 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Short Term League Talk » Another Salary League (ASL) Schedule
thatrogue
August 23, 2010 at 05:52PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoostersI guess this depends upon how the salaries of retired players are counted against the cap. If the whole salary counts, then there is no need to deeply discount the present value of future contract salaries running past age OS34. However, if there is some portion of the future contract value that is not counted against the cap in the case of retirement, then discounting the contract's present value, based on retirement likelihood, is rational.
I don't see the logic behind a player like [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=132]Bourque[/url] taking a 1 year $5 million deal when there is a 2 year $4.3 million per year deal on the table.
I think there has to be some change in logic for players entering decline .
[Edited on 8-23-2010 by tworoosters]
tm4559
August 23, 2010 at 06:03PM View BBCode
wow. i can't get anything to sign with my team. i can't blame them really.
tworoosters
Essentially by passing up the two year deal at $4.3 per year Bourque is gambling that after decline he will be worth more than $3.6 million dollars for 1951 when currently there are only 2 catchers in the league making in excess of $3.6 million annually .
The current model rewards teams for offering a one year deal to declining players which is contrary to how the real world works.
Under the current sim system a 35 year old player will always accept a $5 million one year deal over a $4 million per year 3 year deal, which is counterintuitive .
[Edited on 8-23-2010 by tworoosters]
August 23, 2010 at 06:03PM View BBCode
My issue was with Bourque's logic.Essentially by passing up the two year deal at $4.3 per year Bourque is gambling that after decline he will be worth more than $3.6 million dollars for 1951 when currently there are only 2 catchers in the league making in excess of $3.6 million annually .
The current model rewards teams for offering a one year deal to declining players which is contrary to how the real world works.
Under the current sim system a 35 year old player will always accept a $5 million one year deal over a $4 million per year 3 year deal, which is counterintuitive .
[Edited on 8-23-2010 by tworoosters]
BigMacAttack
I'm not sure what this has to do with roosters concern that a guy going into decline would take a $5 mil 1 year deal as opposed to $ 4.3 for 2 years (1 of them in decline). Why would the player care about the cap hit if he retires?
By the way you are responsible for the full value of the player's contract if he retires. I've never seen anyone retire with mor than 1 year left but I think if that happened you'd have the option to pay it off over the life of the deal or as a 1 year lum sum
August 23, 2010 at 06:12PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
I guess this depends upon how the salaries of retired players are counted against the cap. If the whole salary counts, then there is no need to deeply discount the present value of future contract salaries running past age OS34. However, if there is some portion of the future contract value that is not counted against the cap in the case of retirement, then discounting the contract's present value, based on retirement likelihood, is rational.
I'm not sure what this has to do with roosters concern that a guy going into decline would take a $5 mil 1 year deal as opposed to $ 4.3 for 2 years (1 of them in decline). Why would the player care about the cap hit if he retires?
By the way you are responsible for the full value of the player's contract if he retires. I've never seen anyone retire with mor than 1 year left but I think if that happened you'd have the option to pay it off over the life of the deal or as a 1 year lum sum
tm4559
(yes, i am almost sure that makes sense. everywhere except bizarro world.)
August 23, 2010 at 06:17PM View BBCode
if they retire, then you shouldn't have to pay. that would make sense, wouldn't it?(yes, i am almost sure that makes sense. everywhere except bizarro world.)
thatrogue
Of course, since the teams are responsible for the entire value of the contract, whether the player retires or not, this is not relevant. Thus, Rooster's (and your) point is valid...there is no reason for a player to accept a one year $5M deal instead of a three year $4.6M/year deal. I imagine there is some logic for a slight mathematical discounting (simulating true PV of future contracts at some reasonable, standard discount rate)...but not to the extent that is currently used.
Will anyone here from the AML share the discount logic/formula with the rest of us?
[Edited on 8-23-2010 by thatrogue]
August 23, 2010 at 06:22PM View BBCode
Originally posted by BigMacAttackThe only way the player would care is if it "knows" that it is not in control of it's retirement decision and wants to maximize the present value of any contract. However, it is obvious that would not be the case for implementing such logic into the game. The real reason for doing so would be to prevent owners from benefiting from contract values that would never hit their caps.
Originally posted by thatrogue
I guess this depends upon how the salaries of retired players are counted against the cap. If the whole salary counts, then there is no need to deeply discount the present value of future contract salaries running past age OS34. However, if there is some portion of the future contract value that is not counted against the cap in the case of retirement, then discounting the contract's present value, based on retirement likelihood, is rational.
I'm not sure what this has to do with roosters concern that a guy going into decline would take a $5 mil 1 year deal as opposed to $ 4.3 for 2 years (1 of them in decline). Why would the player care about the cap hit if he retires?
By the way you are responsible for the full value of the player's contract if he retires. I've never seen anyone retire with mor than 1 year left but I think if that happened you'd have the option to pay it off over the life of the deal or as a 1 year lum sum
Of course, since the teams are responsible for the entire value of the contract, whether the player retires or not, this is not relevant. Thus, Rooster's (and your) point is valid...there is no reason for a player to accept a one year $5M deal instead of a three year $4.6M/year deal. I imagine there is some logic for a slight mathematical discounting (simulating true PV of future contracts at some reasonable, standard discount rate)...but not to the extent that is currently used.
Will anyone here from the AML share the discount logic/formula with the rest of us?
[Edited on 8-23-2010 by thatrogue]
tworoosters
bizarro world or the NHL, which may be the same thing, in the NHL free agents over the age of 34 who are signed have their salary count against the cap regardless of whether or not they retire, but that's a weighted cap issue which does not apply in sim.
August 23, 2010 at 06:25PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
if they retire, then you shouldn't have to pay. that would make sense, wouldn't it?
(yes, i am almost sure that makes sense. everywhere except bizarro world.)
bizarro world or the NHL, which may be the same thing, in the NHL free agents over the age of 34 who are signed have their salary count against the cap regardless of whether or not they retire, but that's a weighted cap issue which does not apply in sim.
thatrogue
However, while I understand the rationale for wanting that...it just does not make any sense (unless playing in bizarro world).
August 23, 2010 at 06:29PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559Yes, that would make sense. It seems that someone did not want an owner to sign a player via a $4.6/yr deal over three seasons (beating out a one season, $5M deal), and not suffer any financial penalty if that player retired.
if they retire, then you shouldn't have to pay. that would make sense, wouldn't it?
(yes, i am almost sure that makes sense. everywhere except bizarro world.)
However, while I understand the rationale for wanting that...it just does not make any sense (unless playing in bizarro world).
tm4559
why not just make all contracts for players os 34 and older one year maximum? why not? why go to the trouble of writing special stuff or worrying about why players take 5 million for one year or 4.3 for two years, and making folks pay contracts for players that retired? just make them all one year deals.
August 23, 2010 at 06:30PM View BBCode
yeah.why not just make all contracts for players os 34 and older one year maximum? why not? why go to the trouble of writing special stuff or worrying about why players take 5 million for one year or 4.3 for two years, and making folks pay contracts for players that retired? just make them all one year deals.
BigMacAttack
the purpose of having us be responsible for the leftover salary is to prevent the Ilya Kovaluchuk type deals (paying a guy 6 million/year until he's 44) well 10 mil per year for a few years then .5 mil for the last 5 years of the deal to adjust the average salary and cap value to 6 mil/year
August 23, 2010 at 06:31PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
if they retire, then you shouldn't have to pay. that would make sense, wouldn't it?
(yes, i am almost sure that makes sense. everywhere except bizarro world.)
the purpose of having us be responsible for the leftover salary is to prevent the Ilya Kovaluchuk type deals (paying a guy 6 million/year until he's 44) well 10 mil per year for a few years then .5 mil for the last 5 years of the deal to adjust the average salary and cap value to 6 mil/year
tm4559
August 23, 2010 at 06:33PM View BBCode
(this would of course be better for game play if we had never started showing the decline. showing the decline. too much information. never should the decline have been showed the way it is showed now.)
tm4559
what?
i mean....
what?
nobody going to do that if you make the deals one year. nobody is going to pay out for a player that is declining, and they can plainly see the decline. this is a windmill thing, right? and you're tilting at it.
August 23, 2010 at 06:35PM View BBCode
Originally posted by BigMacAttack
Originally posted by tm4559
if they retire, then you shouldn't have to pay. that would make sense, wouldn't it?
(yes, i am almost sure that makes sense. everywhere except bizarro world.)
the purpose of having us be responsible for the leftover salary is to prevent the Ilya Kovaluchuk type deals (paying a guy 6 million/year until he's 44) well 10 mil per year for a few years then .5 mil for the last 5 years of the deal to adjust the average salary and cap value to 6 mil/year
what?
i mean....
what?
nobody going to do that if you make the deals one year. nobody is going to pay out for a player that is declining, and they can plainly see the decline. this is a windmill thing, right? and you're tilting at it.
tm4559
still......my........favorite.
August 23, 2010 at 06:36PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
Now that makes much more sense.
still......my........favorite.
Hamilton2
What we attempted to do when we created it was exactly what you just said: encourage older and declining players to sign longer deals. However, I don't think that we set up a penalty for a shorter term deal, instead, we increased the incentive of a long-term one. So, the 2 year, 4.3M bid was considered at a 4.62M rate, which is just over a 7% increase.
Is it a huge bump? No. Does it make a significant difference sometimes? Yes, it does.
For example, if the contract offered had been 3 years for 4.3M instead of 2 years, the adjusted value would have been 4.95M, which is a mere fraction less than the 5M for 1 year. He would have still taken the 1 year in that instance, but a 4.6M for 3 years (Rooster's example) would have won out as it adjusts to greater than 5M.
August 23, 2010 at 06:38PM View BBCode
The signing formula is not perfect; but then, I've never heard of a rationale free agent in real life, either.What we attempted to do when we created it was exactly what you just said: encourage older and declining players to sign longer deals. However, I don't think that we set up a penalty for a shorter term deal, instead, we increased the incentive of a long-term one. So, the 2 year, 4.3M bid was considered at a 4.62M rate, which is just over a 7% increase.
Is it a huge bump? No. Does it make a significant difference sometimes? Yes, it does.
For example, if the contract offered had been 3 years for 4.3M instead of 2 years, the adjusted value would have been 4.95M, which is a mere fraction less than the 5M for 1 year. He would have still taken the 1 year in that instance, but a 4.6M for 3 years (Rooster's example) would have won out as it adjusts to greater than 5M.
tm4559
"the player will return (not retire) if it is under contract." no matter how bad it played.
then, folks could just haul off and give them the hockey contract if that is what they feel like they have to do.
August 23, 2010 at 06:38PM View BBCode
either make them all one year deals, or write this line of code:"the player will return (not retire) if it is under contract." no matter how bad it played.
then, folks could just haul off and give them the hockey contract if that is what they feel like they have to do.
Hamilton2
I'll find a link to the AML salary info, it will explain the forumula well.
August 23, 2010 at 06:39PM View BBCode
The salaries for declining players do have a maximum length. It is 2 seasons. For an OS 34 player, it can be 3, because you get the 1st season prior to decline and then 2 more in the decline.I'll find a link to the AML salary info, it will explain the forumula well.
tm4559
August 23, 2010 at 06:43PM View BBCode
yeah, i could see it was two years when i did the bids page. i am just saying, you could make life more simple if you just made them one year deals. that may or may not appeal to more folks, i can't really say.
Admin
I think it would be realistic and make sense to have players under contract never retire.
Tyson
August 23, 2010 at 06:47PM View BBCode
You have to remember that all of these formulas were created outside the system. There wasn't a way for the AML to prevent retirements.I think it would be realistic and make sense to have players under contract never retire.
Tyson
tm4559
August 23, 2010 at 06:48PM View BBCode
sure it is realistic. in real life, they stay and play (or sit, whatever) to get paid.
Hamilton2
I think it would be great to not allow players to retire under contract.
August 23, 2010 at 06:51PM View BBCode
[url=http://forum.topindustrynews.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=204240]Here is the original conversation[/url] regarding the free agent signing formula.I think it would be great to not allow players to retire under contract.
thatrogue
August 23, 2010 at 06:53PM View BBCode
But the problem is the formula itself, isn't it? Very few real players would not prefer $4.3 million per for two or three seasons instead of $5 million for one season.
BigMacAttack
It is very rare that someone will retire with money left on the table
[Edited on 8-23-2010 by BigMacAttack]
August 23, 2010 at 06:54PM View BBCode
I'd agree with that - really the only way people leave in real life (if they still have money remaining) is if they get cut or bought out (and then still get paid) or they are injured to the point they can no longer play (and then the team and their contract insurance company fight it out over who pays I think).It is very rare that someone will retire with money left on the table
[Edited on 8-23-2010 by BigMacAttack]
BigMacAttack
I'd take $5 for 1 year and then hope to get $3.6 or more the next year. over 3 years is a different story if I'm getting near the end.
August 23, 2010 at 06:58PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
But the problem is the formula itself, isn't it? Very few real players would not prefer $4.3 million per for two or three seasons instead of $5 million for one season.
I'd take $5 for 1 year and then hope to get $3.6 or more the next year. over 3 years is a different story if I'm getting near the end.
Admin
Salary leagues that use Retirement system 2 or 3 will also have a clause that says players under contract cannot retire. I've set the Test Salary League to use system 2, and Another Salary League to use system 3 so we can test.
Tyson
August 23, 2010 at 07:30PM View BBCode
It looks like the AML decided against this. I figured out a way to make this configurable by league though.Salary leagues that use Retirement system 2 or 3 will also have a clause that says players under contract cannot retire. I've set the Test Salary League to use system 2, and Another Salary League to use system 3 so we can test.
Tyson