GM Participation and Compliance

Message
Author
User avatar
Morris Ragland
Major Leaguer
Major Leaguer
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:54 pm

GM Participation and Compliance

#1 Post by Morris Ragland »

Participation

Currently, GM vacancy numbers aren't great. We have vacancies in Amsterdam, Florida, Hartford, Okinawa, and San Antonio, and half-vacancies in Arlington, Bakersfield, Kalamazoo. I believe that nailing down the first two categories I mentioned will go a long way toward helping with retention and recruitment. A well run league will be the best recruitment tool.

DFA violations, roster violations, and DL violations are pretty straight forward, and we treat them on a sim-by-sim basis. Contract violations, on the other hand, haven't been enforced as vigorously. Below is a list of contracts that we've found to be in violation of league rules. Many players and many teams.
PEBA Contract Violations 2025 Offseason through 2026.xls
We'll be adjusting these contracts to bring them into compliance. Teams who currently own these contracts, and teams who might trade for these players, are on notice.

When you have a compliance problem like that, you either have to put more teeth into enforcement, or amend the rules to fit the behavior.

James summed up the case surrounding our contract rules pretty well:
I think that it is time to review and revise the house contract rules, for a couple of reasons, both related to the purpose for which (as I understand it) the house rules were developed:

1) trying to close loopholes in OOTP's contract negotiation logic; and

2) trying to reflect reality.

With respect to 1, I am sure that we still need some house rules, but I'm pretty confident that OOTP's contract negotiation logic has improved.

With respect to 2), baseball's real life contract practices on the ground has changed a lot, particularly, as noted above, with respect to the new prevalence for contracts with declining and/or otherwise variable AAVs. Back in the day, it was almost unheard of that a contract would have a declining value.
For the coming year, I'd like to limit our contract rules to those that can be enforced by the game itself (namely the 8 year limit). GMs will be free to negotiate contracts in Ootp without reference to contract rules outside the game. This change would take effect after the arbitration sim. So any contract extensions negotiated before then would still be governed by current contract rules.

It's my hope that this will make for a better experience for everybody.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Morris Ragland
Commissioner
User avatar
Wind Dancers
Major Leaguer
Major Leaguer
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 5:45 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#2 Post by Wind Dancers »

I think this is, in theory, a good move especially when recruiting some much needed GMs. Contracts are very daunting early on in the league and this should help keep GMs around once they are brought in. That being said, I don't think we need to completely trash the contract rules that built this league. Loosening some of the rules that are often broken should fix most rule problems.

As it was mentioned, OOTP has improved their contract system, but I think our common sense accord should cover everything. As long as everyone understands that realism is the goal and that it isn’t about going out to find loopholes to sign cheap players then there shouldn’t be a problem.

I’m looking forward to the upcoming season.
Last edited by Wind Dancers on Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dylan Krupilis
GM - Toyama Wind Dancers
Web Admin/Tech Guru

1x PEBA Champion (2038)
3x Sovereign League Champion (2034, 2037, 2038)
1x GM of the Year (2034)
User avatar
Sandgnats
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1648
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 5:52 pm
Location: Spokane, Washington State, United States of America

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#3 Post by Sandgnats »

I wonder if we should consider keeping some of the Vesting and Team/Player Option Limitations in place. These are the areas most easily taken advantage of still in the game when I play solo.
RJ Ermola
Vice President and General Manager of Baseball Operations
Crystal Lake Sandgnats

*2024 PEBA Champions*
User avatar
Borealis
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8430
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#4 Post by Borealis »

I’m unsure what exactly is meant by ‘enforced by the game itself’? Does that mean that, basically, anything goes? Frankly, I’m not sure that’s a necessary move - nor do I think that our rules are THAT difficult to abide by or are a reason why we have issues. I've been in this league since in-game 2011 and have not had one bad contract (that I can recall).

If we look at the list of bad contracts they primarily breakdown to three issues:

1. The Bonus Clause - 1/3 of those bad deals are because bonus' we added to deals under $5M. I'm not sure when that rule came into play - I assume whatever version this came to be an option. Why $5M was chosen to be the minimum, IDK, but it's an easy fix - eliminate that figure. Thus the rule becomes 'a bonus can not be more than 25% of that years salary. My lord, I hope we can all divide by 4. Those contracts can be allowed to stand, no issues. I see no competitive advantage.

2. The 25% buyout rule - this is 1/4 of the list. this is a new rule (the past 2-seasons I think), and is easy to miss because the game defaults to $0. Then again, as you offer a contract, the slot for a figure pops up, so... you know it's there... Now, we can debate the 25% rule, but it's another 'divide by 4' issue... and it's another 'pay attention' issue.

3. 3x League Average - admittedly, this is the confusing part. I don't even know where to find 'League Average'. As I said earlier - maybe we can post it in large font in the header box of the forums - and even include '3x League Minimum is $XXXM', so it's really clear what that minimum figure is and we can all find it - quick and easy. I also find this the one rule that likely causes the most confusion - yet it wasn't the biggest offender.

There were some other misc. offenders:
- The Loyalty Clause - this was a great addition, and the one faulty contract was a two year deal. Personally, I would advocate for scratching the restrictions. If a player will sign a Loyalty deal for two-years, great! If you can get him to sign a series of 1-year deals at the 25% discount in successive seasons, that should be cool, too. We are talking about older players at the end of their careers - and the rule was instituted, in part, to keep those players in the game. I've used this rule twice - the second time was this offseason (I'm still waiting to hear), and 'Stork' Holbrook would have taken a) less money and b) more years. At 37, I should be able to do that... right? I am in the camp of being to offer more liberal, front-loaded contracts - with parameters TBD.

- There were a couple of No Trade issues - I thought these were ok, I'd never use one; I don't see anything to the contrary in the Constitution

- Some deals were hybrids of the above

Only one of the contracts was truly against the spirit of the contract rules - an extension with a lesser than current salary.

So I think our rules really aren't that horrible, and with a small amount of tweaking, such as my suggestions, they will be easier to manage. I’m not buying that our rules alone explain the contracts being out of compliance - not paying attention is the larger issue. Plus, the real biggie, as I see it, is the rule that circumvents GM's trying to cut-rate players during their arbitration and early free agent years - which is the one rule that is key to our 'realism mission'.

I also find deciding to write off the rules now as giving the teams who have already moved in the direction of 'financial responsibility', with contract signings and allowing players go, a competitive disadvantage. If we really wanted to do this, then let it be after the season starts, so everyone has a chance to anticipate those changes. In the meantime, with some common sense, our House Rules can be tweaked towards a more user friendly state.
Michael Topham, President Golden Entertainment & President-CEO of the Aurora Borealis
Image
2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 PEBA Champions
User avatar
kiersteadmo
Double-A
Double-A
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:46 am

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#5 Post by kiersteadmo »

Apologies as I know I was on the list a lot. I really think some changes mentioned are good ones. I think the declining contracts for an older player or any players is ok. If I have a player who is low greed and keeps offering me hometown discount it would hurt me more to offer more than he is offering. Then we are forced to move that player to free agency.

I have honestly been offering a contract based on what the player was asking. The biggest issue I had with the contract was Flores who was making 15 mil only wanted 8 mil for his extension, his numbers declined and he was not doing well but being extremely popular I would have liked to keep him for the 8 mil he was asking for 5 years, but I traded/released him instead. think more relaxed rules will bring in more Gms as They can be a bit overwhelming for newcomers.


What if we went over the constitution and make it a bit simpler and change things that make sense to change without ripping it apart?
Mark Kierstead II
Image
User avatar
Alleghenies
Major Leaguer
Major Leaguer
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:39 pm
Contact:

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#6 Post by Alleghenies »

Commish wrote:Participation

Currently, GM vacancy numbers aren't great. We have vacancies in Amsterdam, Florida, Hartford, Okinawa, and San Antonio, and half-vacancies in Arlington, Bakersfield, Kalamazoo. I believe that nailing down the first two categories I mentioned will go a long way toward helping with retention and recruitment. A well run league will be the best recruitment tool.

DFA violations, roster violations, and DL violations are pretty straight forward, and we treat them on a sim-by-sim basis. Contract violations, on the other hand, haven't been enforced as vigorously. Below is a list of contracts that we've found to be in violation of league rules. Many players and many teams.
PEBA Contract Violations 2025 Offseason through 2026.xls
We'll be adjusting these contracts to bring them into compliance. Teams who currently own these contracts, and teams who might trade for these players, are on notice.

When you have a compliance problem like that, you either have to put more teeth into enforcement, or amend the rules to fit the behavior.

James summed up the case surrounding our contract rules pretty well:
I think that it is time to review and revise the house contract rules, for a couple of reasons, both related to the purpose for which (as I understand it) the house rules were developed:

1) trying to close loopholes in OOTP's contract negotiation logic; and

2) trying to reflect reality.

With respect to 1, I am sure that we still need some house rules, but I'm pretty confident that OOTP's contract negotiation logic has improved.

With respect to 2), baseball's real life contract practices on the ground has changed a lot, particularly, as noted above, with respect to the new prevalence for contracts with declining and/or otherwise variable AAVs. Back in the day, it was almost unheard of that a contract would have a declining value.
For the coming year, I'd like to limit our contract rules to those that can be enforced by the game itself (namely the 8 year limit). GMs will be free to negotiate contracts in Ootp without reference to contract rules outside the game. This change would take effect after the arbitration sim. So any contract extensions negotiated before then would still be governed by current contract rules.

It's my hope that this will make for a better experience for everybody.

If understand this right and this is going to be wild west and we are throwing away the FA rules you probably can add to WV to vacancy list.
Gregory Abcarian
General Manager
West Virginia
User avatar
Wind Dancers
Major Leaguer
Major Leaguer
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 5:45 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#7 Post by Wind Dancers »

I don't think we need to throw away the rules completely. I like what was mentioned in that we should loosen or adjust some of the rules that are broken the most.

The bonus clause makes more sense to be based on a percentage of the salary, and the league average for contracts needs to stay around to give some of the smaller/worse teams a chance moving forward to sign some decent players. Finding the league average is as simple as changing a box under Front Office, but we could easily ask for it or keep a tracker somewhere.

Someone mentioned allowing declining or lesser contracts which I think should be allowed in some way.
Dylan Krupilis
GM - Toyama Wind Dancers
Web Admin/Tech Guru

1x PEBA Champion (2038)
3x Sovereign League Champion (2034, 2037, 2038)
1x GM of the Year (2034)
User avatar
Coqui
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1822
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:13 pm

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#8 Post by Coqui »

I'm not sure scrapping all of the rules, particularly for extensions, is a good idea. Someone up-stream has mentioned that locking up players early for their arbitration years and free agent years is not something that OOTP handles very well. I have no idea how the OOTP engine handles extensions - when I play solo, I generally manage out games. Heck, look at the Paul DeJong contract extension that the Cardinals and their second year SS (less than one year of service time) just signed:

Paul DeJong Y1$1.17M Y2:$1.67M Y3:$1.67M Y4: $4.17M Y5: $6.17M Y6: $9.17M Y7: $12.5M team option with a $2M buyout Y8: $15M team option

As of the beginning of the 2017 season, the average MLB salary was $4.47M. Years 4-6 of the DeJong contract are his arbitration years and Year 7 is his first free agency year, meaning that Years 4 and 7 are barely non-compilant with our house rules. It's almost like the Cardinals were consulting our house rules and just forgot to carry the one on the ten-thousands place or something. I think this (and the similar White Sox / Tim Anderson contract signed a year ago IRL, which probably complies, but just barely, with our house rules) tells me that our house rules for extensions are still, after all of these years and after a trend toward locking up young players), pretty realistic.

So, does anyone who plays solo know how OOTP handles extension logic for pre-arb and arb players?

I will have to admit that I guess I wasn't aware of a rule against having team options with no buyout, which caused my contract with Alfonso Romero to be non-compliant. Is that new or has that always been the case? Mea culpa.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Does anyone have a copy of the house contract rules that we could paste in the forum here, so that we can look at them here in the forum. I tend to be a bit more Wild West-friendly on FA rules, except for any obvious loopholes but I'd like a reminder of what those rules are since they have changed relatively recently.
James
GM San Juan Coqui
User avatar
Wind Dancers
Major Leaguer
Major Leaguer
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 5:45 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#9 Post by Wind Dancers »

Longshoremen wrote:I'm not sure scrapping all of the rules, particularly for extensions, is a good idea. Someone up-stream has mentioned that locking up players early for their arbitration years and free agent years is not something that OOTP handles very well. I have no idea how the OOTP engine handles extensions - when I play solo, I generally manage out games. Heck, look at the Paul DeJong contract extension that the Cardinals and their second year SS (less than one year of service time) just signed:

Paul DeJong Y1$1.17M Y2:$1.67M Y3:$1.67M Y4: $4.17M Y5: $6.17M Y6: $9.17M Y7: $12.5M team option with a $2M buyout Y8: $15M team option

As of the beginning of the 2017 season, the average MLB salary was $4.47M. Years 4-6 of the DeJong contract are his arbitration years and Year 7 is his first free agency year, meaning that Years 4 and 7 are barely non-compilant with our house rules. It's almost like the Cardinals were consulting our house rules and just forgot to carry the one on the ten-thousands place or something. I think this (and the similar White Sox / Tim Anderson contract signed a year ago IRL, which probably complies, but just barely, with our house rules) tells me that our house rules for extensions are still, after all of these years and after a trend toward locking up young players), pretty realistic.

So, does anyone who plays solo know how OOTP handles extension logic for pre-arb and arb players?

I will have to admit that I guess I wasn't aware of a rule against having team options with no buyout, which caused my contract with Alfonso Romero to be non-compliant. Is that new or has that always been the case? Mea culpa.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Does anyone have a copy of the house contract rules that we could paste in the forum here, so that we can look at them here in the forum. I tend to be a bit more Wild West-friendly on FA rules, except for any obvious loopholes but I'd like a reminder of what those rules are since they have changed relatively recently.
There is a stickied post over in the Q&A section: http://pebabaseball.com/boards/viewtopi ... 25&t=10459
Dylan Krupilis
GM - Toyama Wind Dancers
Web Admin/Tech Guru

1x PEBA Champion (2038)
3x Sovereign League Champion (2034, 2037, 2038)
1x GM of the Year (2034)
User avatar
Evas
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3294
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:37 am

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#10 Post by Evas »

I was surprised to see a couple errors in my contracts. I had thought I was pretty good about things.

But award bonus screw ups make sense. That's an easy mistake to make when the AI asks for it constantly. On at least Martinez, my mistake was just giving him exactly what he was asking for.

That said, how much do we think offering these bonuses actually hurts things? Because these are low $ players, they likely aren't the best. So I don't think competitive balance is a big issue with these players.

This seems like a good rule to scrap.

It shouldn't affect competitive balance much at all and it reduces the amount of things that need to be checked significantly. 36% (21 of ~58) of the violations were for this rule.

The one rule I think it critical to keep is the 3X Average salary for Free Agent years in long contracts. There were 12 violations of that rule listed and those are the contracts that are most likely to screw up competitive balance because they affect the best players. If we only keep one rule, I think it should be that one.
Kevin V. - GM of the Shin Seiki Evas.
User avatar
Borealis
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8430
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#11 Post by Borealis »

To follow up, the other league I am in - which (now) two other PEBAites are in, has restrictions on bonus', but that's about it - other than all years being equal in value. Extensions can be less if you can get it - it's all kind of lax and you needed think too hard - it also has a salary cap (which I'm so, like, doubled in PEBA) - which I do dislike. It's not much of a challenge. Financial stuff is basically pretty even across the board.

That's the thing I like about our League - it isn't kind of mindless and just go through the motions. You do have to consider things as they are (mostly) IRL. My other League is in year 2052 and the minimum salary is $350K and the cap is $90. It's a fun distraction, but it doesn't have the same... feel... the origins of our League are going to fade, and the challenges it provides will just slowly get lost. Keep in mind, one of the favorite phrases used around here has been 'fog of war' - and contract challenges are part of that... at least I think.

And... I'll point out that my other League has vacancies, just as all leagues seem to... I don't think it's the 'rules are to hard' factor. Both leagues I'm in have long histories and very solid cores - that's what will carry us forward, not going all Rambo on our rules...

Ok... maybe that last part was a bit extreme... :lol:... James (I think) mention some current contracts the Cards have offered - check out Madison Bumgarners soon to be expiring deal... talk about team value...
Michael Topham, President Golden Entertainment & President-CEO of the Aurora Borealis
Image
2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 PEBA Champions
User avatar
Duane
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:12 pm

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#12 Post by Duane »

For me, I will definitely NOT miss removing the 'no declining contract' rule. This is a real contract that exists in many sports ... and frankly I do have a few players from farm thru their prime years and I would really like the chance to keep them for their entire career (Gallagher and Arranda specifically)

I think the 3x average rule could probably go away as the game really has improved the contract negotiation area.

I do believe we should keep the rules for bonuses though, as I think this can still be used to trick the AI in negotiations
Duane

all but one season .... PEBA

Even though we fell short against Duluth in 2026 ... and SS in 2027 and 2029 8-o
IL still RULES!!!!!
User avatar
Underground
Double-A
Double-A
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:18 am

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#13 Post by Underground »

In my other league, we had a problem with gm's offering long contracts to players in their arby years and the contract being for peanuts. This did affect the competitive balance in the league. We have now brought in a rule of no multi year contract until last year of arby. Not sure how this league stops this exploit happening, but thought I would mention it.
Evan Seary
London Underground
User avatar
Coqui
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1822
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:13 pm

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#14 Post by Coqui »

OK, here are the rules, and my commentary.

1. Yearly salaries within any multi-year contract offer (as a free agent or as an extension of an existing contract) may never decrease. Salaries may only be at or above the value of the previous season’s salary within a multi-year contract offer. While not a requisite, GMs are strongly encouraged to realistically escalate salaries over the life of a multi-year contract.

I think this rule should be eliminated. At one point, the IRL justification was probably true, but it no longer is. IRL, there are plenty of contracts, particularly for veterans, that have flat and/or declining contract values.

2. The salary in the first year of an extension must be at or above the value of the player’s current year salary. If you wish to sign the player to a contract with a salary lower than what he is currently making, you must first let him test free agency. Once a player reaches free agency, you may offer him whatever you like.

I think this is a fine rule, and it appears not to have been violated.

3. Extensions of three or more years in length must adhere to the following minimum salary restrictions:
All contract years that cover a player’s arbitration years must feature a salary at least equal to the league average salary.
All contract years that cover a player’s free agency years must feature a salary at least triple the league average salary.
For the purpose of calculating contract years, an option year will counted as a contract year.

I think that this is a pretty important rule to keep, at least with respect to players who have not yet met free agency. (I will admit, however, that I think that we have a tendency to get more upset about "extended" salaries during the six years when a team controls a player than is prudent - with the exception of the top 1% or 2% of players for whom team's might make out like bandits, teams get and are supposed to get good value in those years out of a contract - that's a feature, not a bug.) If we wanted to simplify, I'd be happy to modify the rule as follows:
Extensions of three or more years in length given to any player prior to that player's last off-season of arbitration must adhere to the following minimum salary restrictions:
All contract years that cover a player’s arbitration years must feature a salary at least equal to the league average salary.
All contract years that cover a player’s free agency years must feature a salary at least triple the league average salary.
No such extension can cover more than one of a player's free agency years [unless the second and later free agency years are subject to a player opt-out or player options and under no circumstances shall an extension cover more than three of a player's free agency years.]
For the purpose of calculating contract years, an option year will counted as a contract year.
Exception : Between the conclusion of a league’s playoffs and the arrival of free agency, qualifying veterans may be offered a 1-year contract at a salary no less than 75% of the player’s current salary. The qualifications are as follows:
Player is at least 33 years old as of the conclusion of a league’s playoffs
Player has a Loyalty rating of “Normal” or higher
Player has enough service time to qualify for free agency
Player has signed at least one previous major league contract with his current team
Player has been under major league contract with his current team for the previous three consecutive seasons or six total seasons

I'm pretty agnostic on this rule either way. It feels like it should be relaxed, if not eliminated, to me. But I never have any old players who are worth a darn, so I may not be the best to consult on this one.

4. Teams may not sign a player to a major league extension within 45 days of his signing a major league contract. A brief cool-down period is required before a new contract may be extended.

This seems logical, and hasn't been violated. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

5. If a contract with a player is voided, the GM’s next contract offer to the player must feature a guaranteed average yearly salary at least 150% of the average salary of the previous offer (including option years).

This hasn't been enforced. I think if we can streamline the rules, it probably should be enforced, except for de minimis violations. (I would call the Cards' Paul DeJong contract above a de minimis violation, missing the amount in two contraact years by ~$400K.)

Bonus Clauses: Bonus clauses in contracts are governed by several house rules, both for free agents and extensions. Contracts in violation of these rules are subject to review by the Board, which reserves the right to void the contract. If you wish to offer a contract that breaks one or more of these rules, contact the Board prior to making the offer to explain your intent. You will be provided with guidance on an agreeable contract offer.

1. Players must meet a minimum average guaranteed salary value in order to qualify to be offered Royal Raker or Golden Arm bonus.
Contracts require an average guaranteed yearly salary value of at least $5M to qualify for award bonus offers.
Example: GMs are allowed to offer a Royal Raker bonus along with a contract offer of $4M for 2010, $5M for 2011 and $6M for 2012 (average value of $5M). If the $6M for 2012 is absent from the offer (dropping the average value

I'm ambivalent on this one, but if we believe that there is a loophole in the way that OOTP values these bonuses, then I'm fine with a once per season (in the offseason) enforcement mechanism indicated in 5 below rather than voiding contracts.


2. PA/IP bonuses can be given to any player, up to 650 PA / 200 IP.

This seems pretty lenient. I might match-up the vesting bonus thresholds indicated below with the PA/IP bonuses.

3. The cap on the amount of total bonus money that may be offered is 25% of the highest guaranteed yearly salary in the contract.
Example: In a contract offer of $5M for 2010, $6M for 2011 and a $7M option for 2012, a GM may offer bonuses up to $1.5M (25% of $6M, the highest guaranteed yearly salary in the contract).

Same comment as 1 in this same bonus list above.

4. From June 6th until the end of the PEBA playoffs, bonuses may only be offered to free agents if the contract spans multiple seasons.

This seems like a keeper.

5. If a contract features an illegal bonus, the bonus will be added to yearly salaries. Example: GMs cannot include Royal Raker or Golden Arm bonuses unless the average guaranteed yearly salary value of the contract is at least $5M. If a PEBA team signs a contract with a player that features an average guaranteed yearly salary value of $4.5M and includes a $1M Royal Raker bonus, that bonus will be eliminated and $1M will be added to the base salary of each season covered by the contract.

I think this is a good way to police this. It is a rule, and one that is oft-violated apparently.

Vesting, Player and Team Options
These are allowed in multi-year contracts subject to the following provisos
Player options must precede team options when both are offered in the same contract
Team options must include a buyout fee of at least 25% of that year's salary
Vesting options must be realistic. You cannot ask for more than PITCHERS 30 games started, 180 IP (starters) , 20 games finished (Relievers). BATTERS 450 AB, 120 games played.

I think that this is all fine, except that the 25% buyout minimum seems a bit too high to me. You often see $1M to $2M buyouts in $12.5M-$15M contract years IRL. That's pretty small beer, though, and probably not worth a rule change. This is the second-most violated rule, it appears, after the minimum-contract-value-for-award-bonus rule. I think it is probably a more important rule to have in extension offers than in the open free agent market. In any event, I vote to keep and to educate.
James
GM San Juan Coqui
User avatar
Borealis
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8430
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: GM Participation and Compliance

#15 Post by Borealis »

I see I'm not alone... So here are the contract rules, with my commentary and ideas italicized:

1. Yearly salaries within any multi-year contract offer may never decrease.
I think this is fair - they can certainly remain equal. I do realize that Front-Loading a contract is not an uncommon practice IRL these day - BUT... this usually occurs (so it seems) in players who are older and have already signed a free-agent deal in the past. Seeing that this would be a more difficult thing to track - for GM's and Commish alike, I'd recommend picking an age (say... 32?) where a de-esculator can be added to deals. what those parameters would be, IDK - maybe this is a place were we simplify and say 'whatever the game allows'.

2. The salary in the first year of an extension must be at or above the value of the player’s current year salary.
Again, this is a fair, no brainer - although, I suppose if a player meets the above criteria for a de-esculator (#1), maybe we allow a lesser deal, or year 1 is equal to previous, year 2 can be a lesser value.

3. Extensions of three or more years in length must adhere to the following minimum salary restrictions:
o All contract years that cover a player’s arbitration years must feature a salary at least equal to the league average salary.
o All contract years that cover a player’s free agency years must feature a salary at least triple the league average salary.
o For the purpose of calculating contract years, an option year will count as a contract year.

This is the difficult part for most folks, I believe. Then again, I also believe these are reasonable and with some help, easy to implement. Again, I advocate for the League Average be posted at the top of the forum for easy access - I don't know where it is - or what it is. I assume it's in the low $1M's. I also think we could place on the Forum header what the 3x League minimum is (currently in the mid-$3M's?) so we have exactly what your minimum offer needs to be listed for easy viewing. Remember - it's ONLY the years that are Arby years that must be at or above the average and ONLY the years that are FA years that must be at 3x or greater. So, for example, a 6-year deal for a pre-argy guy could look like, minimally: Y1 - above minimum wage; Y2-4 - League average (arby years); Y5-6 - 3x League Average. This is the clause that one has to gel on the most.

4. Old-Timer Loyalty Clause: Between the conclusion of a league’s playoffs and the arrival of free agency, qualifying veterans may be offered a 1-year contract at a salary no less than 75% of the player’s current salary. The qualifications are as follows:
• Player is at least 33 years old as of the conclusion of a league’s playoffs
• Player has a Loyalty rating of “Normal” or higher
• Player has enough service time to qualify for free agency
• Player has signed at least one previous major league contract with his current team
• Player has been under major league contract with his current team for the previous three consecutive seasons or six total seasons

I like this rule, and maybe we convert this into the basis for all de-esculator clauses - maybe we keep the loyalty piece or dump it. Dumping it allows this rule to be simpler. The other conditions are all likely to have been met by a player of 33-years of age, so I think we could slash and burn the conditions - and a player who hasn't, really isn't going to make a big difference in the PEBAverse, or so it seems. The lone exception would be those Int. FA we get from the Winter Leagues. Not sure how to deal with those.

5. Teams may not sign a player to a major league extension within 45 days of his signing a major league contract.
I'm not sure this rule really impacts anything. I get why it's there, but has it ever really been an issue?

6. If a contract with a player is voided, the GM’s next contract offer to the player must feature a guaranteed average yearly salary at least 150% of the average salary of the previous offer (including option years).
Just gonna say - we do have penalties for non-compliance. Don't get me wrong - I totally get that a penalty like this would push folks the wrong way, alienate them, and maybe cause them to leave - much less turn the Commish into a 'cop' role that isn't necessarily fair. Then again, society has penalties for bad behavior for a reason. What I would say is I have always felt the 150% rue was harsh. Plus, breaking a contract with the player is likely to make it impossible to sign them - which is a double whammy. It's already difficult to negotiate with players (at times), and it doesn't really reflect the give and take that naturally would happen IRL. My thought: If there is an offending contract, give the GM a 72-hour window (upon notification after the sim) to negotiate a correction with the Commish that is deemed acceptable. If 72-hour pass, the Commish/Board has the power to make the revisions. No canceling of the contract (though maybe in extreme cases that should still be an option), no massive penalty (ditch the 150%), and in most cases the fixes (as per the current list Morris posted) are pretty simple. Maybe we post the bad contracts at the top of the Forum, too, so guys can see what's up - I had no idea there were 44 bad contracts!

Bonus Clauses: Contracts in violation of these rules are subject to review by the Board, which reserves the right to void the contract.
1. Players must meet a minimum average guaranteed salary value in order to qualify to be offered Royal Raker or Golden Arm bonus:
o Contracts require an average guaranteed yearly salary value of at least $5M to qualify for award bonus offers.
2. PA/IP bonuses can be given to any player, up to 650 PA / 200 IP.
3. The cap on the amount of total bonus money that may be offered is 25% of the highest guaranteed yearly salary in the contract.
4. From June 6th until the end of the PEBA playoffs, bonuses may only be offered to free agents if the contract spans multiple seasons.
5. If a contract features an illegal bonus, the bonus will be added to yearly salaries.

So, off the top, the Board can void, so allow the board to repair to the minimum necessary values. As I mentioned earlier, I'd suggest ditching the $5M minimum and simply make this a bonus cannot exceed 25% of the salary for a given year. The appearance limits are pretty high - only Mike Britt managed 650 PA for Aurora and only Provost and 'Tugboat' have regularly hit 200 IP (though I bet I tend to have a longer leash than many in the settings), so one would have to truly be unreasonable to go illegal here. Besides, if you really want a safeguard against paying a bonus (or have a contract vest), bench the player. Gaming the system? Maybe, but it's not unheard of IRL.

Vesting, Player and Team Options
These are allowed in multi-year contracts subject to the following provisos
• Player options must precede team options when both are offered in the same contract
The logic makes sense, but certainly a place we could trim complexity
• Team options must include a buyout fee of at least 25% of that year’s salary
Again the logic makes sense, and this reflects reality, but the game messes guys up by putting in it's own value. I'd say this is a simple Commish fix and we allow that to unilaterally to happen
• Vesting options must be realistic. You cannot ask for more than:
Pitchers:
• 30 games started, 180 IP (starters)
• 20 games finished (Relievers)
Batters:
o 450 AB, 120 games played

These are totally reasonable - just be aware. Perhaps we make these numbers match the bonus numbers - or vice versa? Just a thought.

So that's my take and 2¢... I think the main issue within this whole thread is making things easier for us to comply to a set of standards, and perhaps at the same time, make it easier on the Commish to monitor. We can maintain what we have and even make some additions, with some minimal streamlining and increased (awareness) information sharing. I truly believe that if we are taking the time to think about a contract and how it impacts our teams enough to make an offer, it should be that difficult to be aware of the rules we live by. But that's just me...
Michael Topham, President Golden Entertainment & President-CEO of the Aurora Borealis
Image
2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 PEBA Champions
Post Reply

Return to “PEBA General Discussion”