Post by David - Cleveland on Sept 9, 2017 18:44:06 GMT -8
In general I think the deal is fine (attached here):
- The original ABL rules (which pretty much came over from PBL with Derek), and my simplified/current ABL rules, both use "At-Bats" (550 max) as the criteria for both vesting contracts and incentives. I can only imagine that is either a remnant of older versions of OOTP (or possibly just an outright "house rule", but likely a remnant). Quite clearly it no longer applies in the game as (and I checked) the criteria is PLATE APPEARANCES for both. PLEASE NOTE: I AM GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE RULES LANGUAGE IMMEDIATELY TO REFLECT THAT! No point having a poll or waiting.
- Because I also condensed the rules about the total amount of dollars attached to incentives from the language in the ABL/PBL original to keep things as simple as possible, I am going to make a Commissioner's call on the amount of money attached to the incentives. In fact, I will use the SUBSTANTIAL Harper deal to craft that language. In the original (PBL adopted) rules, there was a formula based on the annual contract value that was used to calculate the maximum incentives that could be offered and it was based on 25% of the lowest contract year and the example given was based on $8M (which meant a maximum of $2-Million dollars in incentives). I liked the concept, but thought initially it was complicated so I simplified it to JUST the $2-Million dollars as a maximum for incentives. This Harper deal, and thank you whether it was purposely done or just an interpretation of the current rules, because of the sheer size of the dollars involved, has prompted me to make ONE TINY change to the current rules. PLEASE NOTE: I AM ALSO GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE RULES LANGUAGE IMMEDIATELY TO REFLECT THERE WILL BE A MAXIMUM OF $2-MILLION DOLLARS PER INCENTIVE OFFERED! No point having a poll or waiting.
The first item above is a "no-brainer", just be careful when using an incentive.
The second item gives a bit more flexibility, yet maintains the intent of the original and simplified rules, EVEN for a massive contract like this. And frankly, if you are going to offer $2M per incentive on smaller deals, you risk financial penalty, but knock yourself out. Again, thank you to WASH for crafting the contract this way.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT:
Completely aside from the two items above. While I do not mean to tarnish this deal in any way as it is substantial, for a future All-Star players (both in ABL and likely IRL), and it is within the rules of both the league (house rules) and obviously the game itself AND was done based on the AI coding, I would like to comment on the structure.
I have argued long and hard in pretty much any league I have been in that will tolerate it, that a young stud Harper being a textbook example, would NEVER sign the deal he just signed in ABL in real life. I have studied many contracts in MLB and generally, for young players worthy of a multi-year extension (even leaving out how talented they are), they increase in value (possibly remain level) over the life of the contract. If the Harper deal just signed was completely reversed, I would be doing back-flips! But as is, I simply cannot see it happening from the point of view of Harder and, especially, his agent!
The immediate argument I receive in reply is that the player is getting their money up-front. And of course that is true.
The second argument I receive is usually being asked to think of this as signing bonus structured, which of course the game cannot replicate. That is certainly not true and my answer to that would still be that the contract is bogus. Again, if the contract was completely reversed AND a huge signing bonus was attached to the first (or even EVERY) year, then I would completely buy-in!
Harper is just about to turn 26 in the game. That means his new deal will kick in at that age. When he is next a free agent, he will be 31 in the game. At that age he could very well STILL be a stud. And at that age, and as a stud, I am virtually certain both he and his agent would MUCH, MUCH rather be negotiating from a $45-Million dollar number (should the contract, for simplicity sake, be reversed) than the $28-Million he will be in ABL. If he actually gets EVEN BETTER as he matures, then that just amplifies my argument.
Should a player's skills begin to decline and should they happen to be in the mid to late 30's, and they are no longer elite, then I would accept a declining contract. But in Harper's case, I just do not see this deal happening outside the game.
Just my opinion.
It does not affect this deal at all!
And I guess we'll have to wait and see what the real Harper's next contract looks like. He has of course extended one year to reach the end of arbitration (another EXCELLENT indicator of what a stud player would most likely due to maximize his value - which makes 10-year, completely undervalued, stud deals in the game during minimum years UBER-BOGUS, but an entirely different story - although that is the main reason for the 4years service and 2years arbitration rules in this league and PBL).
That means we have another year to wait before we can compare numbers. And I will! 
