FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

[countryboy]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

FWIW he was looking for 4-6 years

That could be a factor as well. Had you thrown that yearly salary at him within the years he was looking for, you might have persuaded him.

Or maybe he just didn't wanna play for you.

[braves_94]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

Sooooo close...but then you went ahead and opened up the manhole and jumped in headfirst anyway with this last line.

...and past this contract renewable year....are you seriously saying the the Angels would have had "control" over Mike Trout?
IMO he would have crushed it in arbitration(I think he would have come close to doubling Posey's record deal) AND at least several teams would have uprooted a bank and drove it to Trout's house as soon as he hit the market.
Just as you say he could be injured....he also could hit .350 and 60 homers with 200 RBI.......then what would his 25 million per(average...really 24...but I'll give it to you) look like?


But we'll never know....because he gave the Angels a break.
No if's and's or but's.

M.K.
Knight165

The leap was on purpose. I assure you. How can you possibly question the Angels control of Trout? When every single publication out there references that team control last through arbitration? Yes they control Mike Trout, because they can decide rather or not to keep him on their roster. And not the other way around. Before six years, Trout can't just wake up in the morning and tell the world he's a Yankee. But I'm sure you'll argue semantics. And since you so clearly state IMO before your arbitration opinion, I can't really argue against that. But I will say, on field production isn't the only thing that drives an arbitrators settlement. The other element, I'll let you find out for yourself. Irregardless, my stance on the Stanton situation being different from Trout's real life stands valid. And saying no if, ands, or buts doesn't prove anything. I still stand firm in my stance Trout getting paid as the highest all time in his arbitration years, and first three years after, doesn't seem quite like an outstanding deal.

[TrufflesEater]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

I would say that he decided to play for Toronto thinking he had a better opportunity to be an everyday player then.

I for one like the idea that players just don't always sign for the most money on the table, and have other factors on their mind.

Sounds like an excuse for poorly programmed logic to me. Not to mention that the distinction between small and large market teams is lost. Makes it less of a challenge to win with a small market team.

[countryboy]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

Sounds like an excuse for poorly programmed logic to me. Not to mention that the distinction between small and large market teams is lost. Makes it less of a challenge to win with a small market team.

How is it poorly programmed logic?

Giving a player a sense of personality so that he chooses where he wants to go, or what he's looking for in a club is poorly programmed logic?

What would be the fun in players always signing with the highest bidder?

And how is the distinction between small and large market teams lost? Its not like because Stanton signed with the Blue Jays that all of the sudden they have unlimited resources of money to spend.

---

And in any event, if you read through the entire thread, you'll see where the OP spoke of whom the Jays had in their outfield vs who he had as the Dodgers and that Stanton was seeking 4-6 years in a contract and the OP offered 7 years, thinking that if he through more money that signing him to a longer term contract than he was wanting would sway him to sign the dotted line.

[Mrmagoo]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

How is it poorly programmed logic?

Giving a player a sense of personality so that he chooses where he wants to go, or what he's looking for in a club is poorly programmed logic?

What would be the fun in players always signing with the highest bidder?

And how is the distinction between small and large market teams lost? Its not like because Stanton signed with the Blue Jays that all of the sudden they have unlimited resources of money to spend.

---

And in any event, if you read through the entire thread, you'll see where the OP spoke of whom the Jays had in their outfield vs who he had as the Dodgers and that Stanton was seeking 4-6 years in a contract and the OP offered 7 years, thinking that if he through more money that signing him to a longer term contract than he was wanting would sway him to sign the dotted line.

So now we KNOW that this is the reason behind certain signings or non signings??
Seems to me some of you are simply apply your opinion on these situations and saying it's the truth.
If I'm wrong I apologize, but I didn't see anywhere where it said anything of the sort. All I remember was that it (AI) only looked at the possible starters in the position be considered.

[Knight165]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

See quote above.

And if you believe that Knight is simply applying opinion in this situation, I'll let you know that he has worked closely with the development team for the past few years as a regular attendee of the community day events.

Caveat though countryboy.....

I remember Kolbe(so this is quite a while ago) saying that some coaches/managers won't sign with you.(and it's not a set thing....it could just be a dice roll)
I'm not certain if it pertains to players as well.

M.K.
Knight165

[Knight165]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

Sorry if I caused confusion with that.

M.K.
Knight165

[rjackson]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

I thought that I'd post this question here instead of making a new thread as it seems closely related:

In the offseason, how can you tell which free agents have gotten a qualifying offer? There is a column that states "qualified" as in they qualified for free agency but when the qualifying offer is 9MM+ and they are asking for 1MM, I'm sure that they didn't receive one yet I'd assume that Jon Lester at least did but nothing designating that I'll be giving up a draft pick for him (as an example).

[countryboy]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

Caveat though countryboy.....

I remember Kolbe(so this is quite a while ago) saying that some coaches/managers won't sign with you.(and it's not a set thing....it could just be a dice roll)
I'm not certain if it pertains to players as well.

M.K.
Knight165

Ahh...my bad. I thought you meant that it was tied into players and managers alike.

[Padgoi]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

Caveat though countryboy.....

I remember Kolbe(so this is quite a while ago) saying that some coaches/managers won't sign with you.(and it's not a set thing....it could just be a dice roll)
I'm not certain if it pertains to players as well.

M.K.
Knight165

If this is true and actually applicable in the game, kudos to the developers because we all know this happens in real life. David Price said he would never sign with the Yankees because of their "no beards" policy. But if it's just random and the logic isn't built it, I don't see anyone throwing out that much money. Trout re-signed with the Angels because he's been in L.A. his entire career and by braves94's logic, he didn't really give them a discount. In the situation in this topic, Stanton is going to another team. That's the difference. You're not going to give up $15M per year to sign with another team and not the team you've been with.

[countryboy]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

If this is true and actually applicable in the game, kudos to the developers because we all know this happens in real life. David Price said he would never sign with the Yankees because of their "no beards" policy. But if it's just random and the logic isn't built it, I don't see anyone throwing out that much money. Trout re-signed with the Angels because he's been in L.A. his entire career and by braves94's logic, he didn't really give them a discount. In the situation in this topic, Stanton is going to another team. That's the difference. You're not going to give up $15M per year to sign with another team and not the team you've been with.

In this situation, at least from what I'm reading, Stanton chose to go the Jays because they had an opening in the outfield and offered him the amount of years that he was looking for and I'm guessing the price he wanted.

Stanton, in the game wanted 4-6 years and signed for 4 years at $25M a year.

The OP was playing as the Dodgers, crowded outfield by his admission, and offered $30M a year for 7 years. I thinking if he offers same money at any amount of years between 4-6, he would've been more likely to sign with the Dodgers.

Just going by what info the OP offered.

[Mrmagoo]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

So apparently we don't know then.
Firstly I went back to the beginning and reread the thread and Knight I had completely missed your response to me (my bad) where you did state that some type of code was in place that applied to coaches and players. Now obviously if I would of saw that I wouldn't even have posted my last post. But now you clarified saying it only applies to coaches.
Either way that's no big deal to me.
My main point was how the conversation seemed to move from opinion to fact. (again which really didn't happen due to me missing your earlier response to me) So I apologize for any other confusing I may have added to the subject.
I do wish if there is such code they would add a layer of reality to it in say a note when trying to sign someone that there would be a reason to them not wanting to sign or a possible hurdle that needs to be cleared. It would add to the feel of trying to negotiate such things.

[countryboy]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

So apparently we don't know then.
Firstly I went back to the beginning and reread the thread and Knight I had completely missed your response to me (my bad) where you did state that some type of code was in place that applied to coaches and players. Now obviously if I would of saw that I wouldn't even have posted my last post. But now you clarified saying it only applies to coaches.
Either way that's no big deal to me.
My main point was how the conversation seemed to move from opinion to fact. (again which really didn't happen due to me missing your earlier response to me) So I apologize for any other confusing I may have added to the subject.

No reason to apologize, I misinterpreted what Knight had said which lead to confusion.

I do wish if there is such code they would add a layer of reality to it in say a note when trying to sign someone that there would be a reason to them not wanting to sign or a possible hurdle that needs to be cleared. It would add to the feel of trying to negotiate such things.

I agree 1,000%

I am hopeful that at some point they add something similar to what NBA 2k or even Madden has in place, where guys have certain things they are looking for (contender, money, location, security (years), etc...)

The FA signing is too bland and "straight forward". There needs to be negotiations, outside of just here is my offer, yes or no, and no counter offer or reaction from the player.

[Mrmagoo]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

Yup. Nba 2k was exactly what I was thinking of while I was typing that post.

[Padgoi]

Re: FA Logic just as bad as trade logic?

In this situation, at least from what I'm reading, Stanton chose to go the Jays because they had an opening in the outfield and offered him the amount of years that he was looking for and I'm guessing the price he wanted.

Stanton, in the game wanted 4-6 years and signed for 4 years at $25M a year.

The OP was playing as the Dodgers, crowded outfield by his admission, and offered $30M a year for 7 years. I thinking if he offers same money at any amount of years between 4-6, he would've been more likely to sign with the Dodgers.

Just going by what info the OP offered.

I thought the OP offered 7 years at $40M per?