Holdouts--Thinking Out Loud

[kennylc321]

We know that holdouts are not part of the game and probably never would be. I know there are many who have incorporated various rules, apps, etc to simulate QB injuries.

How could these methods be used to simulate holdouts? What kind of new contract would the player receive? What happens if you cannot reach an "agreement"?

Just thinking out loud.

[canes21]

Tie it to player motivations and morale.

If a player has motivations that the team doesn't really meet, morale drops over time. If morale gets low enough, the player holds out.

You can try to offer them such a contract that they accept it, but even a player friendly deal won't guarantee anything and things may get to a point where it's a lost cause.

This would be another nice dynamic to team building. It would be nice to have to keep an eye on your currently signed players motivations and morale. As it currently stands, once a player is on your team you don't really have to manage them.

The game needs more dynamic stuff going on to make it feel like a living world. If I had a stud WR, but didn't have a quality QB on the roster, and I wasn't exactly a contending team, it would be neat to see my WR demand a trade, holdout, etc. I would also love to see a story develop in my franchise where CPU teams were having players on their teams do the same.

Pump some drama into franchise mode.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[CM Hooe]

Holdouts are basically impossible in the modern NFL because the latest collective bargaining agreement has legislated them out of existence. Foremost, players under rookie contracts by rule may not enter contract extension discussions until they accrue three years of league service. Second, players under contract are fined $50,000 every day they don’t report to camp, and teams are no longer allowed to waive those fines. Players under rookie contracts can’t afford stacking up those fines, and veterans typically don’t like risking their money in the first place.

That said, I actually could easily see Tiburon adding the more recent concept of a hold-in situation into the game via the Scenario Engine. Refresher: a hold-in is when a player reports to camp to avoid the mandated fines, but refuses to practice during camp in an effort to secure a new contract. This is what DK Metcalf and Deebo Samuel are currently attempting, and what Jamal Adams accomplished last year.

Foremost, the scenario engine already supports storylines which span over multiple weeks. Internally, the scenario engine can already recognize players with certain years pro / draft status / contract years remaining (all are trigger requirements to fire the fifth-year option scenario), it can already remove players from rosters (the failure case of dumb “soul searching” scenario which happens way too often in M22), and it can extend contracts (again, the fifth-year option scenario). Additionally, players in Madden have personality traits, one of which if I recall correctly is “Unpredictable”. Players have long been able to refuse to re-sign with a team for various reasons, those reasons were expanded upon this year. Finally, Madden 23 adds contract templates, among which is “very player friendly”.

Putting those things together: at the start of Preseason Week 1, given a player with a Superstar or better development trait on the final year of his contract and (either an Unpredictable personality or the Highest Offer motivation), or given a player with a one-year contract and a Superstar or better dev trait (i.e. the player was franchise tagged), do a dice roll against (???). If that dice roll succeeds, the hold-in scenario fires where the player demands a new contract. The user is presented the option via a scenario event to extend the player’s contract right now with the Very Player Friendly contract template, or not. If the user doesn’t extend the contract during the scenario, the player is removed from the roster (so he does not accrue XP in practice, does not get injured in practice, and also does not play in preseason games), and the scenario fires again in Preseason Weeks 2, 3, and 4. If at any point the user re-signs the player, he is added back to the roster and the scenario ends. If the user has not extended the player’s contract by the end of Preseason Week 4, he is added back to the roster, but his contract negotiation status is brute forced to “will not re-sign”, which would prevent the user from negotiating with that player for the rest of the season. That flag is cleared if the player is traded or reaches free agency.

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Holdouts are basically impossible in the modern NFL because the latest collective bargaining agreement has legislated them out of existence. Foremost, players under rookie contracts by rule may not enter contract extension discussions until they accrue three years of league service. Second, players under contract are fined $50,000 every day they don’t report to camp, and teams are no longer allowed to waive those fines. Players under rookie contracts can’t afford stacking up those fines, and veterans typically don’t like risking their money in the first place. That said, I actually could easily see Tiburon adding the more recent concept of a hold-in situation into the game via the Scenario Engine. Refresher: a hold-in is when a player reports to camp to avoid the mandated fines, but refuses to practice during camp in an effort to secure a new contract. This is what DK Metcalf and Deebo Samuel are currently attempting, and what Jamal Adams accomplished last year. Foremost, the scenario engine already supports storylines which span over multiple weeks. Internally, the scenario engine can already recognize players with certain years pro / draft status / contract years remaining (all are trigger requirements to fire the fifth-year option scenario), it can already remove players from rosters (the failure case of dumb “soul searching” scenario which happens way too often in M22), and it can extend contracts (again, the fifth-year option scenario). Additionally, players in Madden have personality traits, one of which if I recall correctly is “Unpredictable”. Players have long been able to refuse to re-sign with a team for various reasons, those reasons were expanded upon this year. Finally, Madden 23 adds contract templates, among which is “very player friendly”. Putting those things together: at the start of Preseason Week 1, given a player with a Superstar or better development trait on the final year of his contract and (either an Unpredictable personality or the Highest Offer motivation), or given a player with a one-year contract and a Superstar or better dev trait (i.e. the player was franchise tagged), do a dice roll against (???). If that dice roll succeeds, the hold-in scenario fires where the player demands a new contract. The user is presented the option via a scenario event to extend the player’s contract right now with the Very Player Friendly contract template, or not. If the user doesn’t extend the contract during the scenario, the player is removed from the roster, and the scenario fires against in Preseason Weeks 2, 3, and 4. If at any point the user re-signs the player, he is added back to the roster and the scenario ends. If the user has not extended the player’s contract by the end of Preseason Week 4, he is added back to the roster, but his contract negotiation status is brute forced to “will not re-sign”, which would prevent the user from negotiating with that player for the rest of the season. That flag is cleared if the player is traded or reaches free agency.

This is exactly what needs to be added. Would be realistic and an interesting challenge.


Side note: Regarding the “soul-searching” and/or retirement scenarios, am I correct in that if you just ignore it then nothing related to it happens?

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by ForUntoOblivionSoar∞

This is exactly what needs to be added. Would be realistic and an interesting challenge. Side note: Regarding the “soul-searching” and/or retirement scenarios, am I correct in that if you just ignore it then nothing related to it happens?

Technically speaking you are able to ignore any scenario to avoid any effects of it, whether those effects are positive or negative.

Only dev trait breakout scenarios are excluded from this general rule of thumb, as far as I know.

[Momoney168]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Technically speaking you are able to ignore any scenario to avoid any effects of it, whether those effects are positive or negative. Only dev trait breakout scenarios are excluded from this general rule of thumb, as far as I know.

Dev traits trigger even if you don’t click on them? If so would the CPU have them behind the scenes as well? I do 32 team only during the season just to click through the dev trait scenarios for the CPU teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Momoney168]

This is also a little off base here but I’d like to see teams build depending on where they are in the coaching cycle. A new coach will look to accumulate draft capital and aggressively look to build around their scheme. A coach in years 3-4 then looking to max out, adding veterans when possible. I’d like to see some top contenders go for broke like the Rams last season. Also hoping player tags help CPU make not only free agent signing but smarter resigning decisions. Not extending a bridge player for too long etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Quote: Originally Posted by Momoney168

This is also a little off base here but I’d like to see teams build depending on where they are in the coaching cycle. A new coach will look to accumulate draft capital and aggressively look to build around their scheme. A coach in years 3-4 then looking to max out, adding veterans when possible. I’d like to see some top contenders go for broke like the Rams last season. Also hoping player tags help CPU make not only free agent signing but smarter resigning decisions. Not extending a bridge player for too long etc. Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Coach tags could be a good way to approximate this.