Player not able to use opt out?

Marsupilami · 12-23-2016, 06:16 AM

Hello,

I only have a suspicion of a bug and not sure what Screenshot i should post.

The Situation:

Online League, offseason starts.
I have 1 player with a teamoption, 1 with an optout (who has a vesting option on that year too.

I receive an email for the teamoption and choose to decline (all good so far)

i do not receive an email about player B and his decision whether to opt out or not (i can hardly attach a SS where no email is showing??).
He remains on my roster since the Vesting option was met.

The question is, did he decide to decline his opt out or was he never given the chance?
Because both OptOut and Vesting were triggered on the same day. If they both were done simultaenous, then he couldnt use the opt out because the Vesting year wasnt there yet. There was nothing to opt out yet.

I am happy that he stays, but it seems strange. Because when i tried to extend his contract prior to that sim, he was looking for a multiyearextension with a hefty payraise. I certainly expected him to opt out, but am glad he stays.

Matt Arnold · 12-23-2016, 12:35 PM

Thanks. Yes, it looks like we evaluated the vesting option first, and then skipped the opt-out check. We can clean that up for next year

RchW · 12-30-2016, 06:46 PM

Does this contract situation exist in real life? I doubt it. This is an AI logic issue that should be fixed, not the order of application. Keep in mind an opt out is also an opt in, a very powerful card for a player. Opt out/in clauses are very rare. As of 2014 only 7 of 52 $100M+ contracts have Opt out/in clauses. None AFAIK including lower value contracts have vesting options that would result in free agency. MadBum has club options that can vest with a higher salary via innings pitched or winning awards. Not the same thing and he has no opt out/in.

The only contract with both that I can find is Elvis Andrus but they are not in the same year so it's not analogous.

From a team perspective it makes no sense to accept multiple clauses one of which removes the protection from player injury established by a vesting clause. I'd fire any lawyer that would give away my vesting clause protection by allowing an injured player who didn't meet the vesting requirement a free shot at continuing the contract if injured. It contradicts the entire logic of vesting clauses. It defies logic that a team would want to give a player with injury concerns an opt out/in in the first place. This is poor AI and real life logic.

From a player perspective it makes no sense to accept competing clauses unless one overrules the other. The player opt/in out is far more powerful, so any agent worth his salt would insist that it overrule making the other clause moot. A player with an injury history that calls for a vesting clause is not going to have enough leverage in the FA market to get an opt out/in. This is poor AI and real life logic.

Unless we can show several real life contracts that have these options in the same year, I'd submit that the contract module be corrected so that it can't happen.

12-23-2016, 06:16 AM	#1
Marsupilami Major Leagues Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 328	Player not able to use opt out? Hello, I only have a suspicion of a bug and not sure what Screenshot i should post. The Situation: Online League, offseason starts. I have 1 player with a teamoption, 1 with an optout (who has a vesting option on that year too. I receive an email for the teamoption and choose to decline (all good so far) i do not receive an email about player B and his decision whether to opt out or not (i can hardly attach a SS where no email is showing??). He remains on my roster since the Vesting option was met. The question is, did he decide to decline his opt out or was he never given the chance? Because both OptOut and Vesting were triggered on the same day. If they both were done simultaenous, then he couldnt use the opt out because the Vesting year wasnt there yet. There was nothing to opt out yet. I am happy that he stays, but it seems strange. Because when i tried to extend his contract prior to that sim, he was looking for a multiyearextension with a hefty payraise. I certainly expected him to opt out, but am glad he stays. __________________ ABL 2020 - Brewers

12-30-2016, 06:46 PM	#3
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Toronto ON by way of Glasgow UK Posts: 15,629	Does this contract situation exist in real life? I doubt it. This is an AI logic issue that should be fixed, not the order of application. Keep in mind an opt out is also an opt in, a very powerful card for a player. Opt out/in clauses are very rare. As of 2014 only 7 of 52 $100M+ contracts have Opt out/in clauses. None AFAIK including lower value contracts have vesting options that would result in free agency. MadBum has club options that can vest with a higher salary via innings pitched or winning awards. Not the same thing and he has no opt out/in. The only contract with both that I can find is Elvis Andrus but they are not in the same year so it's not analogous. From a team perspective it makes no sense to accept multiple clauses one of which removes the protection from player injury established by a vesting clause. I'd fire any lawyer that would give away my vesting clause protection by allowing an injured player who didn't meet the vesting requirement a free shot at continuing the contract if injured. It contradicts the entire logic of vesting clauses. It defies logic that a team would want to give a player with injury concerns an opt out/in in the first place. This is poor AI and real life logic. From a player perspective it makes no sense to accept competing clauses unless one overrules the other. The player opt/in out is far more powerful, so any agent worth his salt would insist that it overrule making the other clause moot. A player with an injury history that calls for a vesting clause is not going to have enough leverage in the FA market to get an opt out/in. This is poor AI and real life logic. Unless we can show several real life contracts that have these options in the same year, I'd submit that the contract module be corrected so that it can't happen. __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit Last edited by RchW; 12-30-2016 at 06:58 PM.

12-23-2016, 12:35 PM	#2
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 15,454	Thanks. Yes, it looks like we evaluated the vesting option first, and then skipped the opt-out check. We can clean that up for next year