Contract Extensions Shouldn't Change Current Year

[Jeffy25]

When you sign in season extensions, the first season of the extension replaces the current year dollar amount.

Can we have it fixed so that if I select Russ Springer, negotiate, and sign a new extension in April 2010, that the extension's first year will be for 2011, and not replace the current year salary?

I have attached an example of how I was able to obviously manipulate Russ Springer out of making his full salary for the 2010 regular season by signing him to new one year deals to replace his current deal.

I would suggest that you be able to select the years that the contract would work through.

If I want to sign someone out of their current years contract in order to extent multiple years I should be able to do that, but at a cost (such as the Matt Cain recent extension)

[Clay Dreslough]

Nice screenshot. That clearly shows a flaw in the AI.

The AI does take into account the current year when calculating true extensions (beyond the current year). For example if the player is earning $5M this year, and wants $3M next year, he will demand a total of $8M for an extension that covers both years.

However, I see your point about the 1-year "extensions". At the least, these should be disallowed. They don't make any sense.

[cfeedback]

However, I see your point about the 1-year "extensions". At the least, these should be disallowed. They don't make any sense.
The 1 year issue (which we disallow in Outahere) is indicative of the overall problem--that extensions should EXTEND the current contract rather than replace the last season of the current contract.

I've read some explanations on the reasoning for this before but frankly I just don't buy it. Personally I find it one of the biggest flaws in Mogul. This is baseball, not the NFL--our contracts are guaranteed and the game should reflect that.

[Alloutwar]

You can find some discussion and research on this design choice in my sig link 'contract extension overwrite (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=112347)'. Although I can understand the simplicity aspect of having a single contract, it poses larger simulation issues as a whole, if ever enhanced to handle bonuses, multi-player, or actual year to year GM'ing (where you could be fired or move to a different team).

[boomboom]

Yes, I agree, this has been part of mogul since the begining.

[Lex Logan]

I think the bottom line is the game file is designed to store a salary, contract length, and possibly team and player options. "Extending" a contract would require adding additional fields to the game file -- for every player. You can see this when you edit a player, there isn't any place to put an extension, so that would have to be a whole new field. I'd say leave it alone until Clay is ready to add far more complexity to contracts. But I agree one year "extensions" make no sense during a season.

[HoustonGM]

Resigning a contract when a player has an option year should remove that option year, or replace it with a newer, differently priced one, if a new one is negotiated. Currently, when the AI signs a player such as Albert Pujols in the current year (2010), who has an option for next year (2011), the option gets tacked on to the end of the new deal. Really, the AI should consider the option before signing an extension.

[Lex Logan]

I don't think it used to work that way, but in any case that's an obvious bug -- the programmer forgot to reset the options. And I agree the AI mostly pays no attention to options, except that I have had players exercise an option (rare, but I've seen it.)