danpac47
Offline
Trade Mod / Red Sox GM
Posts: 786
Threads: 92
Joined: Aug 2010
It's been mentioned before, but just thought I'd post just in case we forgot.
Maybe somewhere between 80-90% would be cool.
Mad_Trapper
Offline
LA Dodgers GM
Posts: 560
Threads: 267
Joined: Nov 2010
agree, would help move more players
Dogers GM 2031- present
Twins GM from 2015-2027
2026 ALDS Winner (Twins)
2022 AL wild Card (Twins)
mike
Offline
Florida Marlins GM - Holds record for most times to quit and come back
Posts: 3,931
Threads: 1,225
Joined: Jul 2010
I agree. In real life its not imo to basically tell a guy that no matter how you perform atyour job your going to get paid this amount. Your money should have to be earned. Now I realise in this game you can take advantage of that fact especially during the re-signings phase, but during the FA bidding phase we have pretty much eliminated that with out new rules. Even if it was lowered a bit it would be nice. As it stands right now your better off letting the guy rot on your team since your paying him either way. I'm sure in real life the player would much rather get paid something to leave the team and then get signed elsewhere so he at least has a chance to play.
mattynokes
Offline
Cleveland Guardians GM
Posts: 8,984
Threads: 4,310
Joined: Feb 2011
One reason for the 100% buyout is because it's easier to figure out. The game has a 50% buyout, so it's an easy times two and you know the figure. But I do think lightening it up a bit would be good. I think the best thing to do is make it so the more years left, the greater percentage you still have to pay.
Final Year: 75% Remaining Contract
Two Years Remaining: 80% Remaining Contract
Three Years Remaining: 85% Remaining Contract
Four Years+ Remaining: 90% Remaining Contract
Cleveland Record: 5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4
ALW: Mariners + Angels Record: 1072-864 (.554) [2042-2048, 2105-2110]
AL Post: 3 (ALW), 4 (WC) - ALDS Win: 3 - ALCS Champ: 1 - WS Champ: 1
NLW: Rockies + Padres Record: 3230-2753 (.540) [2017-2042, 2072-2082]
NL Post: 18 (NLW), 4 (WC) - NLDS Win: 7 - NLCS Champ: 4 - WS Champ: 0
danpac47
Offline
Trade Mod / Red Sox GM
Posts: 786
Threads: 92
Joined: Aug 2010
matty's suggestion is nice.
AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 15,179
Threads: 3,849
Joined: Jul 2010
(05-04-2011, 05:16 AM)mike Wrote: I agree. In real life its not imo to basically tell a guy that no matter how you perform atyour job your going to get paid this amount. Your money should have to be earned. Now I realise in this game you can take advantage of that fact especially during the re-signings phase, but during the FA bidding phase we have pretty much eliminated that with out new rules. Even if it was lowered a bit it would be nice. As it stands right now your better off letting the guy rot on your team since your paying him either way. I'm sure in real life the player would much rather get paid something to leave the team and then get signed elsewhere so he at least has a chance to play.
In real life - money talks, playing time is just a bonus. 100% buyouts are a reality in MLB for a reason.
mike
Offline
Florida Marlins GM - Holds record for most times to quit and come back
Posts: 3,931
Threads: 1,225
Joined: Jul 2010
Even so, in a video game sense its better to let another chance snatch up the player if they could use them.
AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 15,179
Threads: 3,849
Joined: Jul 2010
(05-07-2011, 08:46 PM)mike Wrote: Even so, in a video game sense its better to let another chance snatch up the player if they could use them.
It makes even more sense serving as a way to deter people from handing out contracts they can't afford or will later back out of. Especially when you consider FA.
dejota
Offline
Admin / Astros GM / 2012 & 2016 Champion
Posts: 3,778
Threads: 548
Joined: Jul 2010
05-08-2011, 02:28 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-08-2011, 02:30 AM by dejota.)
I think Andy hit the nail on the head.
100% has certainly resulted in a new level of responsibility that's both realistic and has long-term benefits to league health. However, it expedites wrecking franchises and can really complicate a rebuild when paired with unlucky prospect development or injuries.
Lowered buyouts allows for GMs to only have to pay X% on the dollar on their mistakes while benefiting fully from the rare player who produces the life of his contract. I think Matty noted in another thread something about if contracts are guaranteed so should performance to some degree, and I could disagree with that assessment more. In baseball you pay 100% for both and in the end success is often about mitigating or not making mistakes on long-term deals. I think a far more reasonable course of action would be GMs limiting deals longer than 5 deals like GMs in the real MLB have learned to do, at least the one's who keep their jobs for longer than 3 or 4 seasons.
However, we still need to decide which is more beneficial to the league's health, both long and short term? The reason I haven't already approved this suggestion is because I feel we've addressed any short term issues by allowing trading of DPs and I really think we should give guaranteed contracts longer than one full season before passing judgement. At this point I think any poor impact is more of a side-effect and we're forgetting that we've cured the cancer that has been irresponsible contracts.
Houston Astros - 2012/2016/2023/2025 Champs!
Cumulative Record: 1894 - 1184 (.615%)
mike
Offline
Florida Marlins GM - Holds record for most times to quit and come back
Posts: 3,931
Threads: 1,225
Joined: Jul 2010
I liked Mattys tier system where you pay a percentaged based on the amount of time remaining on their contract. Maybe even flip it upside down and the earlier in the ocntract it is the less u pay, that way in the later years your still shooting yourself in the foot because you still have toi pay quite a bit. Say like:
1st year 50%
2nd year 60%
3rd year 75%
4th year 85%
5th year 90%
etc.
|
