Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

[dutchy25]

Can anybody explain why real contracts cause problems in franchise and what those problems are? If there is a thread with the answer feel free to direct me there. I've started a franchise but am willing to start over if I'm going to have problems in years 2 and beyond.

Also if you have a roster you suggest I use feel free to share it.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[rtwilli4]

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...fm-hybrid.html


Try page 5 of the OSFM Hybrid thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[DukesofHazzard]

Quote: Originally Posted by dutchy25

Can anybody explain why real contracts cause problems in franchise and what those problems are? If there is a thread with the answer feel free to direct me there. I've started a franchise but am willing to start over if I'm going to have problems in years 2 and beyond. Also if you have a roster you suggest I use feel free to share it. Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

I'm not really even sure why it's an issue but I'm doing a roster right now using osfm 1.5 with a few players I did to replace ones with either no career stats or stats that R way off. I'm setting the current 40 man rosters and relating players so after spring training the right players make the 25 man roster but only if u use manual injuries be4 the season starts. I'm adjusting some of the bigger contracts to about half of what they actually make to try and avoid any issues.

Sent from my VK810 4G using Operation Sports mobile app

[MikeJ2021]

Quote: Originally Posted by dutchy25

Can anybody explain why real contracts cause problems in franchise and what those problems are? If there is a thread with the answer feel free to direct me there. I've started a franchise but am willing to start over if I'm going to have problems in years 2 and beyond. Also if you have a roster you suggest I use feel free to share it. Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

I'd like to know this as well. I've heard what others had to say on Twitter and in the OSFM Hybrid thread and it's making me feel like we're playing two different games because I'm not seeing any of the issues they have.

Yes, like Millennium OS said, playing with real contracts does inflate the budgets so you'll have more money in the off-season if one of your big name players leave but, I don't see CPU-controlled big market teams loading up on good players because of it. If anything, I've seen real contracts provide teams with more room to re-sign their star players to realistic contracts.

In all of the tests I've done Bryce has re-signed with the Nats for an 8-year, 240-plus million contract. I've also seen Arrieta sign with the Cubs for 4 to 5 years, 19.5-plus per year contracts. I've also seen him with the Angels. In my most recent test, the Red Sox had enough money on the payroll to trade for Zack Grienke. All of this seems realistic to me.

Now, I will say, that all the players on the OSFM rosters version 1.5 and earlier don't have real contracts. It's mixed. To get the results above I had to edit every player's contract via Spotracs and that produced the results I'm seeing. Plus, with the default contracts I still saw Bryce getting mad and asking for 30 mil.

I think the issue is the morale system and the rating/progression system. I could be wrong, but I don't think you are going to have any issues whether you play with a roster with real contracts or a roster with default.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Real contracts also affects the trade logic. The cpu values players at a certain level. If they are paid significantly more the trade value decreases.

In future seasons as players contracts come back to default it really impacts.

Last year I ran tests with the quantity of trades of default vs real contracts.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[vbarletta]

After years of playing franchise. I opted to play 30 team control with ignore budgets. So I guess real or default contracts are the same.
I opted to ignore budgets because in the offseason the teams didnt have enough money to go after "logic" free agent targets.

Last year, for example, the Giants didnt have money to sign Melancon and every offer was being rejected.

[Mike Lowe]

On the surface, it seems like a good idea to keep things at default as the game intended. 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.

Pick your poison...

Since I play one year, I'd almost rather keep the realistic contracts in play.

[dutchy25]

Quote: Originally Posted by MikeJ2021

I'd like to know this as well. I've heard what others had to say on Twitter and in the OSFM Hybrid thread and it's making me feel like we're playing two different games because I'm not seeing any of the issues they have. Yes, like Millennium OS said, playing with real contracts does inflate the budgets so you'll have more money in the off-season if one of your big name players leave but, I don't see CPU-controlled big market teams loading up on good players because of it. If anything, I've seen real contracts provide teams with more room to re-sign their star players to realistic contracts. In all of the tests I've done Bryce has re-signed with the Nats for an 8-year, 240-plus million contract. I've also seen Arrieta sign with the Cubs for 4 to 5 years, 19.5-plus per year contracts. I've also seen him with the Angels. In my most recent test, the Red Sox had enough money on the payroll to trade for Zack Grienke. All of this seems realistic to me. Now, I will say, that all the players on the OSFM rosters version 1.5 and earlier don't have real contracts. It's mixed. To get the results above I had to edit every player's contract via Spotracs and that produced the results I'm seeing. Plus, with the default contracts I still saw Bryce getting mad and asking for 30 mil. I think the issue is the morale system and the rating/progression system. I could be wrong, but I don't think you are going to have any issues whether you play with a roster with real contracts or a roster with default.

So after doing some digging and testing. It's not necessarily free agents that are the problem. It is the trade logic that is a huge problem. First franchise I tested the Astros were basically out of it halfway through for whatever reason and began trading guys they thought were overpaid but who still had arbitration years left. They traded springer, Mchugh, McCullers and others. All who yes are on 1 year deals but are still under team control for a while.

Using default contracts I haven't seen teams do this. It's mainly the trade logic that is screwed up by using actual contracts.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports