Can't trade Star Veterans at deadline

pseudofool · 06-04-2006, 08:22 PM

I've had problem getting any teams to take Star Veterans who have high price tags near the trading deadline. Each GM always says "I will not trade for overpriced veterans" which of course real GMs do all the time.

For example, I imported CubbyFans 6.5 rosters, and in 2008 I was trying to trade both Santana and Vlad and no one take either of them because of their price tags, even though they were both dominating the league. In real life GMs would over pay for these guys no matter the price tag. I could understand the GM reaction if they were over 35 (but even then) but they are in their prime.

Has anyone else had this problem? It really hurts when trying to get rid of Vets who refuse to sign (which it would be nice to be given a reason why). Maybe it's the lack of the rebuilding/balanced/win now function from 6.5?

Bears5122 · 06-04-2006, 08:29 PM

I think it might have to do with how it handles star players. I still see a lot of star players being put on the waiver wire or sent down to be replaced by a younger guy who is rated lower. It's tough to pinpoint the problem but it seems like they overdid the effect contract has on a GM willing to get a player. It seems winning isn't a priority for them even though they have the resources to take the contract. Almost like they can't decipher a star player making big bucks from a regular player who is overpaid.

Question though, was the player in the last year of his deal? I don't think many star players get traded that have many years left on their contract. I think GMs in the game need to be more willing to improve their team when it involves a player in the final year of his deal.

Erithtotl · 06-04-2006, 08:35 PM

I agree this is a problem. I tried to trade the best reliever in the league, a top tier closer leading all relievers in VORP who was only 28 and had great ratings. He was paid 6M a year for the next two years. Not a bargin but not exactly a lodestone either, and I got the exact same comment from the AI. Contending teams with a weakness at that spot should make some kind of offer, ANY kind of offer, for such a player, rather than rejecting any kind of deal outright.

Craig Scarborough · 06-04-2006, 09:21 PM

While not every team can afford high-priced guys like that, I do see what you all mean. However, I would have a greater problem with this if the high-priced veteran was in his last year of his contract, as most trade-deadline deals entail - high-priced, last year guys for prospects.

marc420 · 06-04-2006, 09:27 PM

What's completely missing from this discussion so far is the words "pennant race". What is extremely common in MLB is that the teams that think they are in the pennant race are very, very willing to trade for high-priced veterans if they think it will help them get to the playoffs or do well in the playoffs. This is even true for players in the last year of their contract. It seems very common to see a player pick up high-priced veterans in the last year of their contract if they think it will help their team maybe win a championship. Ever hear of a guy named George Steinbrenner? Ever watch teams like the yankees and the red sox compete to get these veterans just before the trade deadline. You'll even see teams sometimes sign a player like this just to keep their competitors from getting the player. Or I've seen teams feel like they've suddenly got to go get a player just because their competitor went and got one just before the deadline.

From the discussion, it sounds like its this facet of the AI that's either missing or not working right. There should be a factor in the AI that says that winning a championship is very very important, therefore when a team gets close, they should start doing anything to try to win it that year.... including trading for a high-priced veteran in the last year of his contract.

pseudofool · 06-04-2006, 09:38 PM

Yes, both players were in the last year of their contracts, and of course, I tried trading them to Teams involved in a pennent race. I couldn't even get a low-grade prospect for them.

Another issue, is I signed a player to a minor league contract one year, and I had to give up my FIRST ROUNDER as compensation. Compensation element is GREAT, but there needs to be a list of which players are A-type B-type and C-type free agents, because a guy who might fill out my bench will never be worth a first round pick, and there's no way for me to know this until I signed the guy.

TroyF · 06-04-2006, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bears5122

I think it might have to do with how it handles star players. I still see a lot of star players being put on the waiver wire or sent down to be replaced by a younger guy who is rated lower. It's tough to pinpoint the problem but it seems like they overdid the effect contract has on a GM willing to get a player. It seems winning isn't a priority for them even though they have the resources to take the contract. Almost like they can't decipher a star player making big bucks from a regular player who is overpaid.

Question though, was the player in the last year of his deal? I don't think many star players get traded that have many years left on their contract. I think GMs in the game need to be more willing to improve their team when it involves a player in the final year of his deal.

I hope this post doesn't get lost, because it nailed the problem.

OOTP seems to think that ANY player who has a large contract is an overpaid veteran, even the same veteran they signed three weeks previous. It then starts trying to find ways out of it.

My best example is off of a career HR leader. He gets signed to a six year contract. Three years in he's bopping 40 HR+ a year and he ends up on the waiver wire.

Pennant race or not, if the best reliever in baseball in terms of VORP and a guy who is well rated happens to be 28 years of age with a reasonable contract, teams should be getting into a bidding war for his services. Hell, in real baseball, they fall over each other for a 35 year old in that situation. (see: Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell)

majesty95 · 06-04-2006, 10:16 PM

What are the chances of this getting fixed? I haven't played around with it much, mostly because I'm waiting for a roster set but it seems like 6.5 is better in alot of ways. It seems as though they tried to incorporate all these bells and whistles and make it a huge game with all these options but they forgot about some of the key elements, like AI.

MidKnight · 06-04-2006, 10:24 PM

I'm glad this was brought up. I was right about to make a post on it, myself. Salaray dumping players just isn't working. I've tried all manner of trade settings, even putting it on very easy and favoring veterans. I couldn't GIVE away a top line starter (ratings 77/79/75 out of 80) who was only making $5 mil. I tried trading to teams in contention with large budgets and it still did nothing. Trading away my top talent veterans, even if they aren't making much, won't happen. Keep getting the "I will not trade for overpriced veterans" line.

This is a bit of a gamebreaker for me, as well as for anyone who has a team fall out of contention early. Dev's - is this a noted issue?

Faroo6 · 06-04-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudofool

Yes, both players were in the last year of their contracts, and of course, I tried trading them to Teams involved in a pennent race. I couldn't even get a low-grade prospect for them.

Another issue, is I signed a player to a minor league contract one year, and I had to give up my FIRST ROUNDER as compensation. Compensation element is GREAT, but there needs to be a list of which players are A-type B-type and C-type free agents, because a guy who might fill out my bench will never be worth a first round pick, and there's no way for me to know this until I signed the guy.

I does say what type of free agent a player is on his contract & status page.

pseudofool · 06-04-2006, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faroo6

I does say what type of free agent a player is on his contract & status page.

Thanks; must just have missed it.

pseudofool · 06-04-2006, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MidKnight

I've tried all manner of trade settings, even putting it on very easy and favoring veterans.
This is a bit of a gamebreaker for me, as well as for anyone who has a team fall out of contention early. Dev's - is this a noted issue?

Yeah, I neglected to mention that I messed around the with all the setting too. And agreed, this is a bit of a gamebreaker if you don't intend on winning the WS every year...

Erithtotl · 06-05-2006, 12:18 AM

I've posted this issue in the bug forum hopefully it will be noticed.

Altus · 06-05-2006, 01:56 AM

This is just a complete guess, but on the game setup > global setup screen there is a trading preference setting.

The default is neutral, but the options are heavile favour veterans, favour veterans, neutral, favour prospects, heavily favour prospects.

I probably agree with everone on this thread that under neutral, it shouldn't dismiss these trades out of hand, but maybe if you play around with these settings, you will get sorted.

MidKnight · 06-05-2006, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altus

This is just a complete guess, but on the game setup > global setup screen there is a trading preference setting.

The default is neutral, but the options are heavile favour veterans, favour veterans, neutral, favour prospects, heavily favour prospects.

I probably agree with everone on this thread that under neutral, it shouldn't dismiss these trades out of hand, but maybe if you play around with these settings, you will get sorted.

I've tried all manner of trade settings. Even on Very Easy, and Heavily Favor Veterans, they won't accept them.

pseudofool · 06-05-2006, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altus

This is just a complete guess, but on the game setup > global setup screen there is a trading preference setting.

The default is neutral, but the options are heavile favour veterans, favour veterans, neutral, favour prospects, heavily favour prospects.

I probably agree with everone on this thread that under neutral, it shouldn't dismiss these trades out of hand, but maybe if you play around with these settings, you will get sorted.

Yeah, as mentioned in the thread many of us tried the global sliders with little results....

Kekkonen · 06-05-2006, 04:00 AM

And even if it did, there's still the problem of other trades. I don't know how 2006 works, but in 6.5 with all set to 'normal', the AI often basically threw away 4.5-5-star prospects.

Bee · 06-05-2006, 07:14 AM

Add me to the folks that think this is a serious problem. Hopefully it's addressed in the first patch.

battists · 06-05-2006, 08:30 AM

Moved this to tech support forum.

Guys, if you think there's a problem, whether it's AI or a potential bug, post it in the Tech Support forum. It ain't going into any patch if it gets buried in the depth of General Discussion.

I'd err on the side of posting in Tech Support. Worst thing that happens is that someone tells you that the company feels it isn't a bug and isn't going to address it yet.

thomamon · 06-05-2006, 08:32 AM

Tt# 1671

06-04-2006, 08:22 PM	#1
pseudofool Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 232	Can't trade Star Veterans at deadline I've had problem getting any teams to take Star Veterans who have high price tags near the trading deadline. Each GM always says "I will not trade for overpriced veterans" which of course real GMs do all the time. For example, I imported CubbyFans 6.5 rosters, and in 2008 I was trying to trade both Santana and Vlad and no one take either of them because of their price tags, even though they were both dominating the league. In real life GMs would over pay for these guys no matter the price tag. I could understand the GM reaction if they were over 35 (but even then) but they are in their prime. Has anyone else had this problem? It really hurts when trying to get rid of Vets who refuse to sign (which it would be nice to be given a reason why). Maybe it's the lack of the rebuilding/balanced/win now function from 6.5?

06-04-2006, 09:38 PM	#6
pseudofool Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 232	Clarification Yes, both players were in the last year of their contracts, and of course, I tried trading them to Teams involved in a pennent race. I couldn't even get a low-grade prospect for them. Another issue, is I signed a player to a minor league contract one year, and I had to give up my FIRST ROUNDER as compensation. Compensation element is GREAT, but there needs to be a list of which players are A-type B-type and C-type free agents, because a guy who might fill out my bench will never be worth a first round pick, and there's no way for me to know this until I signed the guy.

06-05-2006, 01:56 AM	#14
Altus Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Cape Town, South Africa Posts: 192	just wondering... This is just a complete guess, but on the game setup > global setup screen there is a trading preference setting. The default is neutral, but the options are heavile favour veterans, favour veterans, neutral, favour prospects, heavily favour prospects. I probably agree with everone on this thread that under neutral, it shouldn't dismiss these trades out of hand, but maybe if you play around with these settings, you will get sorted.

06-05-2006, 08:32 AM	#20
thomamon Global Moderator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 5,274	Tt# 1671 __________________ Thomas A. Montalto Please check out my Stupid Little Blog - http://www.stupidlittleblog.com

06-04-2006, 08:29 PM	#2
Bears5122 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 847	I think it might have to do with how it handles star players. I still see a lot of star players being put on the waiver wire or sent down to be replaced by a younger guy who is rated lower. It's tough to pinpoint the problem but it seems like they overdid the effect contract has on a GM willing to get a player. It seems winning isn't a priority for them even though they have the resources to take the contract. Almost like they can't decipher a star player making big bucks from a regular player who is overpaid. Question though, was the player in the last year of his deal? I don't think many star players get traded that have many years left on their contract. I think GMs in the game need to be more willing to improve their team when it involves a player in the final year of his deal.

06-04-2006, 08:35 PM	#3
Erithtotl Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 330	I agree this is a problem. I tried to trade the best reliever in the league, a top tier closer leading all relievers in VORP who was only 28 and had great ratings. He was paid 6M a year for the next two years. Not a bargin but not exactly a lodestone either, and I got the exact same comment from the AI. Contending teams with a weakness at that spot should make some kind of offer, ANY kind of offer, for such a player, rather than rejecting any kind of deal outright.

06-04-2006, 09:21 PM	#4
Craig Scarborough All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 551	While not every team can afford high-priced guys like that, I do see what you all mean. However, I would have a greater problem with this if the high-priced veteran was in his last year of his contract, as most trade-deadline deals entail - high-priced, last year guys for prospects.

06-04-2006, 09:27 PM	#5
marc420 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Terrapin Station Posts: 112	What's completely missing from this discussion so far is the words "pennant race". What is extremely common in MLB is that the teams that think they are in the pennant race are very, very willing to trade for high-priced veterans if they think it will help them get to the playoffs or do well in the playoffs. This is even true for players in the last year of their contract. It seems very common to see a player pick up high-priced veterans in the last year of their contract if they think it will help their team maybe win a championship. Ever hear of a guy named George Steinbrenner? Ever watch teams like the yankees and the red sox compete to get these veterans just before the trade deadline. You'll even see teams sometimes sign a player like this just to keep their competitors from getting the player. Or I've seen teams feel like they've suddenly got to go get a player just because their competitor went and got one just before the deadline. From the discussion, it sounds like its this facet of the AI that's either missing or not working right. There should be a factor in the AI that says that winning a championship is very very important, therefore when a team gets close, they should start doing anything to try to win it that year.... including trading for a high-priced veteran in the last year of his contract.

06-04-2006, 10:16 PM	#8
majesty95 All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 1,789	What are the chances of this getting fixed? I haven't played around with it much, mostly because I'm waiting for a roster set but it seems like 6.5 is better in alot of ways. It seems as though they tried to incorporate all these bells and whistles and make it a huge game with all these options but they forgot about some of the key elements, like AI.

06-04-2006, 10:24 PM	#9
MidKnight Major Leagues Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 396	I'm glad this was brought up. I was right about to make a post on it, myself. Salaray dumping players just isn't working. I've tried all manner of trade settings, even putting it on very easy and favoring veterans. I couldn't GIVE away a top line starter (ratings 77/79/75 out of 80) who was only making $5 mil. I tried trading to teams in contention with large budgets and it still did nothing. Trading away my top talent veterans, even if they aren't making much, won't happen. Keep getting the "I will not trade for overpriced veterans" line. This is a bit of a gamebreaker for me, as well as for anyone who has a team fall out of contention early. Dev's - is this a noted issue?

06-05-2006, 12:18 AM	#13
Erithtotl Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 330	I've posted this issue in the bug forum hopefully it will be noticed.

06-05-2006, 04:00 AM	#17
Kekkonen All Star Reserve Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Putting the 'in' in Finland Posts: 739	And even if it did, there's still the problem of other trades. I don't know how 2006 works, but in 6.5 with all set to 'normal', the AI often basically threw away 4.5-5-star prospects.

06-05-2006, 07:14 AM	#18
Bee Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 147	Add me to the folks that think this is a serious problem. Hopefully it's addressed in the first patch.

06-05-2006, 08:30 AM	#19
battists Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18,506	Moved this to tech support forum. Guys, if you think there's a problem, whether it's AI or a potential bug, post it in the Tech Support forum. It ain't going into any patch if it gets buried in the depth of General Discussion. I'd err on the side of posting in Tech Support. Worst thing that happens is that someone tells you that the company feels it isn't a bug and isn't going to address it yet.