• Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.

WBL Rule Change Thread

Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
OU11 said:
having him at 8m for years 8-10 would pay for the whole contract in terms of the financial flexibility it gave you as a contender tho
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. There is also enough risk there to the point that it isn't a stupid good deal. Over paying by $7.5m, 5M, 3m, 1m and then likely saving money for the next 6. He could die though. I do worry about the impact deals before 1 year would have on FA though. After 1 year it looks like we wouldn't really have any issues and there is so much financial risk, most teams wouldn't take it for 10 seasons.
 
OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
Orlando said:
I don't disagree. There is also enough risk there to the point that it isn't a stupid good deal. Over paying by $7.5m, 5M, 3m, 1m and then likely saving money for the next 6. He could die though. I do worry about the impact deals before 1 year would have on FA though. After 1 year it looks like we wouldn't really have any issues and there is so much financial risk, most teams wouldn't take it for 10 seasons.
Click to expand...

After one year of service time there would maybe be one or two per decade per team. Only the holiest of goats would get one. But after one year of service time most of them want $10m+ anyway.
 
OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
Yankee151 said:
I'm good with the removal of the restriction after 1 year. Do we need to vote or is this one of those common sense do not dumb area here things that will just get approved?
Click to expand...
I made it a thinly veiled dictatorship for a reason, quale and osi can do what they want when they want. The voting is just so we don't revolt
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
I'll wait a few days and see if anyone really hates the idea.

Proposal is:

Pre-arbitration extensions must wait until the player has one year of service time and must at least be equal to the arbitration estimate. Pre-arbitration contracts have a maximum length of 5 years.
 
Lloyd Carr

Lloyd Carr

Well-Known Member
Just let me know what I can and can't do. Doesn't mean I wont disregard everything you say and exploit what I want and hope @doh doesn't catch me, but at least I'll know.
 
fignuts

fignuts

See You Next Wednesday
Voting no. Rather see a competitive free agent market. The current 5 year cap allows for this. Having 1-3 players sign essentially lifetime contracts is more realistic, imo. Whereas, correct me if wrong, OU wants to have the majority of his young guys (say top 3 rotation and half the starting lineup) locked in for through the prime of their careers. Maybe institute a cap on how many you can sign that long? Dunno what to do. But fear this would dry up the FA market in years to come. Or am I viewing this from the wrong angle?
 
OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
fignuts said:
Voting no. Rather see a competitive free agent market. The current 5 year cap allows for this. Having 1-3 players sign essentially lifetime contracts is more realistic, imo. Whereas, correct me if wrong, OU wants to have the majority of his young guys (say top 3 rotation and half the starting lineup) locked in for through the prime of their careers. Maybe institute a cap on how many you can sign that long? Dunno what to do. But fear this would dry up the FA market in years to come. Or am I viewing this from the wrong angle?
Click to expand...
ur wrong. I like the rule as it is, but am not opposed to its change as long as the balance isn't thrown off
 
TonyGin&Juice

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
fignuts said:
Voting no. Rather see a competitive free agent market. The current 5 year cap allows for this. Having 1-3 players sign essentially lifetime contracts is more realistic, imo. Whereas, correct me if wrong, OU wants to have the majority of his young guys (say top 3 rotation and half the starting lineup) locked in for through the prime of their careers. Maybe institute a cap on how many you can sign that long? Dunno what to do. But fear this would dry up the FA market in years to come. Or am I viewing this from the wrong angle?
Click to expand...

You understand that you can still extend the current guys on 10 years deals after the first year of ARB, right? Look at what Moscow just did with Mintey, which was completely legal. The guys hitting FA are bums now so it won't be a big change if this passes.
 
Yankee151

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
fignuts said:
Voting no. Rather see a competitive free agent market. The current 5 year cap allows for this. Having 1-3 players sign essentially lifetime contracts is more realistic, imo. Whereas, correct me if wrong, OU wants to have the majority of his young guys (say top 3 rotation and half the starting lineup) locked in for through the prime of their careers. Maybe institute a cap on how many you can sign that long? Dunno what to do. But fear this would dry up the FA market in years to come. Or am I viewing this from the wrong angle?
Click to expand...
OU's screenshots are different from the proposed change, these contracts are more like the Mintey deal, they won't be 10/50M
 
fignuts

fignuts

See You Next Wednesday
TonyGin&Juice said:
You understand that you can still extend the current guys on 10 years deals after the first year of ARB, right? Look at what Moscow just did with Mintey, which was completely legal. The guys hitting FA are bums now so it won't be a big change if this passes.
Click to expand...
Mintey will be 27 once the extension starts. 36 when it ends. Mintey also already had 3 years service time. Which drove the arb est. higher compared to the cutoff of 1 year service time.
Was thinking more along the lines of YOUNG talent; 19-24.

Guess I don't want to see full or even half of the rosters tied up for so long. Viewing this from worst case scenario. I realize most teams won't pull this and hopefully be smart with their financials.

Now if the rule was 2 years service, then be allowed to sign whomever to however long they will accept with the floor being arb estimate, would be willing to vote 'yay'.

Is there a setting in financials tab to extend min. contracts to 3 years? This would still allow for 1-yr of minimum with the above 2 year wait and a more-rounded arb estimate in years 4/5/6.
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
fignuts said:
Mintey will be 27 once the extension starts. 36 when it ends. Mintey also already had 3 years service time. Which drove the arb est. higher compared to the cutoff of 1 year service time.
Was thinking more along the lines of YOUNG talent; 19-24.

Guess I don't want to see full or even half of the rosters tied up for so long. Viewing this from worst case scenario. I realize most teams won't pull this and hopefully be smart with their financials.

Now if the rule was 2 years service, then be allowed to sign whomever to however long they will accept with the floor being arb estimate, would be willing to vote 'yay'.

Is there a setting in financials tab to extend min. contracts to 3 years? This would still allow for 1-yr of minimum with the above 2 year wait and a more-rounded arb estimate in years 4/5/6.
Click to expand...
I think you will find that these players won't signs deals unless that are way above even their arb estimate after 2 years.
 
Wooly

Wooly

Well-Known Member
fignuts said:
Voting no. Rather see a competitive free agent market. The current 5 year cap allows for this. Having 1-3 players sign essentially lifetime contracts is more realistic, imo. Whereas, correct me if wrong, OU wants to have the majority of his young guys (say top 3 rotation and half the starting lineup) locked in for through the prime of their careers. Maybe institute a cap on how many you can sign that long? Dunno what to do. But fear this would dry up the FA market in years to come. Or am I viewing this from the wrong angle?
Click to expand...

I lean no as well, for this reason. Seems like it's better to have more people in FA. It might keep the league more active and interesting, less talent tied up in longer terms. There is also the chance that some teams might sign too many long term contracts that don't work out, have too much money tied up, too hard to dig out, and give up on the team. It might not be good for the league, even if it's reasonable for most of the teams and contracts. And yes, you can sign long term contracts now, but only to players who have gone through arbitration, so they are a little older and asking a little more money. That alone reduces the number of long term contracts. Those that have been here longer would have a better understanding of how this might affect the league though.

However, does anyone know how the new trade options in OOTP18 work, where I think you can negotiate how much of a contract is moved in a trade? That might change how I feel about long term contracts for younger players.
 
Travis7401

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
Having more people in FA broke trading in this league. Why trade for a player when you can be a cheap ass and overpay for him in FA? Living the Murrican dream like a bunch of fucking morons. "WHY WOULD I GIVE UP A 4TH ROUND PICK FOR DANI ROD NOW WHEN HE'S ON THE LEAGUE MINIMUM WHEN I CAN JUST WAIT 8 YEARS AND PICK HIM UP FOR 6M A YEAR WHEN HE'S WASHED UP?"
 
TonyGin&Juice

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Travis7401 said:
Having more people in FA broke trading in this league. Why trade for a player when you can be a cheap ass and overpay for him in FA? Living the Murrican dream like a bunch of fucking morons. "WHY WOULD I GIVE UP A 4TH ROUND PICK FOR DANI ROD NOW WHEN HE'S ON THE LEAGUE MINIMUM WHEN I CAN JUST WAIT 8 YEARS AND PICK HIM UP FOR 6M A YEAR WHEN HE'S WASHED UP?"
Click to expand...

This made me laugh more than it should have.
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
That's basically the argument we used to have. It's all about what you enjoy more. Do you enjoy acquiring talent via trade or FA. It's not like you can't acquire players either way.
 
Travis7401

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
Wooly couldn't give away Dave Christian and wondered why? Because someone just snagged him for $5M!

I finally got NML on the reverse Dani Rod with Shibata. Can't even play 1B anymore but I didn't have to trade for him! LOOK HOW SMART I IS.
 
TonyGin&Juice

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Travis7401 said:
Wooly couldn't give away Dave Christian and wondered why? Because someone just snagged him for $5M!

I got NML on the reverse Dani Rod with Shibata. Can't even play 1B anymore but I didn't have to trade for him!
Click to expand...

He tried to give me draft picks to take him last year but he was making $20M at the time. For $5M he's worth a shot at seeing if has anything left in the tank but only a moron would pay him $20M AAV. Look at the number of absolute BUMS getting paid to be BUMS in this league right now because of FA and dipshit owners giving out $28M AAV 9-year extensions like they're candy.
 
Wooly

Wooly

Well-Known Member
Travis7401 said:
Wooly couldn't give away Dave Christian and wondered why? Because someone just snagged him for $5M!

I finally got NML on the reverse Dani Rod with Shibata. Can't even play 1B anymore but I didn't have to trade for him! LOOK HOW SMART I IS.
Click to expand...

Interesting you brought him up. I wasn't planning on it, but since you did. People did inquire about Christian when I was trying to trade him for the 2063 season, but I didn't want to give him up for less than he was worth.

I was trying to trade him for the 2063 season (last offseason, not this one), since I didn't need the pitching. I was seeing if I could get something from someone who did want him. The argument was about whether or not he was worth 20m for 2063, for one year, the last year of his contract.

Turns out he was pretty good last year: 2.96 ERA, 0.99 WHIP, 0.8 HR/9, and 3.2 WAR...over 167 IP and only 26 starts due to an injury late in the year. Worth the 20m? Maybe, maybe not, depends on who had what cash to burns and how much they needed a SP for just one year, but he was pretty damn good last year. He was certainly worth a lot more than 5m last year. The only reason he went as low as 5m this year is because he is 36 and just came off a 6 month injury. At the time I wanted to trade Dave he was not injured and was certainly worth a lot more than 5m, as evidenced by his season stats.
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Trading is down now for sure. But there are way more decisions teams must make. No good players ever got non-tendered now there are guys getting big contracts who were non-tendered/useful guys. Older players that used to be "automatic" extends because they were good (for instance, Kleerk and G.Fernandez) and you had tons of space are no longer.

Make it a year service minimum and no rules after that. As long s you want. Doesn't have to be arb minimum. The game still isn't calibrated right for young young extensions.
 
TonyGin&Juice

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
doh said:
Trading is down now for sure. But there are way more decisions teams must make. No good players ever got non-tendered now there are guys getting big contracts who were non-tendered/useful guys. Older players that used to be "automatic" extends because they were good (for instance, Kleerk and G.Fernandez) and you had tons of space are no longer.

Make it a year service minimum and no rules after that. As long s you want. Doesn't have to be arb minimum. The game still isn't calibrated right for young young extensions.
Click to expand...

There aren't any teams doing a teardown and rebuild like I did back in 2053(!). Tankee and JD (and you and QUAL to a certain extent) have semi-tanked for talent but nobody has had a full scale talent shedding in a long time. Probably the last big trades involved @Travis7401 with the IN HER PRIME Pinky and Balbuena trades; otherwise it's been a lot of draft picks for marginal talent that was going to get expensive. Wolfman took on a bad contract and got a GOAT prospect from JD but those deals have been pretty rare. Of course, there's the other side of the coin of Wooly giving away legit hauls for 4th OFers, #5 starters, and middle relievers and that moron that gave up five 1st round picks for a guy throwing batting practice.
 
Yankee151

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
My last one was basically a full teardown, the only player of worth I kept was ToGo. However, Da Silva (and Rubio and Armstrong, though I traded them) was basically WBL ready so I had him too during the tankiing years.
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
The most fun I've had was my 1997 White Sox teardown... I'd do it again but I want to see what stats I can get for the guys I got in that rebuild.
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
I know THIS ISN'T MLB (@Orlando) but could we consider 10-day DLs? I think with the new injury system/how we sim every week it's a better system. You'd lose guys for one sim if retroactive to Thursday or sooner vs. always lose them for two sims. Guys with the day-to-day injuries who played the Sunday of the sim you'd lose for 2 vs. 3 sims too.
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
doh said:
I know THIS ISN'T MLB (@Orlando) but could we consider 10-day DLs? I think with the new injury system/how we sim every week it's a better system. You'd lose guys for one sim if retroactive to Thursday or sooner vs. always lose them for two sims. Guys with the day-to-day injuries who played the Sunday of the sim you'd lose for 2 vs. 3 sims too.
Click to expand...
Did you finally flip flop on the MLB thing?
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Never thought this is MLB but like the 10-day DL. Most of the roster rules of the game are based on MLB rules too so I imagine they added that option (but I know it was already in the game too).

When I first got OOTP and I played single player where they change rules, it was one of the rule changes and I loved it.
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
doh said:
Never thought this is MLB but like the 10-day DL. Most of the roster rules of the game are based on MLB rules too so I imagine they added that option (but I know it was already in the game too).

When I first got OOTP and I played single player where they change rules, it was one of the rule changes and I loved it.
Click to expand...
You used to constantly argue for things to be like MLB haha. I have no issues with a 10-day DL. Your reasoning makes sense and you already know it's and option, so that's nice. Remind me in the offseason.
 
NML

NML

Well-Known Member
Is there a way to turn on automatic handling of injuries? Twice I've had a player pick up a day to day injury and then get a more severe injury before the end of the sim.
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Orlando said:
You used to constantly argue for things to be like MLB haha. I have no issues with a 10-day DL. Your reasoning makes sense and you already know it's and option, so that's nice. Remind me in the offseason.
Click to expand...
The only way I argued the league should act more like MLB was extensions because players IRL act in their own self interest and that makes sense vs. how they acted in the game in previous versions. Over the last 3-4 versions of OOTP, the game is way, way better with that now.

I'm with NML too. Is there a way to auto handle it mid weeks? I think the large influx of injuries has to do with dealing with day-to-day injuries and there's more of a chance a guy playing with a day-to-day injury will get hurt than in previous versions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top