Free Agency and Unrealistic Contracts

[Qeltar]

The FA period for my first offseason just started.

In my universe, Harper is looking for a 10 year deal averaging at $43.9m. That's nearly half a billion dollars on one guy. LOL

There's also a 28 year old with less than one year of MLB experience (and a whopping lifetime -0.1 WAR) who seems to think he's worth $14m. Huh? That has to be a bug of some kind.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by bigd51

I've seen Harper sign a cheap, short deal in one of my leagues too. He signed a 3-year deal w/ San Francisco w/ an average salary of $19m...

Just a shot in the dark, but I wonder if Qualifying Offers play a part in this.

1. The QO system doesn't seem to reflect real life. IRL:

A. The amount is the mean salary of MLB's 125 highest-paid players, yet, in the game, the dollar amount of a QO is always $15m. I don't recall ever seeing it change to reflect the mean.

B. For a player to receive a QO, he must never have received one previously in his career, yet, in the game, that's not the case. I once offered a player of mine a QO, he accepted it at $15m, but the following offseason, I was given the option to offer him another one. I didn't because I knew he'd likely accept it again, but didn't want to pay him $15m for another year.

2. Considering the QO amount is always a static $15m, it's just too easy for clubs to get compensation for impending FA's, which leaves me speculating if players aren't being signed quicker because a comp is attached to too many of them and teams aren't willing to give up draft picks for them, even for 1 year deals:

A. High quality RP's like Britton, Chapman, Kimbrel, etc. will always have a comp attached because their demands usually exceed the $15m QO. If he's still pretty young, he'll reject it even if his demand is less (i.e. Mark Melancon's 33 w/ a $12m demand and he rejected a QO)

B. Adrian Beltre is currently a FA in my league. He's 39 and demanding $16m a year, but has a comp attached, meaning he obviously rejected the $15m QO from Texas. The way it stands in the game, from what I've seen, any player w/ a contract demand over $15m will almost assuredly reject a QO. Would a 39 year old reject a 1 year, $15m deal IRL? Highly doubtful. So why would I, even as the Braves who need a 3B and a $40m offseason budget, give up a draft pick for a 39 year old?

C. It's the first day of '18 free agency in my league and there are 20 players w/ a comp attached. IRL, only 9 players were offered QO's in November. The year before, 10 were offered QO's and 2 accepted, meaning only 8 hit the market with comps attached.

If all of this is factored into the in-game free agency process, then it's no wonder why there are so many weird FA contracts...

This is the problem. Thanks for doing the research on the exact number of QO as I wasn't aware of them.

I was hoping for the new CBA rules for v19 but it didn't happen, at least not yet. If the new rules can't be done in a patch then it seems an AI adjustment certainly could for both teams and players along with a flag to limit offers to one?

Of course easy for a non-coder to ask for things without having to consider unintended effects. But maybe the one time flag for offers alone could do a lot and avoid "knock on effects" of trying to tinker too much with the AI of both players and teams?

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by bigd51

Just a shot in the dark, but I wonder if Qualifying Offers play a part in this.

How refreshing to see someone truly analyze an issue backed up with hard facts and real examples/data instead of just whining about it. Great post!

[bigd51]

Originally Posted by Sweed

But maybe the one time flag for offers alone could do a lot and avoid "knock on effects" of trying to tinker too much with the AI of both players and teams?

This was my thought exactly.

1. Make it so the QO amount reflects the average of the top 125 contracts instead of always being $15m like it is now.

2. If a player is offered a QO, then flag that player so he can never be offered another one. Also, add a note in his contract details (where you can view how many options a player has left, his time on the secondary and MLB roster, is he on the 40 man, etc.) that says something along the lines of "Previously received a Qualifying Offer: Yes/No" so you can view whether a player has been offered one before.

Those two things could go a long way in alleviating these free agency issues... because if you think about it, why would I sign Britton to a multi year deal and give up a draft pick, when I could just sign him to a one year deal and get a comp back the next year? If I knew I wouldn't get a comp pick for him at the end of the year (because he was previously offered one before in his career), I'd probably have more of an incentive to just sign him long-term.

[WIUPIKE]

Originally Posted by bigd51

This was my thought exactly.

1. Make it so the QO amount reflects the average of the top 125 contracts instead of always being $15m like it is now.

If you use inflation calculation for your league the 15mil will increase each year.

[highandoutside]

I don't play with qualifying offers. Always seemed to me that it would add a layer of complication for the AI that would inevitably cause problems.

My problem is with the AI signing players in their early 30s to massive long term contracts. Modern GMs have finally learned this is a terrible idea. We need OOTP owners to learn this, too.

[Calvert98]

Originally Posted by WIUPIKE

If you use inflation calculation for your league the 15mil will increase each year.

Ok, that is what I thought.

BigD, have you run scenarios with the inflation calculation on?

[Qeltar]

Originally Posted by highandoutside

I don't play with qualifying offers. Always seemed to me that it would add a layer of complication for the AI that would inevitably cause problems.

My problem is with the AI signing players in their early 30s to massive long term contracts. Modern GMs have finally learned this is a terrible idea. We need OOTP owners to learn this, too.

It's funny you say this. I was just telling my wife (who doesn't care about baseball but puts up with me) about how the AI in OOTP is trying to dump several of the big FA signings made IRL the season before.

Any time I shop around anyone remotely interesting I see Darvish, Hosmer and others.. sometimes Martinez.

It seems at least some of the AI GMs have learned.. or maybe they only don't like other people's messes.

In my current off-season there have been a few large questionable signings, but Harper has now lowered his sights by 10% and still seems to have no suitors. OTOH Kershaw -- despite arm troubles the previous year -- appears to be in a bidding war.

[bigd51]

Originally Posted by highandoutside

I don't play with qualifying offers. Always seemed to me that it would add a layer of complication for the AI that would inevitably cause problems.

My problem is with the AI signing players in their early 30s to massive long term contracts. Modern GMs have finally learned this is a terrible idea. We need OOTP owners to learn this, too.

I mean, do you have specific examples? Because outside of Kershaw, I'm not seeing that many massive contracts to guys in their early 30's on my end...

- Bumgarner's 30 and just signed a 4 year extension worth $20m/year w/ the Giants. He has a player opt-out after the 1st year.

- Donaldson was 32 and signed a 4 year extension worth $29m/year w/ the Angels

- DeGrom was 30 and signed a 4 year extension worth $15m/year w/ the Mets

- Keuchel was 30 and signed a 6 year deal worth $23m/year w/ the Cardinals

- Blackmon was 32 and signed a 5 year deal worth $23m/year w/ the Rockies

- AJ Polluck was 30 and signed a 6 year deal worth $14m/ year w/ the Dodgers

- Rick Porcello is 30 and signed a 7 year deal worth $23m/year w/ the Red Sox... but his yearly salary starts to de-escalate after year 4 and he has a vesting option attached to year 7, so really, it's only a 6 year deal at $23m/year guaranteed.

I don't consider these massive contracts. Most in-game contracts don't extend past a player turning 37 and if you look at their contract details, most of them have de-escalating yearly salaries and/or some type of options attached. And all of the above are big market teams who can afford them.

Again, this is why I feel QO's may play more of a role in all this than the computer simply running out of money and not being able to afford players. Take Mike Moustakas for example in the attachment below...

After the '18 season, he declined a QO from the Royals and hit FA. On May 3rd of '19, he signed a MINOR League deal w/ the Phillies. He had all of 200 plate appearances for the Phillies during the '19 season and was once again offered a QO (which he declined) at the end of the year...

Now it's the first day of the '19 FA period... and his contract demand is 2 years at $6.5m/year for a total of $13m...

1. Never mind the fact the Phillies shouldn't have been able to offer him a QO in the first place based on the real life QO rule (because he was previously offered one by KC)... why is he rejecting a $15m QO when he's only demanding a 2 year deal for $13m total?!

2. Why is Philly offering him a QO to begin with?! He signed a Minor League deal and only had 200 plate appearances, yet still offered him one, which leads me to believe the AI knows who will accept a QO and who will not. And if the AI knows which players will accept a QO and who will not, it begs the question... does the AI use this as a strategy?

After looking back at the '19 draft log, the Phillies still had a 1st round, 2nd round, and 3rd round pick, so apparently, they didn't lose any picks for signing Moustakas despite having a comp attached. (probably, because he only signed a Minor League deal). At the end of the season, they offer him a QO, he rejects, and enters FA w/ another comp attached while only demanding $6.5m/year... which means, if he signs a MAJOR league contract during the offseason, they essentially get a free Supplemental First Round Pick. High reward w/ absolutely ZERO risk.

Another example... Harper signed a 1 year, $21.9m deal w/ the Rockies and went on to win the MVP award in '19. Go figure. Of course, first day of 2019 FA, and he's on the market again w/ another comp attached. High reward w/ absolutely ZERO risk.

Whether it's a lower tier guy like Moustakas or a Superstar like Harper, to me, it comes back to the QO's and why there are so many 1 year rentals in regards to RP's and such. Why would I, as a human player, give up a draft pick to sign Harper to a massive, long term contract when I could wait it out until Spring Training and rent him for a year at a much cheaper price knowing I could just get a comp pick back the following season?

And if the AI knows who will accept a QO and who will not... maybe the AI sees it this way too.

[highandoutside]

Originally Posted by highandoutside

I don't play with qualifying offers. Always seemed to me that it would add a layer of complication for the AI that would inevitably cause problems.

My problem is with the AI signing players in their early 30s to massive long term contracts. Modern GMs have finally learned this is a terrible idea. We need OOTP owners to learn this, too.

Yes, let me walk this back a bit.

I wrote the above post at work after going through an off season the night before in my fictional league. My impression was that the AI was giving some older guys long contracts with big money. Upon closer inspection, it was nearly as bad as I thought. Some of the guys I thought were in their early 30s were actually late 20s. Also, the few contracts that extended to age 37 and 38 weren't necessarily massive, and they were given out by teams that generate a ton of revenue. I think these teams overpaid for players that are declining; but they are still productive players and the franchises that paid the salaries have lots of excess cash.

So, in short, I probably overstated the problem. In fact, the more I'm studying the signings, I'm pretty impressed.

[Calvert98]

Originally Posted by highandoutside

In fact, the more I'm studying the signings, I'm pretty impressed.

Agreed; I have only been through one off-season, and I think overall the AI has really improved. It improves every year, but I get the sense with 19 that they have sort of hit a stride with the game's AI development.

I was and have been pretty impressed by the management of the various teams. I'm glad OOTPD seems dedicated to working on this aspect of the game.

[Qeltar]

Speaking of interesting FA situations..

It's now March 9 in my game and Andrew Miller is still in his street clothes. What's odd is how it unfolded.

He wanted a 4 year deal for, I think, originally around 11m a year. Nobody would bite. Kept dropping his price, no takers. At all.

ST starts, so I guess he says "screw it" and just asks for 7.5m for one year. Suddenly it's like a feeding frenzy. A bunch of teams have now bid him up to 17m for one year, and he still hasn't signed.

I'm actually very impressed at a lot of the GM AI in this game. It's not easy to do and they've mostly done a pretty spiffy job with it. I was amazed that every GM had the same basic reaction to his wanting a long-term deal: "not spending that kind of money on a multi-year deal for a 33-year-old reliever, no matter how good he is." I'm sure the draft pick situation played into it too.

Right now they seem to have lost perspective, but that happens in the real world too.

[themarksman13]

"Bryce Harper is going to make over $35 million a year in his next contract, whether you like it or not."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL