Proportional contracts

[DanH35]

I know that having real-life contracts messes up payrolls in franchise. Has anybody tested having proportional contracts in franchise? What I mean is looking at a player's real-life contract relative to the team's real-life payroll, then taking that ratio and putting the player's contract in line with the team payroll in game. I don't want to guarantee that I'll do it, but I'm thinking of making a roster set with contracts edited this way. Before I decide if I want to do this, I wanted to see if anybody else has tried something like this and if it effected franchise in a negative way the way real-life contracts did.

[Still2REal]

Re: Proportional contracts

Who are the people that keep saying real contracts mess up payroll? I play with real contracts and their is nothing wrong with budgets and I'm in year 3. If anything I feel the starting budgets are horrible.

[seymmj6]

Re: Proportional contracts

I've found that if you want to use real contracts you need to turn budgets off and turn CPU trading off. Teams generally will still stick to their budgets in the game but turning trades off is crucial since the logic behind the trading system is still not perfect.

Yes, turning CPU trading off does hurt some of the realism, but I really enjoy having real contracts because it makes trading bad assets that much harder. But I agree, I haven't had many issues with real contracts as long as you turn budgets off.

[Knight165]

Re: Proportional contracts

Who are the people that keep saying real contracts mess up payroll? I play with real contracts and their is nothing wrong with budgets and I'm in year 3. If anything I feel the starting budgets are horrible.

Future players.
They are totally out of proportion to the ones you give real contract $$$ to.

Also....when it's re-sign and FA time.
Real bad.

M.K.
Knight165

[Still2REal]

Re: Proportional contracts

Future players.
They are totally out of proportion to the ones you give real contract $$$ to.

Also....when it's re-sign and FA time.
Real bad.

M.K.
Knight165

I've been through 2 re-sign and FAs nothing is different. CC Sabathia went from $25M to like $3M and the Yankees were left with a lot of money to spend... like in real life.They didn't go crazy with spending. In the past, there was some sort of "contract memory" going on to where someone who got off a $25M a year contract would still sign for like $18M or so even rated a Low 80 or high 70.


I keep hearing it "messes with budgets" but haven't seen any specifics. &Unless you think not going over budget or still having money to spend is a problem.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Proportional contracts

I've been through 2 re-sign and FAs nothing is different. CC Sabathia went from $25M to like $3M and the Yankees were left with a lot of money to spend... like in real life.They didn't go crazy with spending. In the past, there was some sort of "contract memory" going on to where someone who got off a $25M a year contract would still sign for like $18M or so even rated a Low 80 or high 70.


I keep hearing it "messes with budgets" but haven't seen any specifics. &Unless you think not going over budget or still having money to spend is a problem.

The budget system this year accelerates at 10-15% a year. When teams start with a higher total amount, then the budget increase is even larger.

As you have stated, contracts offered and recieved are much smaller. Teams have tons of room. What I have seen is less free agents hit the open market because teams can afford to resign the Harper's of the world without dropping a lash.

The bigger issue I find is it affects trade logic. When you start a franchise, each team is given about 10 million in wiggle room. To add a veteran or player mid season they have to trade money as well. So what I see is less trades to improve the team or rid bad contracts and instead see prospects swapped. I have not seen any big names traded or have I seen Transaction alerts pop up with real contracts.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[Still2REal]

Re: Proportional contracts

The budget system this year accelerates at 10-15% a year. When teams start with a higher total amount, then the budget increase is even larger.

As you have stated, contracts offered and recieved are much smaller. Teams have tons of room. What I have seen is less free agents hit the open market because teams can afford to resign the Harper's of the world without dropping a lash.

The bigger issue I find is it affects trade logic. When you start a franchise, each team is given about 10 million in wiggle room. To add a veteran or player mid season they have to trade money as well. So what I see is less trades to improve the team or rid bad contracts and instead see prospects swapped. I have not seen any big names traded or have I seen Transaction alerts pop up with real contracts.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Those are good points. To be honest, I noticed the failure of many players to hit free agency in past games and have been utilizing 30 team control to alleviate it ever since. I simply turn contract and free agency to manual until the final day of exclusive negotiations. I also pick and choose who to give qualifying offers. Using this method, people make it to free agency at a far more reasonable rate.

You got me on trades in year 1, but this only effects year 1 trading. In year 2, everyones budget expands and trades improve.

I guess my point is that there will be issues whether you use the base salary structure or go with real or "close to real" contract figures. I've noticed that with standard contracts, you end up with similar trading and retention of potential free agents

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Proportional contracts

I feel proportional contracts, with correct lengths will work perfectly.
Now the task at hand, IMO, is to find out what that proportion should be.

I don't know really how much even that will help. In the offseason teams will still offer deals on the contract logic I n place.

This is one thing that I want changed in logic if they can never get real salaries.

The contract proportions should be adjusted as well as contracts should inflate as years progress. Right now a player worth 10 million in 2016 is worth 10 million in 2027.

Last year arbitration was very close to real life. They tweaked it this year because players were getting more money in arbitration than when they were free agents. I remember seeing pitchers get 20 million in arbitration and then in the offseason getting 10 million as as a free agent.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[Knight165]

Re: Proportional contracts

I don't know really how much even that will help. In the offseason teams will still offer deals on the contract logic I n place.

This is one thing that I want changed in logic if they can never get real salaries.

The contract proportions should be adjusted as well as contracts should inflate as years progress. Right now a player worth 10 million in 2016 is worth 10 million in 2027.

Last year arbitration was very close to real life. They tweaked it this year because players were getting more money in arbitration than when they were free agents. I remember seeing pitchers get 20 million in arbitration and then in the offseason getting 10 million as as a free agent.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

This is the point I was alluding to.
If you expand the initial budgets by giving them real contracts......the surplus once the FA's re-sign grows, ....and it's already too large ......once the expanded real contracts fade away, and the game logic lower contracts come back in.
I guess you could jump in with 30 team control and just double/triple the CPU offers as the years go by, so it wouldn't be so bad.

M.K.
Knight165

[DanH35]

Re: Proportional contracts

Now the task at hand, IMO, is to find out what that proportion should be.

This is how I'm thinking of doing it. I'd find the percentage of payroll that each player is. For example, according to Cots, Joey Votto's average salary is $22.5m out of the Reds' $89.8m payroll, so about 25% of the payroll. Then, I'd find what the default payroll for the team in-game is. When I looked earlier, the in-game budget for the Reds was $95.5m. From that figure, I'd have to find out what the minor leaguers make, and deduct that from the $95.5m. Let's say that's $5m, then give the team some budget leeway for trades/FA signings, let's say $5m for that too. So then the Reds' in-game major league payroll would be $85.5m. I would then make Votto's salary 25% of that figure, so $21.3m.

This is going to be quite a bit of work, that's why I was seeking opinions to see if it is even worthwhile to do.

[adamjsav]

Re: Proportional contracts

This is the point I was alluding to.
If you expand the initial budgets by giving them real contracts......the surplus once the FA's re-sign grows, ....and it's already too large ......once the expanded real contracts fade away, and the game logic lower contracts come back in.
I guess you could jump in with 30 team control and just double/triple the CPU offers as the years go by, so it wouldn't be so bad.

M.K.
Knight165

This.

Playing with real contracts is a nightmare. I have done a tonne of testing with teams out to about 2030. Real contracts ruin everything. Once the real contracts of your players come off the books, teams can afford anyone they want.

Just because they start with a higher budget, the CPU doesn't move the value of it's contracts with you. It also has a huge impact on trade logic.

As for using proportional contracts, that would be a great idea. But you need the Devs to do it from the outset. It wont work as it currently stands.

For it to work you would already need some semblance of reality. You cant raise A-Rod from $8mm while lowering someone else. It would be impossible to have a consistent system.

[Ghost Of The Year]

Re: Proportional contracts

For it to work you would already need some semblance of reality. You cant raise A-Rod from $8mm while lowering someone else. It would be impossible to have a consistent system.

This why the key would be finding out what proportion could work.
A-Rod is an excellent starting point.
If you adjust everyone to 50%, this would have A-Rod at $10.5 million.
Which is fairly close to 1990 dollars (according to Baseball Reference, $11,617,021)
If the proportioned contracts keep the Yankees total payroll to very near $122 million (Show numbers, compared to real NYY payroll of $226 million).
I'm going to edit the Yankees default roster to half of what they really make (according to Cots Contracts/BP).
I will report back later & post if that's near $122 mill.

[Still2REal]

Re: Proportional contracts

I see what you guys are saying. When I read "messes up budgets" I was reading it as "contracts become too big" which is the opposites of what I observed. In the past I would try to avoid teams running out of spending room, and this year I enjoyed the fact that they had plenty. Especially after real contracts.

Although teams end up with lots of room, I have to admit it's cool to see random teams drop top dollars for a free agent. Strasbourg to Philly lol

[TheGame8544]

Re: Proportional contracts

This why the key would be finding out what proportion could work.
A-Rod is an excellent starting point.
If you adjust everyone to 50%, this would have A-Rod at $10.5 million.
Which is fairly close to 1990 dollars (according to Baseball Reference, $11,617,021)
If the proportioned contracts keep the Yankees total payroll to very near $122 million (Show numbers, compared to real NYY payroll of $226 million).
I'm going to edit the Yankees default roster to half of what they really make (according to Cots Contracts/BP).
I will report back later & post if that's near $122 mill.

Anxious to hear your results. This is what I've been thinking about.

[Ghost Of The Year]

Re: Proportional contracts

This why the key would be finding out what proportion could work.
A-Rod is an excellent starting point.
If you adjust everyone to 50%, this would have A-Rod at $10.5 million.
Which is fairly close to 1990 dollars (according to Baseball Reference, $11,617,021)
If the proportioned contracts keep the Yankees total payroll to very near $122 million (Show numbers, compared to real NYY payroll of $226 million).
I'm going to edit the Yankees default roster to half of what they really make (according to Cots Contracts/BP).
I will report back later & post if that's near $122 mill.

Okay, this above post states the Show NYY payroll at $122 mill. I should have clarified that as the 90 man payroll as opposed to the the IRL Yankees 25 man, $226 million payroll.
When I edited all 90 NYY players, at 50% for anyone on the 40 man, & $30,000 to $90,000 for the other 50 minor leaguers, that came out to $119.6 mill. That's $2.4 million under the original $122 million the default NYY payroll was. Which in effect, gives you $2.4 million to actually fine tune the 50 men in the minor leagues. More than enough wiggle room to get them right. The only thing is you cannot actually give those 50 men %50 of their IRL salary because you can't give anyone under $30,000 a year. But that is so minor, it isn't even noteworthy. I only mention it for sake of transparency.

The one thing I noticed in the NYY payroll, is the game most definitely needs each players salary adjusted, one only need look at McCann's contract vs A-Rod's to verify that.
But we knew that before hand already