Contract Bug

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Rather than needlessly debating this...why don't we simply lobby Markus to fix it?

The question is whether this needs fixed. Your overblown description now proven wrong suggested a problem that doesn't exist.

[PSUColonel]

but it is a problem...as long as there a players in the "cleared waivers" list, those players cannot be offered contracts. The fix is not to have the players removed from the list, but rather to enable contract negotiations with these players.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

but it is a problem...as long as there a players in the "cleared waivers" list, those players cannot be offered contracts. The fix is not to have the players removed from the list, but rather to enable contract negotiations with these players.

The players you refer to are already under contract. No contracts need to be offered to minor league players or major league players in their first 2-3 seasons.

Show evidence that the AI puts players that are critical to the team and that need a contract on waivers.

Show evidence of a player who needs a contract who isn't getting one.

Show evidence that there is a problem. We discussed already that a pending FA on waivers is one "possible" problem. I've yet to see any evidence that such a player exists.

Stop endlessly debating and show examples of the problem.

[PSUColonel]

You don't know what the AI may want to do! Some of these players may not be critical, but as I pointed out yesterday, there is at least one instance. I would show you examples, but I'm not going to just zoom ahead in my universe and ruin it. Why don't you stoop endlessly debating every little thing I say or point out? There is a new problem..and I and other would like to see it fixed...period. Why is this of such great consequence to you? Why if I say something is black, are you always the first person to come back and say..no it's white? I for one want to see OOTP in perfect working order. If you cannot handle this...thats is YOUR problem.



Also...How can I prove this when contracts aren't being offered to any player on waivers?....which is of course what makes me extremely suspicious.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

You don't know what the AI may want to do! Some of these players may not be critical, but as I pointed out yesterday, there is at least one instance. I would show you examples, but I'm not going to just zoom ahead in my universe and ruin it. Why don't you stoop endlessly debating every little thing I say or point out? There is a new problem..and I and other would like to see it fixed...period. Why is this of such great consequence to you? Why if I say something is black, are you always the first person to come back and say..no it's white? I for one want to see OOTP in perfect working order. If you cannot handle this...thats is YOUR problem.

You say there is a problem with the game, I say you have no evidence. Getting pissy with me for asking for evidence of the problem is your problem.

Show evidence of an actual problem. You overstated it and now don't want to admit that the "problem" is basically non-existent.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Also...How can I prove this when contracts aren't being offered to any player on waivers?....which is of course what makes me extremely suspicious.

Because these players are already under contract. Why do you not get this.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by RchW

You say there is a problem with the game, I say you have no evidence. Getting pissy with me for asking for evidence of the problem is your problem.

Show evidence of an actual problem. You overstated it and now don't want to admit that the "problem" is basically non-existent.

Did you read? I said there is no way to know for sure because the AI can't offer contracts to these players....which is what makes me very very suspicious in the first place. Believe me, I've tried to find an instance..if I had, I wouldn't be pointing this out because there wouldn't be a problem then. It's the fact I haven't seen it at all that IS the problem.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by RchW

Because these players are already under contract. Why do you not get this.

They may be under contract, but that doesn't mean the AI may not want to ofer an extension because the player is better than originally thought, or for minor league depth.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Did you read? I said there is no way to know for sure because the AI can't offer contracts to these players....which is what makes me very very suspicious in the first place. Believe me, I've tried to find an instance..if I had, I wouldn't be pointing this out because there wouldn't be a problem then. It's the fact I haven't seen it at all that IS the problem.

They are already under contract. There is no reason for a contract to be offered to any player who is not a pending FA. That's not suspicious it's reality!

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by RchW

They are already under contract. There is no reason for a contract to be offered to any player who is not a pending FA. That's not suspicious it's reality!

Why can't the AI have the freedom to re-negotiate with a player that turns out to be better than originally thought? Why can't the AI sign players for depth? Why can't the AI offer an extension to a player it pulled back from waivers? I mean come on...the list goes on!! The AI is being hamstrung in some ways because of this problem. As I have said before, sometimes waivers is used to gauge trade interest or attempt to rid of a high salary. Sometimes in some cases the AI may want to negotiate an extension with any of these players.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

The AI can just re-sign its minor league depth players in October/November like any lazy human would.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

The AI can just re-sign its minor league depth players in October/November like any lazy human would.

Maybe the players are a little better than that though, and are we sure the list is cleared in November? I would think it might not be cleared until the start of the next season...never looked though. My point is it is taking CHOICES away from the AI.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Maybe the players are a little better than that though, and are we sure the list is cleared in November? I would think it might not be cleared until the start of the next season...never looked though. My point is it is taking CHOICES away from the AI.

RchW reported the list being cleared at the beginning of the playoffs.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

They may be under contract, but that doesn't mean the AI may not want to ofer an extension because the player is better than originally thought, or for minor league depth.

A player in his second season gets the biggest boost in current ratings ever seen in the history of OOTPB. It puts him on the fast track to MLB.

Your claim is that the AI is going to put him on waivers, no team is going to claim him (ie he has cleared waivers). Why did no team claim him? You then claim the AI must want to offer an extension to its own player who may not even be on the 40 man roster and is under control for 6 years minimum.

No contract ever needs to be offered. Why don't you show players with more than 6 years MLB service or minor league FA who are on waivers and maybe should get a contract offer. If this is such a serious problem you should be able to show such players.

[simcrazy]

Originally Posted by RchW

They are already under contract. There is no reason for a contract to be offered to any player who is not a pending FA. That's not suspicious it's reality!

Huh? Players under contract, not just those heading into their final year, are offered contracts all the time. All. The. Time.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by simcrazy

Huh? Players under contract, not just those heading into their final year, are offered contracts all the time. All. The. Time.

You should read the thread. This concerns players on waivers. So in other words a player you are offering to 29 other teams and no one wants, is now a target for an extension offer. Why?

Put aside the waiver thing. Would you offer a player with 28 days MLB service a contract extension?

If yes, why?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by RchW

A player in his second season gets the biggest boost in current ratings ever seen in the history of OOTPB. It puts him on the fast track to MLB.

Your claim is that the AI is going to put him on waivers, no team is going to claim him (ie he has cleared waivers). Why did no team claim him? You then claim the AI must want to offer an extension to its own player who may not even be on the 40 man roster and is under control for 6 years minimum.

No contract ever needs to be offered. Why don't you show players with more than 6 years MLB service or minor league FA who are on waivers and maybe should get a contract offer. If this is such a serious problem you should be able to show such players.

A player may be placed on waiver, and then later in the season receive a talent boost.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by RchW

You should read the thread. This concerns players on waivers. So in other words a player you are offering to 29 other teams and no one wants, is now a target for an extension offer. Why?

Put aside the waiver thing. Would you offer a player with 28 days MLB service a contract extension?

If yes, why?

potential talent bumps.

Isn't it easier to just fix this then to sit around and come up with reasons why it shouldn't?

[simcrazy]

Originally Posted by RchW

You should read the thread. This concerns players on waivers. So in other words a player you are offering to 29 other teams and no one wants, is now a target for an extension offer. Why?

Put aside the waiver thing. Would you offer a player with 28 days MLB service a contract extension?

If yes, why?

Evan Longoria signed a contract extension with less than 28 days MLB service time.

That addresses your second question, but not your first, as Longoria obviously has never been on waivers.

To answer your first question, a player going through waivers and being able to be assigned to minor league camp increases that players value because of the flexibility. Also, if this is a year long process, what if the player clears waivers in April, destroys AAA pitching and now you want to sign him to a cheap deal in September for the next year or two? This is not a crazy scenario.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Why can't the AI have the freedom to re-negotiate with a player that turns out to be better than originally thought?

Of course it can but the players you refer to for the most part are already tied to the AI team. No negotiation is required

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Why can't the AI sign players for depth

Of course it can. It just doesn't need to sign players it already has under contract. Any other FA is signable as I previously pointed out

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Why can't the AI offer an extension to a player it pulled back from waivers?

It can but the ability to pull back from waivers indicates that the player does not need resigning as he is tied to the team until FA applies at either MLB or minor league levels

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I mean come on...the list goes on!! The AI is being hamstrung in some ways because of this problem.

No it is not. I've showed overwhelming evidence that a very small subset of players is affected and you continue to ignore that.

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

As I have said before, sometimes waivers is used to gauge trade interest or attempt to rid of a high salary. Sometimes in some cases the AI may want to negotiate an extension with any of these players.

That is the small subset of players. If the problem is so bad why don't you show me some. I've already acknowledged this three or more times and you still can't show me a single player.