WBL Rule Change Thread

[OU11]

All I'm getting at @Travis7401 is you haven't been in a league that allows this, and to just unlock any contract you can dream up will lead into a bunch of shittyness. I'm good with unlocking them after the player has completed a season in the WBL though, it allows time for the players' worth increase to a reasonable level in most situations where those two contracts wouldn't be possible.

 

[OU11]

0 years service time is gonna be broken like that. Try again in two years and his demands will be reasonable

No shit.

 

[Travis7401]

Ok, but if you aren't a dummy $4-5m won't kill you.

Signing 20 dummies at 4-5M and having only half of them contribute definitely will. I've seen several people do this

 

[OU11]

Signing 20 dummies at 4-5M and having only half of them contribute definitely will. I've seen several people do this

Well it's against the rules to do this, so either they didn't or they broke them

 

[doh]

The guy always complaining about injuries thinks we don't have enough?

Where'd I say we didn't have enough? I'm saying it's much easier to give guys long term contracts when you don't have to worry about injuries.

 

[Travis7401]

Well it's against the rules to do this, so either they didn't or they broke them

I didn't say they signed 20 pre-arb dummies, I said they signed 20 dummies who didn't contribute.

I mean in 2057 @TonyGin&Juice is about to pay $45M a year to "Not even a ______" players!

 

[Travis7401]

I want OU to prove me wrong and ruin the league!

 

[Travis7401]

Can you imagine this IDIOT making $5M a year for half a decade and putting up -WARS?

http://utopia.allsimbaseball9.com/game/lgreports/players/player_12046.html

 

[Orlando]

Cuellar will agree to $6.6 x 8. I'd probably take that deal right now. He has one year at min left. Then arb at probably $4m at that point.

 

[Yankee151]

All I'm getting at @Travis7401 is you haven't been in a league that allows this, and to just unlock any contract you can dream up will lead into a bunch of shittyness. I'm good with unlocking them after the player has completed a season in the WBL though, it allows time for the players' worth increase to a reasonable level in most situations where those two contracts wouldn't be possible.

Yea this is fine too. I think people hear abolish the doh rule but really it should be modify the doh rule

 

[OU11]

I didn't say they signed 20 pre-arb dummies, I said they signed 20 dummies who didn't contribute.

I mean in 2057 @TonyGin&Juice is about to pay $45M a year to "Not even a ______" players!

haha I get that, and people who don't build a farm would still do that. Anybody else would reserve these contracts for the best prospects, do 5-6 year length for decent ones, and start spending on 1 year contracts to slowly raise budget level. When you start competing you could send every 10 year contract to single A and still have enough to buy a new team to compete with. It would take about $50-$80m of your budget, if you lower dev/scouting that's trivial if you even have 5 that are competing.

if half of them pan out you're so far ahead of everyone else in the league right now

 

[OU11]

And that's even if you want to compete, which I don't care about. The reason I'd sign these contracts has nothing to do with my financial situation or them helping me win. So even if 2 out of 10 pan out I'm able to do what I want.

 

[doh]

And that's even if you want to compete, which I don't care about. The reason I'd sign these contracts has nothing to do with my financial situation or them helping me win. So even if 2 out of 10 pan out I'm able to do what I want.

Looking at the six guys I have who were all top prospects and cost me $70m this year ... if just 2 of the 6 hit (and I signed them all to 10/40 deals), I'm ahead. Next year when they go up to $80-85m, I would've saved $60m.

 

[Orlando]

For comparison, the Swede just hit a year and he wants $13m per year to sign for 8 years. He has the same number of years under team control as Cuellar.

 

[OU11]

Something happens at 1 year service time that makes them realize they don't have to settle for $50m over their career

 

[Orlando]

Yeah, so I would probably consider amending the rule and just keeping the 1+ years of service part of the rule and maybe the = to arb value part just in case.

 

[Mr. Radpants]

Were you trying to prove my point or no? Is this a riddle?

 

[Yankee151]

So, change the rule from pre-arb to after 1 year? Sounds good to me

 

[Travis7401]

6 guys that you spent half a million each on for 3 seasons when you could have spent $5M each on them instead? So you spent $9M total for those early minimum years when you could have spent 90M over that same time frame!

Show me a full #Spreadsheet of what you've paid all of those players and then find realistic estimates (not 10/40 because even OU's shithead wanted 10/50) for what they would agree to long term. Amazingly, I bet you find that you'd have to overpay for the first 5 seasons and then you'd make up all of it on the back 5 seasons + a little extra. The total $ paid over the life of the contract would be slightly lower, but not as much as you are making it out to be. Furthermore, you'd have the added risk and loss of flexibility.

 

[OU11]

Were you trying to prove my point or no? Is this a riddle?

If you were arguing that we should get rid of the rule so we could sign ridiculous contracts, then yes I did

 

[OU11]

6 guys that you spent half a million each on for 3 seasons when you could have spent $5M each on them instead? So you spent $9M total for those early minimum years when you could have spent 90M over that same time frame!

Show me a full #Spreadsheet of what you've paid all of those players and then find realistic estimates (not 10/40 because even OU's shithead wanted 10/50) for what they would agree to long term. Amazingly, I bet you find that you'd have to overpay for the first 5 seasons and then you'd make up all of it on the back 5 seasons + a little extra. The total $ paid over the life of the contract would be slightly lower, but not as much as you are making it out to be. Furthermore, you'd have the added risk and loss of flexibility.

I could have got him for 10/50, I just did 8 so it'd end on him being 30. anything over 5 years will be the same in my experience

 

[Mr. Radpants]

Look at this bum I can't overpay because of @doh

 

[Travis7401]

Right, I said 10/50 as a minimum. Doh's guys were better anyway... so I told him to knock it off with the 10/40 stuff. Toaster oven was never signing 10/40.

 

[OU11]

And it gives you more flexibility, I'm not sure how you don't understand this. You'll be spending much more on the team during the backend of these guys' contracts because you'd be starting to win around that time. Having 3-4 guys signed at $3m-$5m is monumental at that point.

 

[Orlando]

So, change the rule from pre-arb to after 1 year? Sounds good to me

It's after one year now (correct me if I'm wrong). It would be keep the rule as is, but remove the limit on length.

 

[Travis7401]

Typical hyperdohle saying he could sign those players for 10/40.

 

[TonyGin&Juice]

I didn't say they signed 20 pre-arb dummies, I said they signed 20 dummies who didn't contribute.

I mean in 2057 @TonyGin&Juice is about to pay $45M a year to "Not even a ______" players!

Don't @ me with this fuckstick shit and certainly don't @ me with it when you're not even in the right decade.

Personally I like being handcuffed on locking up talent. It makes trades more interesting since idiots get desperate looking for talent and have to weigh out trading away the farm for NOT EVEN CFers/Starters or waiting to overpay for them in FA once they're broken down bums.

 

[OU11]

Right, I said 10/50 as a minimum. Doh's guys were better anyway... so I told him to knock it off with the 10/40 stuff. Toaster oven was never signing 10/40.

What I really need is the guys I'd actually consider offering these contracts to get old enough to do so. If I knew everyone would shit on the 3B I'd have actually tried to sign him lower. I probably could have got him for $2m-$3m which is not overpaying at all.

 

[Orlando]

I could have got him for 10/50, I just did 8 so it'd end on him being 30. anything over 5 years will be the same in my experience

It wasn't for me just now. They would sign 8 year deals, but not 10. At least Cuellar. Obviously each player will be different.

 

[Orlando]

6 guys that you spent half a million each on for 3 seasons when you could have spent $5M each on them instead? So you spent $9M total for those early minimum years when you could have spent 90M over that same time frame!

Show me a full #Spreadsheet of what you've paid all of those players and then find realistic estimates (not 10/40 because even OU's shithead wanted 10/50) for what they would agree to long term. Amazingly, I bet you find that you'd have to overpay for the first 5 seasons and then you'd make up all of it on the back 5 seasons + a little extra. The total $ paid over the life of the contract would be slightly lower, but not as much as you are making it out to be. Furthermore, you'd have the added risk and loss of flexibility.

Not really because depending on each of their situations you could be only burning 1 year at minimum.

 

[OU11]

It wasn't for me just now. They would sign 8 year deals, but not 10. At least Cuellar. Obviously each player will be different.

I'll try Salas again after the sim. BTW biggest sim of the season so far is tonight

 

[Travis7401]

If you were signing them to 0 service time deals for 10/50 you'd be burning more than 1 year at minimum.

 

[OU11]

If you were signing them to 0 service time deals for 10/50 you'd be burning more than 1 year at minimum.

My guys only have next year on minimum, will that change?

 

[TonyGin&Juice]

I'll try Salas again after the sim. BTW biggest sim of the season so far is tonight

Please sign Salas to some 35 year contract. That guy is going to burn down ur whole org.

 

[OU11]

Please sign Salas to some 35 year contract. That guy is going to burn down ur whole org.

I can't, it's against the rules

 

[Orlando]

What I really need is the guys I'd actually consider offering these contracts to get old enough to do so. If I knew everyone would shit on the 3B I'd have actually tried to sign him lower. I probably could have got him for $2m-$3m which is not overpaying at all.

Cuellar is one of these players, IMO. It took $6m+. I think signing them for less than $5m would be rare, even with under a year of service time. But rare is enough to block it IMO.

 

[OU11]

Cuellar is one of these players, IMO. It took $6m+. I think signing them for less than $5m would be rare, even with under a year of service time. But rare is enough to block it IMO.

Anything under $10m is worth it. If he wasn't so developed (so the normal great prospect from HS/IFA) he'd be lower. He's hitting over .300 so that will boost it too. If he was struggling it would likely lower his demands.

Plus his arb number is going to skyrocket.

 

[Orlando]

If you were signing them to 0 service time deals for 10/50 you'd be burning more than 1 year at minimum.

0, yes. Under a year, no.

 

[Yankee151]

I signed Jephson for 9M per and that deal is still an albatross even tho he's awful now and been traded twice.

 

[Orlando]

Anything under $10m is worth it. If he wasn't so developed (so the normal great prospect from HS/IFA) he'd be lower. He's hitting over .300 so that will boost it too. If he was struggling it would likely lower his demands.

Plus his arb number is going to skyrocket.

Check this out. This was his default offer.

 

[OU11]

lol so he's a guy you can get for 7 years/7m at least

 

[Orlando]

That's actually a pretty fair contract the way it is set up. Mendoza on the other hand wants $8.5m for 8 years. He is also under a year.

 

[Travis7401]

Check this out. This was his default offer.

View attachment 4101

Yep! To me, that's a realistic contract, to me. I see nothing wrong with it

@doh wants it to be against the rules. BAD DOH!

 

[OU11]

Yep! To me, that's a realistic contract, to me. I see nothing wrong with it

yes, but nobody would sign him to that one

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Travis7401]

Why wouldn't they? Because @doh says it is against the rules?

 

[Travis7401]

OU could have gotten the best deal. Orlando's deal is SAD!

 

[Orlando]

lol so he's a guy you can get for 7 years/7m at least

Looks like 6 is as low as he will go for 7. Takes more for him to get to 10 ($80m-ish). None of these deals are as crazy as they used to be though and you have to sign them early to get a good deal. That good deal burns through years at a cheaper price though and isn't as good as it seems. It's still nothing like before.

 

[OU11]

Looks like 6 is as low as he will go for 7. Takes more for him to get to 10 ($80m-ish). None of these deals are as crazy as they used to be though and you have to sign them early to get a good deal. That good deal burns through years at a cheaper price though and isn't as good as it seems. It's still nothing like before.

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

 

[Yankee151]

Maybe we should just make a Don't be an OU rule. It seems the OOTP AI is fine if you don't try and actively find the exploits OU been watching too much florryworry, he gon find a way to turn Amsterdam into the Mongol hordes so he can sign all his GOATS for a 2M AAV!

 

[OU11]

Maybe we should just make a Don't be an OU rule. It seems the OOTP AI is fine if you don't try and actively find the exploits OU been watching too much florryworry, he gon find a way to turn Amsterdam into the Mongol hordes so he can sign all his GOATS for a 2M AAV!

It's not that, the whole league was doing this before we made the rule. Back then it was $2m per year of course