Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Free Agency in a Multi-Player Environment

QuikSand · 12-04-2008, 03:28 AM

Another related issue is a fairly subtle one -- to a player, what is a "good" contract versus a "bad" contract?

Right now, FOF seems to essentially value every contract pretty much the same way -- dollars per year, bonus counts by far the most, then early salary, and then late salary. Oversimplified, but that's the essence. In many cases, this probably works out just great. But, especially when the game leads to the sort of absurd cap flexibility like noted above, there are times when that comparison fails us. And to me, most of them hover around the notion of what the player's expectations really should be.

Easy example - Solid player asking for a reasonable multi year deal at around $10m per season. He gets two offers, one for six years at $14m per season, with half of it bonus, and the second at $15m for one year, half bonus. Should the slight edge there in bonus and total per year make the second offer an obvious winner? I think most of us would think that since he's looking at an offer that is already substantially higher than his own expectations, the better offer is really the one that exceeds his "expected" reward path by more, and that would be the longer term offer.

Second example - same $10m player. Here, nobody makes a really strong offer, and he instead find himself looking at two offers: a multi year deal at $4m per season half bonus, or a one year deal at $3m half bonus. What now? The math of FOF fails us again here - if the player is at the point of "settling" for what seems like an under-market contract, he should prefer the short term deal, not the one that comes out best in value per year. Locking in long term at the lower compensation is like making a midnight run to 7-Eleven to buy batteries, and when you see they are on "sale" marked down from $8 to only $6 for a two-pack you buy the store out.

Obviously, this puts a lot of weight onto the expectations of the player (and having them valued reasonably) but I'd like to think that a more complex system of evaluating the money in contracts could add some more acceptance of how the game works, especially in MP mode. Players preferring different contract lengths based on where the offer lies relative to their expectations, and also based on their own experience relative to their peak, could add something meaningful to the game, I think.

12-04-2008, 03:28 AM	#12
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Another related issue is a fairly subtle one -- to a player, what is a "good" contract versus a "bad" contract? Right now, FOF seems to essentially value every contract pretty much the same way -- dollars per year, bonus counts by far the most, then early salary, and then late salary. Oversimplified, but that's the essence. In many cases, this probably works out just great. But, especially when the game leads to the sort of absurd cap flexibility like noted above, there are times when that comparison fails us. And to me, most of them hover around the notion of what the player's expectations really should be. Easy example - Solid player asking for a reasonable multi year deal at around $10m per season. He gets two offers, one for six years at $14m per season, with half of it bonus, and the second at $15m for one year, half bonus. Should the slight edge there in bonus and total per year make the second offer an obvious winner? I think most of us would think that since he's looking at an offer that is already substantially higher than his own expectations, the better offer is really the one that exceeds his "expected" reward path by more, and that would be the longer term offer. Second example - same $10m player. Here, nobody makes a really strong offer, and he instead find himself looking at two offers: a multi year deal at $4m per season half bonus, or a one year deal at $3m half bonus. What now? The math of FOF fails us again here - if the player is at the point of "settling" for what seems like an under-market contract, he should prefer the short term deal, not the one that comes out best in value per year. Locking in long term at the lower compensation is like making a midnight run to 7-Eleven to buy batteries, and when you see they are on "sale" marked down from $8 to only $6 for a two-pack you buy the store out. Obviously, this puts a lot of weight onto the expectations of the player (and having them valued reasonably) but I'd like to think that a more complex system of evaluating the money in contracts could add some more acceptance of how the game works, especially in MP mode. Players preferring different contract lengths based on where the offer lies relative to their expectations, and also based on their own experience relative to their peak, could add something meaningful to the game, I think.