Commissioner Update on Financial Discussion

[Huckleberry]

Lots of people have posted their thoughts on the financial issues thread, and I've been following along. I'm extremely pleased that so many of our GMs care enough about the league to be involved in the discussion, it shows the strength of the WBA. With that in mind I'm also in the difficult position of trying to balance fairness as well as the differing views on what should be done. Just so everyone knows, here are my thoughts right now. This is what I would do if there were a gun to my head and I had to decide right now:

• Update the Salary Baseline Numbers - See this post for details. I don't see any possible negative impact from making this change, only potential (but not certain) improvements.
• Implement a Contract Extensions Tool - This is what I'm working on right now. There are several factors to consider, so I'm hoping to code a tool that controls contract extensions in the WBA. I don't want to turn extensions off because I, like several of you, love the idea of building through the draft and minor league system. When it's ready for alpha release and league review I will make a new post so everyone can test it out. To be honest, it would probably be ready in the next day or two but unfortunately relief pitchers are kicking my ass right now because they are undervalued by OOTP relative to how free agency has shown the WBA market values them.
• WBA Arbitration Remains Unchanged - I had considered bumping up the coefficients from $350K in year 4 and $700K in year 5 to $437.5K and $875K respectively, but if these other changes are made I am concerned that these will have a compounding effect on each other. Therefore I am inclined to leave arbitration alone.
• Free Agency Remains Unchanged - I believe that if the contract extension change is made then there will be no reason to change free agency. As some have mentioned, vagaries and strange decisions in free agency happen IRL, and I don't want to make everything just about offering one more dollar than the other guy. While extensions will get more expensive for top tier players, the new tool will also ensure that every team, even rebuilding ones, has a chance to sign their players instead of being told that they're not interested and having to accept that.

That's what I'm thinking and what I'm working on right now. Just wanted to post an update so everyone knows I'm considering all the options that have been discussed.

edit - Forgot to mention that I intend to include current team finances in the extension tool so if a team doesn't have the money to offer the extension then it will be unavailable. This is an important aspect in terms of making sure players reach free agency when they would in real life instead of being hoarded by a team that just loses money hand-over-fist each season.

[Txhorns]

I like this.  I am clearly on record as saying that drastic changes don't need to be made yet.  I don't think we have seen the complete ramifications of the arbitration system yet.

I like the idea of monitoring the extension process more because some of our extensions are ridiculous.  I will warn about one thing though, I don't think we truly know what a players value in the league is at this moment.  A big part of that is the cheap extensions that have been signed, thus lowering team payrolls.  If all extensions had been more reasonable then I doubt anyone is getting $15+ million a year in free agency.  Teams simply wouldn't have the means to offer that much.

I also think there should be a hometown discount on extensions as alost all real life extensions include a hometown discount.  It shouldn't be much though.  Say a 5 WAR player would typically get $8 million a year in free agency, maybe he should get $7 million year on an extension.

[Bob_Meteors]

First, thanks a lot to Huck. He works SUPER HARD for this league, and we appreciate it.

I like this proposal. I'm not sure it solves the issue but when it's in alpha, we can test it out and see how it goes.

What exactly would the tool do? If it could get rid of bad extensions, I'm all for it.

[Huckleberry]

No, it would not be retroactive. All current contracts would be honored.

What the tool would be during test phase is a place for everyone in the league to go see what the formula says a player would sign an extension for if it were effective. That way people could give feedback if they see any major issues with a guy being way too cheap or too expensive.

[Bob_Meteors]

I'm a little confused here. Would we, the GMs, still offer extensions in-game, and the tool tells us whether they're ok? Or would we have to plug a player into the tool to see what extension it gives them, and then accept it or not?

[Huckleberry]

The second one. You would use the tool to see what extension the player will accept. If he accepts it then it's applied in-game (you make a post announcing you're extending them). The tool will basically be a universal WBA player agent when it comes to extensions.

[Claybor]

I think #1 is enough, if we need to do anything at all.

#2 I would have to see, but I am leery of all things done outside the game.

I am getting very concerned that we making a lot of major changes very frequently without even seeing the effects of previous changes. I can see this going on every year as someone has something else that they don't like.

[Huckleberry]

That's a point well taken, and while I would like to get the tool to the testing phase here shortly, the odds are that it won't be ready for this season anyway. Which, of course, will mean that the only immediate change for 2110 would be updating the salary baseline settings.

[Txhorns]

I am getting very concerned that we making a lot of major changes very frequently without even seeing the effects of previous changes. I can see this going on every year as someone has something else that they don't like.

This is my big concern.  I feel like it's a lot of backlash to my signing of Kemboi because he signed suddenly and without taking the very biggest contract offered dollar wise.  I think players signing "suddenly" is more a factor of us simming a week at a time than anything else.

It seems like a big part of these discussions have been in the name of fairness.  I've been making moves and planning ahead based on the current rules. As of right now there is a good chance that I can resign all of my young players in 2-4 years.  If some of the rule changes that have been discussed are enacted I won't hardly be able to resign anyone.  I would have never offered Kemboi that high of a contract, nor would he have gotten such a high contract under different rules.  So are we going to adjust his contract if the rules are changed?  If not how is that fair to me?

[squaredrive]

i'm in favor of the plan Huck outlined - seems like good first steps and I agree on slow adjustments - if adjustments are slow it helps with fairness issues outlined by txhorns-

My feeling is that the more we can institute policies to push more players into free agency the better off the league will be financially. The live "market" will do a better job of balancing player value against team cash than OOTP ever will through extensions.

[Bob_Meteors]

I like Huck's idea. Regarding contract adjustments, we have to see. I think we can't get into changing contracts around, because then where's the baseline? Do we adjust contracts from 2100? (Obviously, I'm exaggerating, but you take my point). Slow adjustments seem to make sense, but if this tool won't be ready for another season, that seems slow enough for me. It doesn't make a lot of sense to wait too long.

I think we should wait and see how testing goes. Then we can talk more about it.

[Huckleberry]

By the way, just a heads up. I just ran a quick test and a player changed his extension request based on the values in the salary baseline table. That might be the only change we need to implement.

Player A:

Asked for $8.0M per year for two years before the change. Asked for $11.5M per year for 2 years after the change.

Player B:

Asked for $6.7M per year for three years before the change. Asked for $7.3M per year for 3 years after the change.

So basically Player A asked for the Superstar baseline salary before the change. He asked for a bit less than that after the change. Player B asked for the star player salary + $0.7M before the change. Afterward he asked for $1.7M less than that amount, but it was still a higher request.

I will keep testing with some other players.

[Huckleberry]

Player C:

$4.6M/yr for 2 yrs changed to $6.5M/yr for 2 yrs

Player D:

$6.3M for 1 year changed to $9.3M for 1 year

This looks like this change will be all we need, certainly at least for this season. What are people's thoughts based on this information?

[Txhorns]

Who are these players?

[Bob_Meteors]

I'd also like to know. Are these actual players in the WBA? And are they the only ones you tested?

Also, it seems like the values are getting higher. I think that's good.

Just to clarify. If we implement these changes, does that make those players' contracts change?

[rbeadle3]

I think it is the right move to make. It's a yes from me Huck

[Huckleberry]

Just to clarify. If we implement these changes, does that make those players' contracts change?

No. Current contacts will never be changed.

[Huckleberry]

Who are these players?

They are current WBA players that aren't in my organization.

I actually don't remember. Two are London's and the other two are in the ABL. I was just looking for guys in their final arbitration year.

[Havana_Jake]

My lean would be to go update the baseline salaries for this season and hold off on the extension tool until next season. If the baseline update solves our problems, then we're all set. If not, we add the tool. Maybe we can also spend the whole year test-driving the tool and see if we can't work out some kinks.

[squaredrive]

agree with Jake - baseline salaries only for now based on Huck's test.

[AndyHustle]

Also on board with Jake.

Also, if we weren't clear the want for change to the financials had very little to do with one signing. It's been a negative part of the league since I got here. Being able to extend superstars for dirt cheap was the basis for our argument, not a single FA signing.

[Huckleberry]

Okay, I intend to make the salary baseline changes. I will make the changes after tonight's sim runs but before files are uploaded.

As those are not specified in the WBA Constitution they do not require an amendment.

[Coop]

I hope we will still address the salary extension issue soon, hopefully by next offseason.  As I’ve said before, I feel that it’s our biggest financial problem.  Some players are agreeing to sweetheart extensions while others are refusing to negotiate at all.  That fouls up free agency and turns team-building into an exercise in sheer luck (are you going to be the lucky GM whose young stars sign sweetheart deals or the unlucky GM whose young stars turn their backs on you?).  A tiered structure is needed in order to provide everyone with a level playing field instead of forcing us to rely on the whims of players as determined by OOTP.

[Huckleberry]

It looks like with the edited salary baselines the sweetheart deals will not be nearly as sweet. For example, based on extrapolation which is obviously not perfect, it looks like Carlos Vargas would have requested between $14M and $15m per year instead of $11.5M per year for his extension. Zamorov would have been in the $10M-$11M range instead of $7.5M. Obviously we can't know for sure but the numbers should change.

As for players who simply refuse to extend with their current team, that is a discussion to keep in mind as we make the baseline change for this season. I like the fact that sometimes the players have differences in terms of whether or not they'll sign with you. In the WBA world that means you have to keep your eye on your players as they enter their contract year. If they're refusing to negotiate with you or now if they're asking too much and you're a rebuilding franchise then you need to start looking for a trade destination. I definitely understand the other side of the argument in terms of fairness in an online league, but I'm not ready to make that change at this point. And certainly not until we see how the new baselines in tandem with multiple seasons of the arbitration rule work.

[squaredrive]

I think removing player variability (refusing extensions, signing for under max contract) from the game would be a mistake. It's just one more factor we have to consider which increases the game complexity and gives the players personality. It's really no different than the ootp engine driving which prospects develop and which bust...just part of the game.