Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

[Mike Lowe]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

Here is what I'm planning to do:

I'm sticking with my v1.0 franchise. I like the real life contracts, and plan to double or even triple in some cases the offers AI teams make during the offseason. I play just one season per year, so I'll have the time to manually keep contracts in line, and it won't be that difficult.

As for the impact on morale, the vast majority of MLB players are quite content w their salaries. The ones who are brave enough to vocalize their displeasure are top guys, and those contracts are working just fine.

Point being, I don't mind that most players are happy making millions. Why wouldn't they be?

I like the realistic contract amounts, and I'm hopeful SSD can work in some sort of suppy and demand system to handle whichever contract amounts your league has in place moving forward (carryover saves).

Heck, with a system such as that, you could create different eras of baseball.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Gambo187]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

Personally I use real contracts but give a default set of sponsorships to each team to give teams a little bit more money up front. This I feel gives teams a little perk even with less budget. Also, it gives teams a little perk for performing well despite budget.

There are so many people testing and seeing results that support whichever their view is that I get the idea that there are no issues with either way.

The real contracts overall are not that far off of the real ones. Overall I say...Individuals are off but overall the balance isn't too bad.

The talk about players asking for less is moot. Possibly this is the case when it comes to resigning and arbitration but once the players hit the market more payroll room allows more teams to bid and hence free agents get more money.

(For example, using real contracts m was the 1st time I saw good free agents stick around a reasonable amount of time. It was also the 1st time I saw good veteran FAs sign with teams instead of sitting on the market because teams ran out of money.)

I think worries about "breaking" the financial model are rooted in the much more basic systems gamers are used to. I'm pretty sure that the developers are implementing a closed system and using "available budget" to regulate money pits.

[Armor and Sword]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

Personally I use real contracts but give a default set of sponsorships to each team to give teams a little bit more money up front. This I feel gives teams a little perk even with less budget. Also, it gives teams a little perk for performing well despite budget.

There are so many people testing and seeing results that support whichever their view is that I get the idea that there are no issues with either way.

The real contracts overall are not that far off of the real ones. Overall I say...Individuals are off but overall the balance isn't too bad.

The talk about players asking for less is moot. Possibly this is the case when it comes to resigning and arbitration but once the players hit the market more payroll room allows more teams to bid and hence free agents get more money.

(For example, using real contracts m was the 1st time I saw good free agents stick around a reasonable amount of time. It was also the 1st time I saw good veteran FAs sign with teams instead of sitting on the market because teams ran out of money.)

I think worries about "breaking" the financial model are rooted in the much more basic systems gamers are used to. I'm pretty sure that the developers are implementing a closed system and using "available budget" to regulate money pits.

I strongly believe it affects the trade engine. That is what I concluded with my tests. It really affected 30 team control franchises and the trade engine big time.

If you like trading, wheeling and dealing and being involved as a "Trade Czar" for every trade that occurs (the main reason I use 30 team control is for trading and lineup integrity) then default contracts is IMO the way to go. Editing the years to real life years had zero affect, but real life contract amounts sent the trade engine into a slumber compared to default contract amounts.

[Mike Lowe]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

I strongly believe it affects the trade engine. That is what I concluded with my tests. It really affected 30 team control franchises and the trade engine big time.

If you like trading, wheeling and dealing and being involved as a "Trade Czar" for every trade that occurs (the main reason I use 30 team control is for trading and lineup integrity) then default contracts is IMO the way to go. Editing the years to real life years had zero affect, but real life contract amounts sent the trade engine into a slumber compared to default contract amounts.

In case it helps anyone, on default trade slider w injuries off in both of the tests I streamed, real contracts had 17 trades total, and default contracts had 23 trades total.

You can also go in and easily edit teams' trade blocks, as it seems the AI almost exclusively deals from matching up trade blocks.

I may be mistaken on this part, but w 30 team control, can't you also review pending deals? If so, you could go in and manually tweak any deal that seems out of line.

Personally, I like letting the game handle what it can. Once the season starts, I'm no longer concerned in having things match up as they are simply two different tales at that point.

Hope this helps some folks!

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Armor and Sword]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

In case it helps anyone, on default trade slider w injuries off in both of the tests I streamed, real contracts had 17 trades total, and default contracts had 23 trades total.

You can also go in and easily edit teams' trade blocks, as it seems the AI almost exclusively deals from matching up trade blocks.

I may be mistaken on this part, but w 30 team control, can't you also review pending deals? If so, you could go in and manually tweak any deal that seems out of line.

Personally, I like letting the game handle what it can. Once the season starts, I'm no longer concerned in having things match up as they are simply two different tales at that point.

Hope this helps some folks!

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

The trade delay feature was removed for 16 and again it never came back for 17.

I let all trades happen in 30 team control (29 teams are auto everything except lineups and 40 man rosters). If I see something totally whacked I will reverse it.

But like I said in my example a few pages back. The Rockies went into unload mode midway through two rough seasons (did two tests already) with default contracts, but yet with real contracts, they were not entertaining the idea of trading expiring contracts.

It was weird and that signaled to me that the trade engine is affected by it. That was enough for me to want to use default $$$ with contracts.

But like Mike says....it's a personal choice.

[bravesfan1984]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

I'd give anything for the trade delay option to return. That was such a great feature. Considering the test results Armor got with the Rockies, that's enough for me to use default contracts and not look back. I've already redone all my personal edits with OSFM1.75. No looking back!

[Mike Lowe]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

The more I keep looking at these two tests I streamed out--1.75 and 1.0--it seems to me there's only one true conclusion that can be made:

Neither one works well because the game's trade AI is quite wacky. It truly doesn't make a difference which one you use.

In the 1.75 test, I see teams 10 games out acquiring veterans, and in both 1.75 and 1.0 I see many teams who should be sellers standing pat.

Simming through the offseason w 1.75 I see trades like the Braves sending Freedie Freeman to the Nationals for Daniel Murphy. I see the White Sox trade Jose Abreu for Josh Harrison, only to trade Harrison to the Diamondbacks a few weeks later. Astros acquire Salvador Perez for Evan Gattis. Cleveland trades Carlos Santana and Jose Ramirez.

1.75 notable offseason signings included Yu Darvish to Red Sox, Andrew McCutchen to Blue Jays, Ian Kinsler to Dodgers.

I didn't see 1.75 teams out of contention selling off pieces at the deadline, and heading into 2018, those bad teams still have those veterans. I did see veterans move more in offseason using 1.0, but some may look bad on surface, such as Molina going to KC for Cain. Looking closer, STL at least has a Top 50 catcher prospect. KC using Perez as DH. STL had no one for CF.

1.75 highest rated free agent at spring training: 79 overall Rajai Davis. Jayson Werth 2nd at 77.

Simming through the offseason w 1.0, I see trades like the Royals acquiring Carlos Carrasco for Danny Duffy and Raul Mondesi Jr. Yankees trade newly signed Andrew McCutchen and Brett Gardner to Rays for Chris Archer. Braves acquire Felix Hernandez for 2 pitching prospects. Yankees acquire Starting Marte for Jacoby Ellsbury and a SS prospect.

1.0 notable offseason signings included Wade Davis to Mets, Andrew McCutchen to Yankees (later traded), Brantley to Astros, Sale to Rangers, Hosmer to Nationals.

In 1.75 Oakland trade Ryan Madson to Yankees for CC Sabathia. In 1.0 they traded Madsen to the Yankees for a SP prospect.

1.75 highest rated free agent at spring training: 80 overall Nori Aoki. Jayson Werth 2nd at 77.


Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Culture Rot]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

Then again, say in a carryover save, as soon as the Show team adds in a new feature that allows for more realistic modern-priced budget handling, you'll be stuck with a franchise where everyone is underpaid.

Yeah I'm not too worried there...

[Armor and Sword]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

The more I keep looking at these two tests I streamed out--1.75 and 1.0--it seems to me there's only one true conclusion that can be made:

Neither one works well because the game's trade AI is quite wacky. It truly doesn't make a difference which one you use.

In the 1.75 test, I see teams 10 games out acquiring veterans, and in both 1.75 and 1.0 I see many teams who should be sellers standing pat.

Simming through the offseason w 1.75 I see trades like the Braves sending Freedie Freeman to the Nationals for Daniel Murphy. I see the White Sox trade Jose Abreu for Josh Harrison, only to trade Harrison to the Diamondbacks a few weeks later. Astros acquire Salvador Perez for Evan Gattis. Cleveland trades Carlos Santana and Jose Ramirez.

1.75 notable offseason signings included Yu Darvish to Red Sox, Andrew McCutchen to Blue Jays, Ian Kinsler to Dodgers.

I didn't see 1.75 teams out of contention selling off pieces at the deadline, and heading into 2018, those bad teams still have those veterans. I did see veterans move more in offseason using 1.0, but some may look bad on surface, such as Molina going to KC for Cain. Looking closer, STL at least has a Top 50 catcher prospect. KC using Perez as DH. STL had no one for CF.

1.75 highest rated free agent at spring training: 79 overall Rajai Davis. Jayson Werth 2nd at 77.

Simming through the offseason w 1.0, I see trades like the Royals acquiring Carlos Carrasco for Danny Duffy and Raul Mondesi Jr. Yankees trade newly signed Andrew McCutchen and Brett Gardner to Rays for Chris Archer. Braves acquire Felix Hernandez for 2 pitching prospects. Yankees acquire Starting Marte for Jacoby Ellsbury and a SS prospect.

1.0 notable offseason signings included Wade Davis to Mets, Andrew McCutchen to Yankees (later traded), Brantley to Astros, Sale to Rangers, Hosmer to Nationals.

In 1.75 Oakland trade Ryan Madson to Yankees for CC Sabathia. In 1.0 they traded Madsen to the Yankees for a SP prospect.

1.75 highest rated free agent at spring training: 80 overall Nori Aoki. Jayson Werth 2nd at 77.


Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

This right here is exactly why I employ 30 team control. I love to look over all these deals and determine if it is a yeah or nay.

However I still feel more comfortable rolling with the default contracts for under the hood reasons that the game was built and coded this way and to me I don’t need any logic or budget issues as I plan on playing this file for many seasons to come.

Again personal choice. I think you should be ok either way. Especially if you are the type of franchise player that plays 1-2 seasons max.

I am not.

I am in year 3 of my Yankees 1987 file 30 team control (started it way back on 14)

Year 2 of my single team control Cardinals Fantasy franchise

And now Year 1 of my 2017 Yankees 30 team control

With Y2Y saves I am all in on franchise mode.

[Mike Lowe]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

This right here is exactly why I employ 30 team control. I love to look over all these deals and determine if it is a yeah or nay.

However I still feel more comfortable rolling with the default contracts for under the hood reasons that the game was built and coded this way and to me I don’t need any logic or budget issues as I plan on playing this file for many seasons to come.

Again personal choice. I think you should be ok either way. Especially if you are the type of franchise player that plays 1-2 seasons max.

I am not.

I am in year 3 of my Yankees 1987 file 30 team control (started it way back on 14)

Year 2 of my single team control Cardinals Fantasy franchise

And now Year 1 of my 2017 Yankees 30 team control

With Y2Y saves I am all in on franchise mode.

As much as I prefer not to tinker with other teams, it definitely seems helpful to use 30-team control. You could technically undo the trades you disagree with.

[bravesfan1984]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

As much as I prefer not to tinker with other teams, it definitely seems helpful to use 30-team control. You could technically undo the trades you disagree with.

30 team control is the only way to go, I've used it with every franchise. Personally, keeps me more in tune with all league happenings and such.

[Unsung Hero]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

I think real contracts are the way to go. I'm rebuilding the Blue Jays with real contracts and it was tough to move Russ Martin because of his ridiculous salary and I had to keep him until he retired, which seems pretty realistic to me. There have been no shortage of trades or moves in free agency and I'm now into the year 2020. It also seems like the computer will try to trade salary for salary which makes sense. I think the biggest problem with franchise mode is way too many incoming players who are rated far too highly at such a young age and it totally changes the make up of organizations.

[Caulfield]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

I think the biggest problem with franchise mode is way too many incoming players who are rated far too highly at such a young age and it totally changes the make up of organizations.

I agree and I believe thats because you only have 65 guys down on the farm instead of well over 100. that and the lack of drafting rounds

[Mike Lowe]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

I think real contracts are the way to go. I'm rebuilding the Blue Jays with real contracts and it was tough to move Russ Martin because of his ridiculous salary and I had to keep him until he retired, which seems pretty realistic to me. There have been no shortage of trades or moves in free agency and I'm now into the year 2020. It also seems like the computer will try to trade salary for salary which makes sense. I think the biggest problem with franchise mode is way too many incoming players who are rated far too highly at such a young age and it totally changes the make up of organizations.

Has anyone created a sort of "rookie modifier" to lower the ratings of some of these guys that come in? I know similar utilities exist for creating rosters.

[Gambo187]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

I loved the 30 team control in my league last year because I got to play Game 7 of the WS when the Cubs made it there in mine. They played the Jays. It was a fun opportunity.