Printable View
I would like to see an option to turn off free agency or to have the option to have it come on in 1973. I play the Minnesota Twins starting in 1961 and usually have to sell Killebrew and Allison to make it through the season. Sort of takes the fun out of playing my favorite team. Bring back the reserve clause!
Me too. This is something that I've been after since last year. Hopefully we can get it during late beta, or early after release this year.
This isn't a beta specific issue so I've moved it to the regular suggestions forum.
I agree with Harmon and have stated as much in previous suggestions.
But to go back to the days of true historical play, you'd have to:
a) eliminate the amateur draft, and
b) make it so that new players are available only through your farm system, and the quality of players you get would depend on how much money you spent on a farm system.
Just a thought. :)
--Pet
Yes, yes it would.
:)
Good point, Petrel. I do think that the draft is ok, personally, even prior to the year (what, 1965?) it actually started. In the old days, it was scouting that provided players. Eliminate the draft and BM could just assign the players to the teams that actually signed them (?).
The draft kinda takes the place of the old scouts-sign-young-players system. It IS scouting, in a way. But free agency....that changes the face of the sport entirely. As someone suggested...you can all but eliminate free agency by turning the players salary demands way down...but....
Anyway, I just read that in BM '08 there will be an option to eliminate free agency...so hang on, historical players.
Or it could simply add new players straight to the free agent market.Quote:
Eliminate the draft and BM could just assign the players to the teams that actually signed them (?).
*shrug*
Yea, I'm waiting for the option to turn off free agency with breathless anticipation.
:)
I like the idea of having them go to the Free Agent section, BUT you would also need to allow for Minor League or Draft Day style contracts signings. You don't want to be signing 18 year olds to major league contracts...
But, there is a way to "fix" this. Pump up league revenue and contrat lengths. The formula i use is Current year - Year I'm playing. So if I'm playing 1935, I do 2007-1935 = 72 or roughly +70% to league revenue and contract lengths. It works wonders for historical play.
IMO a bigger issue is how players don't have anything resemblling a historical career. Now I'm not talking about historical replay, but when Nolan Ryan starts to fall apart at 32 and retires at 35 (or Pete Rose, Roger CLemens, etc...) it's a big downer. What I've been doing recently is fixing players Peak Start and Peak End to Debut Age +3 and Final year Age -6, and it has done mircles for historical play. Players still vary from their true careers (as they should) depending on the team they join and their farm System/circumstances, but they atleast resemble their true selves far better.
Having played many historical seasons, I've concluded that not having free agency is still the best option for seasons prior to 1977. There should be some way to just turn it off, at least from 1901 to 1976. After that, FA was a reality...so...
Agreed. Being able to set the year that FA starts would be a nice touch, of course. Still, just having it off up until '76 would make a huge difference.
To steal your idea Ohms, you could set that one up like the DH or Women enter Basebal as well with "0", "1" or a year so that every one could be happy.
What to do about arbitration though?
I don't know about arbitration. Someone (redsauce?) started a thread about it not too long ago, and I actually checked out the information available regarding real life arbitration cases. The normal values that are assigned through arbitration are not really that far off (if you get away from the $14M instances...)
I still think that there should be a separate valuation calculation for arbitration than there is for Free Agency. I just don't think that it should be much lower than the Free Agency system is, right now. That, and arbitration values should be much more even (the equation that comes up with values should be much flatter).
Speaking of the women enter baseball thing can someone who has gotten that far in the game give me some information on how many women do get into the game.
Not that I care that there will be women in the game but is it realistic in that the year that women enter you might get one woman. Then couple years down the road maybe another one gets in. Or do they just flood the league from the year they get in so that it is completely random whether the first overall draft pick will be named Adam or Jessica.
Sort of. There is a ramp up, but it probably occurs too quickly. A few years in with women in the game, and the league is about 50/50 and stays that way.
I've never been motivated enough to really check it out though.
The problem I see is that the increases are ridiculous. I could be wrong but you can't really go from the league minimum to 2-3 million a year in one arbitration, can you? Isn't there a cap on the raise you can receive? 50%, 100%... or something?
I don't think that there is a cap. The real life examples that I saw certainly didn't appear that way, anyway. I'll have to find the other thread, with the link in it.
I know that in the new NHL CBA the maximum raise is definitely capped. And most of these concepts tend to cycle around the major sports.
Yea. The NHL implemented a salary cap as well, though. I don't think that there will be an arbitration cap until an overall salary cap is implemented. Really, when you think about it, what would be the point of an arbitration cap without a salary cap anyway?
It slows the rate that arbitration players increase their salary. That means that arbitration elligible players tend to be far more affordable than pure Free Agency elligible guy's. In BBm arbitration elligible players are actually MORe expensive than pure free agents. That's a problem...
Occasionally, but not usually. The arbitration problems are really just with the high profile players, I think. The average guys seem to ask for deacent amounts in arbitration, but the problem is that the AI doesn't want to pay them for some reason, and they get released to free agency. With the vast majority of guys being free agents, the mediocre players become a dime a dozen, never receive offers, and their asking prices drop precipitously. It's more complex than their arbitration valuation, it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolfanar
Nope. I've seen Mopup guy's with ERA over 5, and less than 40 appearances ask AND receive $3,000,000 with Salary demands at -30%.
Marginal bench players tend to be ok, but pitchers demands are FUBAR, particularly releivers, and the big guns also tend to get ridiculous awards. If the game isn't going to use a true comparables system, then an alternative is needed, and capping Arbitration awards is the only way to go.
I disagree. Pitchers valuations are going to be high, no matter what. Neither the arbitration awards nor the free agent signing prices are normally way out of line with reality, from what I've seen.
The largest complaints with arbitration are always that the star players are asking for 8 figure yearly salaries, and that the AI doesn't sign enough guys who are arbitration eligible (they tend to non-tender players, which is rare in reality). The ramp up in asking prices should be reduced, so that the values of all awards would be more even than is seen on the free agent market, and the AI should be much more willing to deal with arbitration than it is.
With those two problems being as prevalent as they currently are, it's hard to say just how messed up the arbitration system really is, anyway. Arbitration eligible players on AI teams constantly being released messes up the data anyway, since their eventual signings off of the free agent market (if they do get signed) are artificially deflated due to the abundance of competition. There's a feedback effect going on that screws with the whole system.
But the AI is actually being VERY logical when dealing with Arbitration demands... why keep an arbitration elligible player at 10,000,000 when you can get an equivalent (sometimes better) player off the Free Agent market at 7 million, or an acceptable replacement for half that?
The root cause is without a doubt the actual arbitration awards themselves.
The reason that there are guys at $7 mil has more to do with them languishing on the free agent market than their actual asking price, though. Look at the same guy asking for $7 Mil when he was arbitration eligible, and he was asking for $12 Mil. Like I said, it's a feedback loop. Everyone gets releases, FA asking prices for everyone except the superstars is reduced, and then there's no reason to sign guys in arbitration. It's cheaper to release them and sign the guy who's been playing in Mexico for a year.