AI Teams not re-signing their star players often enough?

[ripwalk]

Myself and another O/S-er created an all fictional roster for MLB The Show 25, here if you'd like more info/to download:

https://forums.operationsports.com/forums/mlb-show-rosters/1029121-o-s-collab-fictional-roster.html

But in simming test seasons with the roster (with all teams on AI control), I'm finding the free agents pool is littered with star players every year.

Even though the AI teams all have financial budget room, I'm noticing that they are very rarely re-signing their best players and almost every elite level player is hitting free agency instead of getting an extension offer.

Similarly, it doesn't seem the AI is offering qualifying offers nearly as often as they should either in order to get draft pick compensation.

I've simmed a bit with the default MLB roster and found it seems to be similar as well ... for whatever reason the AI doesn't seem aggressive with re-signing their own players.

Yet, the AI teams ARE spending money. Once these elite players hit free agency they are getting signed to massive 6, 7, 8 and 9 year contracts, sometimes by the original team that let them walk, and other times by new teams ... in a lot of cases likely for more money than the original team could have extended them for.

So I'm curious, is this a bug, or somehow a limitation of the AI's financial decision ? Or is this maybe something to do with the fictional/custom roster I'm using?

Has anyone else experienced similar?

If I have to use 30-team control and make extension offers that make sense for the AI, I will, as I don't want to see EVERY top star end up in free agency... But I'm hoping there's something I'm overlooking or a way I can make this better.

Thanks!

[kinsmen7]

Re: AI Teams not re-signing their star players often enough?

Myself and another O/S-er created an all fictional roster for MLB The Show 25, here if you'd like more info/to download:

https://forums.operationsports.com/forums/mlb-show-rosters/1029121-o-s-collab-fictional-roster.html

But in simming test seasons with the roster (with all teams on AI control), I'm finding the free agents pool is littered with star players every year.

Even though the AI teams all have financial budget room, I'm noticing that they are very rarely re-signing their best players and almost every elite level player is hitting free agency instead of getting an extension offer.

Similarly, it doesn't seem the AI is offering qualifying offers nearly as often as they should either in order to get draft pick compensation.

I've simmed a bit with the default MLB roster and found it seems to be similar as well ... for whatever reason the AI doesn't seem aggressive with re-signing their own players.

Yet, the AI teams ARE spending money. Once these elite players hit free agency they are getting signed to massive 6, 7, 8 and 9 year contracts, sometimes by the original team that let them walk, and other times by new teams ... in a lot of cases likely for more money than the original team could have extended them for.

So I'm curious, is this a bug, or somehow a limitation of the AI's financial decision ? Or is this maybe something to do with the fictional/custom roster I'm using?

Has anyone else experienced similar?

If I have to use 30-team control and make extension offers that make sense for the AI, I will, as I don't want to see EVERY top star end up in free agency... But I'm hoping there's something I'm overlooking or a way I can make this better.

Thanks!

In fairness here, if a star player is a year or so out from free agency, they'll typically hit the open market. The majority of long term extensions come in the early arbitration years. Obviously Vladdy is an outlier because Toronto gave him a bazillion dollars, but I can't remember a ton of players signing extensions in their walk years, without hitting free agency first.

I'd be curious to see the results 3-4 years down the road, to see *if* CPU teams are offering up extensions to players earlier in their careers (ie. Jackson Merrill, etc.).

[MiracleMet718]

Re: AI Teams not re-signing their star players often enough?

It’s done by design. As mentioned, other than Vladdy, it’s been extremely rare for teams to re-sign their elite players right away when they hit FA. They usually give them a QO and they hit FA anyway, which is pretty well represented in franchise mode since not a lot of QOs are given out in real life unless it’s those top players. They also represent that these players are the ones that set the market, so you’ll see a lot of the other guys who don’t sign until after these players do, outside a handful of of non-QO guys that may sign quickly.

Interesting to see if this changes over the next few years in real life, but it’s been this way for at least the last 5 years now.

[ripwalk]

Re: AI Teams not re-signing their star players often enough?

In fairness here, if a star player is a year or so out from free agency, they'll typically hit the open market. The majority of long term extensions come in the early arbitration years. ).

I honestly believe that's categorically untrue. I don't even think a vast majority of marquee players hit free agency. Some prefer the certainty of an extension to not risk a down year, or a poor free agent market, etc.

For example, from Spotrac, Matt Chapman, Zack Wheeler, Jose Altuve, Ketel Marte, Tommy Edman, Michael Wacha, Reynaldo Lopez, Aaron Bummer, Victor Robles, Matt Strahm and Jacob Waguespack all signed what they list as "veteran extensions" (post arbitration) so far in 2025.

In 2024, Tyler Glasnow, Ian Happ, Chris Sale, Joe Jimenez, Max Muncy, German Marquez, Pierce Johnson, Charlie Blackmon, Travis d'Arnaud, Colin Rea, Luke Maile and Rob Refsnyder signed veteran extensions.

I'd have to run further tests but I'm not seeing anywhere near that number of extensions made in season/spring training/before free agency etc.

What I'm witnessing in game is every year the free agent pool having dozens of players rated 85 and higher overall in it. I don't believe that happens in real life. There's usually only actually a handful of "elite" players in free agency every year in real life.

And when I've popped into some of these players to manually offer contracts, I'm able to get some like 90+ rated studs who are less than 30 years old to extend for fairly reasonable offers (and less than they will get on open market).

I also don't believe the AI in game does really make pre-arbitration contract extensions to buy out some arb years/some free agent years as happens in real life.

I guess what I don't get is the teams DO have money to spend, and they do open up their purse strings once they are competing against everyone else. I just don't know why I'm not seeing more effort for them to retain their own players more often.

[ripwalk]

Re: AI Teams not re-signing their star players often enough?

It’s done by design. As mentioned, other than Vladdy, it’s been extremely rare for teams to re-sign their elite players right away when they hit FA. They usually give them a QO and they hit FA anyway, which is pretty well represented in franchise mode since not a lot of QOs are given out in real life unless it’s those top players. .

Unfortunately I'm not seeing many QO's handed out at all by the AI, even on very elite talent where it would make a lot of sense to do so.

[MizzouRah]

Re: AI Teams not re-signing their star players often enough?

This was an issue in 24 as well, bummer it wasn't addressed with the franchise FA additions.

This is why in 24 I never extend any player who is in their last year, that keeps me on par with the CPU and makes me pay more $$$ if I want to resign them.

[MiracleMet718]

Re: AI Teams not re-signing their star players often enough?

I honestly believe that's categorically untrue. I don't even think a vast majority of marquee players hit free agency. Some prefer the certainty of an extension to not risk a down year, or a poor free agent market, etc.

For example, from Spotrac, Matt Chapman, Zack Wheeler, Jose Altuve, Ketel Marte, Tommy Edman, Michael Wacha, Reynaldo Lopez, Aaron Bummer, Victor Robles, Matt Strahm and Jacob Waguespack all signed what they list as "veteran extensions" (post arbitration) so far in 2025.

In 2024, Tyler Glasnow, Ian Happ, Chris Sale, Joe Jimenez, Max Muncy, German Marquez, Pierce Johnson, Charlie Blackmon, Travis d'Arnaud, Colin Rea, Luke Maile and Rob Refsnyder signed veteran extensions.

I'd have to run further tests but I'm not seeing anywhere near that number of extensions made in season/spring training/before free agency etc.

What I'm witnessing in game is every year the free agent pool having dozens of players rated 85 and higher overall in it. I don't believe that happens in real life. There's usually only actually a handful of "elite" players in free agency every year in real life.

And when I've popped into some of these players to manually offer contracts, I'm able to get some like 90+ rated studs who are less than 30 years old to extend for fairly reasonable offers (and less than they will get on open market).

I also don't believe the AI in game does really make pre-arbitration contract extensions to buy out some arb years/some free agent years as happens in real life.

I guess what I don't get is the teams DO have money to spend, and they do open up their purse strings once they are competing against everyone else. I just don't know why I'm not seeing more effort for them to retain their own players more often.

Chapman hit free agency last year and signed early because he got screwed out of money and didn’t want to miss out again. This winter alone, the following guys reached free agency that’s I’d consider big names:

Christian Walker
Pete Alonso
Willy Adames
Alex Bregman
Tyler O’Neill
Jurickson Profar
Juan Soto
Anthony Santander
Teoscar Hernandez
Max Kepler
Corbin Burnes
Blake Snell
Max Fried
Nate Eovaldi
Jack Flaherty
Sean Manaea
Nick Pivetta
Yusei Kikuchi
Tanner Scott
Jeff Hoffman
Clay Holmes
AJ Minter

Gerrit Cole would be on this list too if he didn’t reverse his decision at the last minute. 2023 was more of a pitchers year, but there were still some pretty big names that made it to FA (especially Ohtani). In 2022, there were 4 SS that went to FA and signed big deals.

A lot of time guys will test FA and then re-sign afterwards too. Most of the extensions in MLB seem to be guys who already got paid and in their mid to late 30s and just looking to get another year or two added on, but most prime aged big time players are usually making it to FA these days.

[countryboy]

Re: AI Teams not re-signing their star players often enough?

I honestly believe that's categorically untrue. I don't even think a vast majority of marquee players hit free agency. Some prefer the certainty of an extension to not risk a down year, or a poor free agent market, etc.

For example, from Spotrac, Matt Chapman, Zack Wheeler, Jose Altuve, Ketel Marte, Tommy Edman, Michael Wacha, Reynaldo Lopez, Aaron Bummer, Victor Robles, Matt Strahm and Jacob Waguespack all signed what they list as "veteran extensions" (post arbitration) so far in 2025.

In 2024, Tyler Glasnow, Ian Happ, Chris Sale, Joe Jimenez, Max Muncy, German Marquez, Pierce Johnson, Charlie Blackmon, Travis d'Arnaud, Colin Rea, Luke Maile and Rob Refsnyder signed veteran extensions.

I'd have to run further tests but I'm not seeing anywhere near that number of extensions made in season/spring training/before free agency etc.

What I'm witnessing in game is every year the free agent pool having dozens of players rated 85 and higher overall in it. I don't believe that happens in real life. There's usually only actually a handful of "elite" players in free agency every year in real life.

And when I've popped into some of these players to manually offer contracts, I'm able to get some like 90+ rated studs who are less than 30 years old to extend for fairly reasonable offers (and less than they will get on open market).

I also don't believe the AI in game does really make pre-arbitration contract extensions to buy out some arb years/some free agent years as happens in real life.

I guess what I don't get is the teams DO have money to spend, and they do open up their purse strings once they are competing against everyone else. I just don't know why I'm not seeing more effort for them to retain their own players more often.

The cpu doesn’t yet have the capability of signing players to extensions in season/spring training nor to buy out controlling years.

The only time the cpu can resign players without them being exposed to the 29 other clubs is during the exclusive negotiation period of the offseason


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kinsmen7]

Re: AI Teams not re-signing their star players often enough?

I honestly believe that's categorically untrue. I don't even think a vast majority of marquee players hit free agency. Some prefer the certainty of an extension to not risk a down year, or a poor free agent market, etc.

For example, from Spotrac, Matt Chapman, Zack Wheeler, Jose Altuve, Ketel Marte, Tommy Edman, Michael Wacha, Reynaldo Lopez, Aaron Bummer, Victor Robles, Matt Strahm and Jacob Waguespack all signed what they list as "veteran extensions" (post arbitration) so far in 2025.

In 2024, Tyler Glasnow, Ian Happ, Chris Sale, Joe Jimenez, Max Muncy, German Marquez, Pierce Johnson, Charlie Blackmon, Travis d'Arnaud, Colin Rea, Luke Maile and Rob Refsnyder signed veteran extensions.

I just want to touch on this, because I feel a bit like I'm being "called out" (which may not be true, in which case no worries), but you listed off 23 players over 2 years that signed veteran extensions, and said "Marquee".

By my count, 7 (maybe 8) of those 23 would be considered good-very good-excellent MLBers. Included in that 7 (maybe 8) are 2 guys that already had a run through free agency.

So, if we're using Spotrac, compare that to the list of guys who actually hit free agency over those past 2 seasons.

[ripwalk]

Re: AI Teams not re-signing their star players often enough?

I just want to touch on this, because I feel a bit like I'm being "called out" (which may not be true, in which case no worries), but you listed off 23 players over 2 years that signed veteran extensions, and said "Marquee".

By my count, 7 (maybe 8) of those 23 would be considered good-very good-excellent MLBers. Included in that 7 (maybe 8) are 2 guys that already had a run through free agency.

So, if we're using Spotrac, compare that to the list of guys who actually hit free agency over those past 2 seasons.

I wasn't calling you out, I was just kind of exploring the info for my own info, but was mostly just suggesting that all good players don't necessarily hit free agency in season/offseason extensions do happen.

Those were just veteran contracts too. There were also plenty of pre-arbitration and arbitration extensions every yera, which would likely be where the more 'marquee' young players would be.

But no, was not intending to call anyone out so sorry if it came off that way.

[ripwalk]

Re: AI Teams not re-signing their star players often enough?

The cpu doesn’t yet have the capability of signing players to extensions in season/spring training nor to buy out controlling years.

The only time the cpu can resign players without them being exposed to the 29 other clubs is during the exclusive negotiation period of the offseason


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well that's disappointing to hear, that seems to be a pretty huge limitation of the AI - but makes sense with what I've been seeing.

I've also noticed even if the AI does offer a contract in that 5 day exclusive period, even if the player has 3/4 or more of the interest bar full, they still don't seem to sign before going to free agency.

So that's a huge disadvantage for the AI as the in-season contract extensions are instant response and seem to work fairly well.

I guess solution is for me to perhaps use an RNG and use 30-team control and offer some extensions for players that it makes sense to do so, for the AI.

Thanks for the info.

[kinsmen7]

Re: AI Teams not re-signing their star players often enough?

I wasn't calling you out, I was just kind of exploring the info for my own info, but was mostly just suggesting that all good players don't necessarily hit free agency in season/offseason extensions do happen.

Those were just veteran contracts too. There were also plenty of pre-arbitration and arbitration extensions every yera, which would likely be where the more 'marquee' young players would be.

But no, was not intending to call anyone out so sorry if it came off that way.

All good! The internet is a dangerous place when it comes to how context comes off.

I absolutely agree that the CPU not extending pre-arb/early arb players is a bit of a problem, though at the same time, I'd worry about the fact that it *could* theoretically ruin free agency in the game, especially when it was one of their "Big adds" to franchise mode this year. I think it would be a huge detriment to this game if there were only 1-2 big names hit free agency every year though. Most gamers want to make the big-add to their franchise, whether it be through free agency, or via trade (I always get a chuckle out of the yearly "Improved trade engine").

At the same time, the game doesn't understand "context", which is why *some* of the very good guys who get extended IRL do so...Sale for example, came off a 3 season stretch where he made a combined total of 31 starts...of course he was going to take the money when it was offered (Had he not, he probably easily would have got a 9 figure extension though, after last year...). Glasnow had an injury riddled career to the point of his extension as well. Plenty of examples of this type of player, where I agree, it would be nice to see them as potential CPU extension guys.

The 5 day window seems to be the "fairest" way to make it all work. In past versions of the game, I've created a second save file to sim through that period to see the changes in free agency, and it seems to be a reasonable variation between a player leaving, or the same player staying.