that the player goes to arbitration. The problem is that the player goes to arbitration because he doesn't like that manager.

All of the examples you're giving are financial...and players should always go to arbitration if they think they are being dramatically low-balled. That's the entire point of arbitration as a weapon for either side, really.

Ultimately, it's not an impact on anything important except immersion. But I'll stand by my general commentary. Find me examples of several real ballplayers who decided to go to arbitration due to something that wasn't financial and I'll change my mind. I really can be convinced...but in this situation it's about data, not generalities of human nature that (I believe) pretty much never manifest themselves in real life situations.

[NoOne]

but, you can't recreate this.. or at least i haven't seen it yet..

only when i accidentally left ai-gm delegation on did it occur.

thy all will negotiate at least 1 year?

you cannot prove non-existence.. just that it's improbable... happy to agree that it is improbable... i would do it if they upset me for sure... iam a good example of the type of malcontent that woudl do it out of spite... i'd represent myself too. i am a good independent learner. reading and learning on my own is easy.

when making millions i would care less about 500k this way or that. it really is part of my personality. i wouldn't even buy a mansion.. holy %$@ all that extra space to keep clean and organized? no way, and too cheap to pay someone else for things i shuold do... when you stop wiping your own @ss you tend to turn into an entitled monster. no exception to that rule.. have things done for you at the most basic levels, and eventually you turn into an a@@.

[RonCo]

I don't know why this is even a conversation, really. But, yes, show me a couple examples of players who declined to negotiate with their team and forced an arbitration meeting _ because they didn't like the field manager_ (or any other non-financial reason), and I'll be educated.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by NoOne

but, you can't recreate this.. or at least i haven't seen it yet..

only when i accidentally left ai-gm delegation on did it occur.

thy all will negotiate at least 1 year?

I have personally had it happen many times in online leagues where assistant GMS are not in play at all. Regardless, the message is that the player doesn't like the field manager. This is almost certainly an error...but again, show me players who went to the arbitrator because they didn't like their manager, and I'll change my opinion.

[Syd Thrift]

I mean, I feel like I understand exactly why the player is refusing, even if it never happens in real life. The game either has a flag saying "never take an offer from this team" or else it sets the dollar value to an unreachable number so the player, logically speaking, refuses to sign.

The issue is that the player has no leverage here so the AI ought to in effect be valuing super 2 through year 6 arbitration differently. I *do* think that players try and find their own leverage in these situations sometimes, although only if things are really dire and generally in ways I don't think the public hears much about until well after the fact. Robin Yount threatening to quit the Brewers to play professional golf, for instance, was something like this (Yount didn't want to move off of shortstop in favor of the young guy Paul Molitor and this was the leverage he used to keep Milwaukee from changing his position).

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by NoOne

*** i thnk i know the problem of the OP

check manager options... do you have the AGM setup to handle signings?

the only players that didn't wnt a 1 year deal were the ones that were angered in negotiations.

the only team i saw them on were the ai-controlled teams the ones with out a "#" wouldn't speak about anything... because they were upsaet by the AI's negotiations.

so, they still are willing to sign a 1 year deal, i haven't found one that doesn't... check you manager's office options. this is 99% likely self-inflicted phenomenom, because i cannot recreate the problem without the AI-gm screwing it up for me.

Nope. Most players in arbitration only want one year deals. This is something the game does well. Arbitration eligible players hold out for the big payday when free agency time rolls around. Some will go for multi-year deals, but this is rare.

[Charley575]

Folks if it helps, and probably not, but whatever, the player's mood is really good because we just had a 97 win season and won the division, so poor morale is not the reason either. He had really phenomenal numbers (11-3 36S 0.90 ERA 0.65 WHIP) so I think what is happening here is he's an elite performer and the game engine has decided that he should be a very difficult sign. The problem is he has 3 years left until free agency so, like I said before, I believe this is an oversight in the code somewhere that is making the players act as if he has leverage that he does not have i.e. he is acting like he can go get a big payday in free agency when he cannot.

[Charley575]

What I think should happen here is the player should negotiate and he should open negotiations wanting elite closer money. In fact, I think he should come into negotiations wanting to lock down a multi year deal for elite closer money now, since his statistical performance was so phenomenal last year and he is unlikely to repeat it. That's where his leverage lies. This sets up an intriguing situation where I would then have to decide whether I am willing to make a multi-year commitment to a closer with a short, but glorious track record or would I rather go to arbitration for a one year deal and hold out to see if he can keep this level of performance going. The risk for me in that scenario is that if a wait too long, he may decide to just wait for free agency and test the market.

[Syd Thrift]

I don't know... depending on his greed rating or whatever, his multiyear deal he asks for should only take him to the end of his arbitration period. I'd expect that he wants to test free agency the first chance he gets.

[RonCo]

Yes. Note, though, all of those are financial considerations.

[Charley575]

Yes, his complaint about the manager is irrelevant. He's stuck with him for 3 years or until I let him go, which is not going to happen after a 97 win season, so...

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I don't know... depending on his greed rating or whatever, his multiyear deal he asks for should only take him to the end of his arbitration period. I'd expect that he wants to test free agency the first chance he gets.

Agreed, but you see where I'm coming from here. The negotiations can be easier or more difficult depending upon personality. That's another discussion. The crux of the issue here is a player acting like he can walk when he can't.

[Orcin]

I don't see the problem here. The player is under club control. Just go to arbitration with him and offer what you think is fair. The rest is just cosmetic anyway.

[Charley575]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I don't see the problem here. The player is under club control. Just go to arbitration with him and offer what you think is fair. The rest is just cosmetic anyway.

One possible definition of irony:
A conversation that is worthless but no so worthless as for you to let it pass without commenting on its worthlessness.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by Charley575

One possible definition of irony:
A conversation that is worthless but no so worthless as for you to let it pass without commenting on its worthlessness.

Lol.........Z