Is this smart financials or gaming the system?

jpeters1734 · 10-18-2015, 11:29 PM

In our online league we have a hard cap of 2 million so it's obvious that this player will be released in 1979. In our market, Rosario would have fetched 400-450k per year in a straight contract.

Facts:
-Released players do not count in the cap.
-The budget is typically 6.5 mil
-Development and scouting are baselined at 1 mil each

Without telling you what our arguments are, what does the community think? Is this smart GM'ing or is it exploiting unfairly?

TBC members, please wait until we get some comments before stating your cases.

pgjocki · 10-18-2015, 11:50 PM

Both

mpbaseball22 · 10-18-2015, 11:58 PM

Definitely exploiting the system a bit, but not sure there is much that can be done if there was no rule in place to prevent this. Maybe a fine?

TGH-Adfabre · 10-19-2015, 12:10 AM

It is avoiding the cap. Basically there is an off the books salary payment that is accounted for in cash but not cap room.
I would have the payer released, the team takes any interest or loyalty hits as a penalty. Put the money or most of it back in the teams coffers.
That contract is designed to avoid the salary cap. Because of that I think the commissioner is free to resolve the situation as a cap violation or more severe. I view my role as commissioner as also overseer? of the league. I do not make decisions based on 1 GMs ability to circumvent the rules.

... on the other hand if the league finds oddball situations like this fun and a part of the league then let it ride.

To me it really depends on how the league functions. I have been in leagues where this would be viewed as funny.

StratMan · 10-19-2015, 02:26 PM

I would definitely think this is gaming. If your contracts are not "guaranteed" but the OOTP engine believes they are when the player accepts, then I don't see how you can allow for escalating contracts without abuse. If a player is cut in year 4 of a 7 year deal, I would suggest the team should be hit with a penalty of the difference between dollars paid during years 1-3 and the average contract salary over 7 years.

NoOne · 10-19-2015, 03:18 PM

i would say that's something you should have set in stone before it happens. make a rule for future contracts limiting back-loaded contracts to X% of the previous years' average.

forget about the $1.2mill figure. it looks worse than it actually is. for a better understanding of what he accomplished you'd have to compare an accepted original contract offer at the same point in time as the back-loaded contract to see what the gm actually avoided during the years before the option year. the 1.2mill value wasn't neccessary to accomplish this feat.

in reality he saved a little bit each year and the total will be far less than 1.2million. ~50-100k each year? does that constitute a severe punishment? that's upto your league. on top of that you should be comparing what is saved to a contract with an "acceptable" back-loaded amount, which would be an even smaller yearly difference.

the game does actually limit the effect of back-loading. so, he could have used far less money in that final option year to acheive the same results. since it would 'look' better, it may not have ruffled any feathers, possibly. if it was possible, then he really did nothing wrong.

so, if you are only seeing 1.2million and not the whole picture, it will seem more egregious than reality. the use of that figure is more about a lack of experience in what the game allows you to get away with when back-loading contracts.

i bet this is not the only back-loaded contract with option(s) in your league. it would be unfair to single one player out without due diligence into all other teams' contracts. at what point is it shady? an extra 100k in the final option year? +500k? seems like a grey area to me that should be decided upon first before levying punishments retroactively.

another thought to consider is that it's very possible that even if your league had a set rule about acceptable back-loading amounts, he still could have obtained a similar contract for the player. punishment without this information seems a bit unfair to me.

he may have done nothing wrong except use an exorbitant value that was not required for the results he acheived. at that point you are merely punishing someone for typing a large number that did nothing out of the ordinary.
__________________

edit: regard to cap hits from releasing players... you can still use option years to avoid cap penalties. i don't think loaded option years are as "shiny" to the player in regard to signing contracts, but they do still help. it will definitely limit how many years they can back-load.

byzeil · 10-19-2015, 04:00 PM

It is an exploit of the salary cap but not of the player. Since the last year is not an option year the cash will be payed to the player when he is released so I could see a player signing that deal. It is an exploit of the League's Salary cap because the team has committed money that would put them over the cap, and thus signed the player, with the intention of never having that last year count against the cap. Of course anyone else could have done the same if they were willing to push the rules envelope.

So it is a smart use of the salary cap and contract rules by the GM. If the league doesn't want this type of thing to happen they'd have to implement some house rule to prevent it in the future though not sure there would be anything that could be fairly done to correct this contract since it doesn't appear to break any current league rules (that I know of).

jpeters1734 · 10-19-2015, 04:20 PM

To be clear, no one is accusing him of wrong doing and there will be no sanctions. We are just discussing what to allow in the future

RonCo · 10-19-2015, 04:27 PM

Effectively, it seems to be a longevity bonus.

Raidergoo · 10-19-2015, 04:30 PM

It's gaming the system. Code, both for the AI and for an online league, cannot anticipate every single exploit.

Izz · 10-19-2015, 05:01 PM

In future situations i would subtract the value of the over-the-limit contract year from that year's cap. So using this case as an example, the Outlaws' cap for 1979 would be 2 million minus 1.2 million, leaving them just $800,000 to pay players. Would probably mean they'd have to release a whole lot of players and hire a whole lot of scrubs that season, but them's the breaks.

tejdog1 · 10-20-2015, 12:51 AM

It's an online league so it's full of human GMs, yeah?
Perfectly legal and smart. Exceptional GMing there. He did everything within the rules. Anyone could've done the same.

If this were against the AI - I'd cry foul since I believe the AI would never "think" to do this.

TheMaus2 · 10-20-2015, 01:11 AM

there should be a max salary for this league, cause this is gaming the system. otherwise, why would you buy a sp on his post-prime years at that type of cash?

NoOne · 10-20-2015, 01:49 PM

in RL, GMs are supposed to game the system. that's how you create a competitive advantage. when something is too egregious they make a rule change.

e.g. the NHL had to change various rules after the salary cap was implemented because a few teams started signing players to exorbitantly long, front-loaded contracts - even when the player would likely never play the last few years. they made a rule change on how each year's cap figure was calculated and moved on.

like deming said, it's 80% the systems fault. your financial setup allows for this to happen, so don't be surprised when it does. it doesn't take much to anticipate this. it's not a small crack. it's a gaping hole. they set up a league with no cap implications for cutting a player. how could you not expect this to happen and who was dumb enough not to do it, LoL?

if the league doesn't like it, then make a rule change and move on. it probably won't be the only rule change as the league evolves.

2 simple fixes:

150% of average salary -- 300k/yr average, last year cannot exceed 450k. obviosuly that would rely on people self-regulating. nothing in the game can implement this rule. or maybe no more than a 10% increase or decrease from one year to the next...just implement somethign that scales as opposed to a max contract-type rule. e.g. that wouldn't eliminate the use of this tactic on smaller contracts.

or

don't allow teams to cut players without cap implications in the first place. that also removes alot of the skill involved in long-term team management. there are virtually no ramifications for bad financial decisions.

10-18-2015, 11:29 PM	#1
jpeters1734 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Juust a bit outside... Posts: 6,216	Is this smart financials or gaming the system? In our online league we have a hard cap of 2 million so it's obvious that this player will be released in 1979. In our market, Rosario would have fetched 400-450k per year in a straight contract. Facts: -Released players do not count in the cap. -The budget is typically 6.5 mil -Development and scouting are baselined at 1 mil each Without telling you what our arguments are, what does the community think? Is this smart GM'ing or is it exploiting unfairly? TBC members, please wait until we get some comments before stating your cases. Attached Images __________________ "Cannonball Coming!" Go Bucs!! Founder and League Caretaker of the Professional Baseball Circuit, www.probaseballcircuit.com An Un-Official Guide to Minor League Management in OOTP 21 Ratings Scale Conversion Cross-Reference Cheat Sheet

10-18-2015, 11:50 PM	#2
pgjocki All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Maryland - just outside DC Posts: 1,590	Both __________________ - - - World Series championships: 1926, 1931, 1934, 1942, 1944, 1946, 1964, 1967, 1982, 2006, 2011

10-19-2015, 12:10 AM	#4
TGH-Adfabre Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,599	It is avoiding the cap. Basically there is an off the books salary payment that is accounted for in cash but not cap room. I would have the payer released, the team takes any interest or loyalty hits as a penalty. Put the money or most of it back in the teams coffers. That contract is designed to avoid the salary cap. Because of that I think the commissioner is free to resolve the situation as a cap violation or more severe. I view my role as commissioner as also overseer? of the league. I do not make decisions based on 1 GMs ability to circumvent the rules. ... on the other hand if the league finds oddball situations like this fun and a part of the league then let it ride. To me it really depends on how the league functions. I have been in leagues where this would be viewed as funny. __________________ You mock me, therefore I am My wife

10-19-2015, 02:26 PM	#5
StratMan Minors (Single A) Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 66	I would definitely think this is gaming. If your contracts are not "guaranteed" but the OOTP engine believes they are when the player accepts, then I don't see how you can allow for escalating contracts without abuse. If a player is cut in year 4 of a 7 year deal, I would suggest the team should be hit with a penalty of the difference between dollars paid during years 1-3 and the average contract salary over 7 years. Last edited by StratMan; 10-19-2015 at 02:28 PM.

10-19-2015, 03:18 PM	#6
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	i would say that's something you should have set in stone before it happens. make a rule for future contracts limiting back-loaded contracts to X% of the previous years' average. forget about the $1.2mill figure. it looks worse than it actually is. for a better understanding of what he accomplished you'd have to compare an accepted original contract offer at the same point in time as the back-loaded contract to see what the gm actually avoided during the years before the option year. the 1.2mill value wasn't neccessary to accomplish this feat. in reality he saved a little bit each year and the total will be far less than 1.2million. ~50-100k each year? does that constitute a severe punishment? that's upto your league. on top of that you should be comparing what is saved to a contract with an "acceptable" back-loaded amount, which would be an even smaller yearly difference. the game does actually limit the effect of back-loading. so, he could have used far less money in that final option year to acheive the same results. since it would 'look' better, it may not have ruffled any feathers, possibly. if it was possible, then he really did nothing wrong. so, if you are only seeing 1.2million and not the whole picture, it will seem more egregious than reality. the use of that figure is more about a lack of experience in what the game allows you to get away with when back-loading contracts. i bet this is not the only back-loaded contract with option(s) in your league. it would be unfair to single one player out without due diligence into all other teams' contracts. at what point is it shady? an extra 100k in the final option year? +500k? seems like a grey area to me that should be decided upon first before levying punishments retroactively. another thought to consider is that it's very possible that even if your league had a set rule about acceptable back-loading amounts, he still could have obtained a similar contract for the player. punishment without this information seems a bit unfair to me. he may have done nothing wrong except use an exorbitant value that was not required for the results he acheived. at that point you are merely punishing someone for typing a large number that did nothing out of the ordinary. __________________ edit: regard to cap hits from releasing players... you can still use option years to avoid cap penalties. i don't think loaded option years are as "shiny" to the player in regard to signing contracts, but they do still help. it will definitely limit how many years they can back-load. Last edited by NoOne; 10-19-2015 at 03:25 PM.

10-18-2015, 11:58 PM	#3
mpbaseball22 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 74	Definitely exploiting the system a bit, but not sure there is much that can be done if there was no rule in place to prevent this. Maybe a fine?

10-19-2015, 04:00 PM	#7
byzeil Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: NJ, US Posts: 2,006	It is an exploit of the salary cap but not of the player. Since the last year is not an option year the cash will be payed to the player when he is released so I could see a player signing that deal. It is an exploit of the League's Salary cap because the team has committed money that would put them over the cap, and thus signed the player, with the intention of never having that last year count against the cap. Of course anyone else could have done the same if they were willing to push the rules envelope. So it is a smart use of the salary cap and contract rules by the GM. If the league doesn't want this type of thing to happen they'd have to implement some house rule to prevent it in the future though not sure there would be anything that could be fairly done to correct this contract since it doesn't appear to break any current league rules (that I know of). Last edited by byzeil; 10-19-2015 at 04:02 PM.

10-19-2015, 04:20 PM	#8
jpeters1734 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Juust a bit outside... Posts: 6,216	To be clear, no one is accusing him of wrong doing and there will be no sanctions. We are just discussing what to allow in the future __________________ "Cannonball Coming!" Go Bucs!! Founder and League Caretaker of the Professional Baseball Circuit, www.probaseballcircuit.com An Un-Official Guide to Minor League Management in OOTP 21 Ratings Scale Conversion Cross-Reference Cheat Sheet

10-19-2015, 04:27 PM	#9
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,361	Effectively, it seems to be a longevity bonus.

10-19-2015, 04:30 PM	#10
Raidergoo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 9,005	It's gaming the system. Code, both for the AI and for an online league, cannot anticipate every single exploit.

10-19-2015, 05:01 PM	#11
Izz Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 2,470	In future situations i would subtract the value of the over-the-limit contract year from that year's cap. So using this case as an example, the Outlaws' cap for 1979 would be 2 million minus 1.2 million, leaving them just $800,000 to pay players. Would probably mean they'd have to release a whole lot of players and hire a whole lot of scrubs that season, but them's the breaks. __________________ Not only do I play OOTP but I also write science-fiction: My Website A brief history of the Australia-New Zealand Baseball League (AUNZBL 2019-2119)--A Dynasty Report The National Penterham Four-Bases Association--A Dynasty Report Last edited by Izz; 10-19-2015 at 05:02 PM.

10-20-2015, 12:51 AM	#12
tejdog1 All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Danbury, CT Posts: 1,647	It's an online league so it's full of human GMs, yeah? Perfectly legal and smart. Exceptional GMing there. He did everything within the rules. Anyone could've done the same. If this were against the AI - I'd cry foul since I believe the AI would never "think" to do this. __________________ It's amazing How you make your face just like a wall How you take your heart and turn it off How I turn my head and lose it all And it's unnerving How just one move puts me by myself There you go just trusting someone else Now I know I put us both through hell ~Matchbox 20, "Leave" Everyone knows it's spelled "TRAID", not trade

10-20-2015, 01:11 AM	#13
TheMaus2 All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: The OOTP Forums. Always. Posts: 1,952	there should be a max salary for this league, cause this is gaming the system. otherwise, why would you buy a sp on his post-prime years at that type of cash? __________________ I write a monthly newsletter on the Food Baseball Association. I also listen to music no one's ever heard of in hopes of looking cool and alternative.

10-20-2015, 01:49 PM	#14
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	in RL, GMs are supposed to game the system. that's how you create a competitive advantage. when something is too egregious they make a rule change. e.g. the NHL had to change various rules after the salary cap was implemented because a few teams started signing players to exorbitantly long, front-loaded contracts - even when the player would likely never play the last few years. they made a rule change on how each year's cap figure was calculated and moved on. like deming said, it's 80% the systems fault. your financial setup allows for this to happen, so don't be surprised when it does. it doesn't take much to anticipate this. it's not a small crack. it's a gaping hole. they set up a league with no cap implications for cutting a player. how could you not expect this to happen and who was dumb enough not to do it, LoL? if the league doesn't like it, then make a rule change and move on. it probably won't be the only rule change as the league evolves. 2 simple fixes: 150% of average salary -- 300k/yr average, last year cannot exceed 450k. obviosuly that would rely on people self-regulating. nothing in the game can implement this rule. or maybe no more than a 10% increase or decrease from one year to the next...just implement somethign that scales as opposed to a max contract-type rule. e.g. that wouldn't eliminate the use of this tactic on smaller contracts. or don't allow teams to cut players without cap implications in the first place. that also removes alot of the skill involved in long-term team management. there are virtually no ramifications for bad financial decisions.