This is something that evolved through the beta process, and I failed to raise it in my final installment of the diary. So, as we work through the remaining stage fo waiting for the game's ultimate release - I though it might be timely to share one more tidbit.

The setting is about 2008, in a career that I was playing out in an attempt to see how stats held up as the game transitioned from the initial player set to game-generated players. I was half-managing my own team, focusing more on getting through several seasons than really doing much micromanaging.

In one season, I had a serious injury to a starting WR, requiring a reserve to step in an play most of the season. As it turns out, he did pretty well - posting about 1,100 yards and 7 TDs. Not superstar numbers, but certainly making the case that he was a pretty good performer. (Those numbers exceeded the average production from the starter he replaced)

The following preseason, I got an email from the wide receiver:

“I have decided to hold out until I receive a new contract. As your starting wide receiver last season, I believe I had a solid season. I believe I'm very seriously underpaid, and will not report to camp without a new contract.”

Turns out, this guy had initially signed a pretty modest contract, and was making about 1.5X the veteran minimum. In this instance, I was able to work out a reasonable increase with this player -- he wanted a bit of a bonus and a little adjustment in his base salary to re-sign for the next few seasons, which I agreed to. A couple seasons later, I had another veteran holdout whom I refused to deal with, and in that particular case, he gave up his holdout after training camp and "reported" in time for our first game, saying something about loyalty to the team and such, via email.

Now, setting aside the particular merits of these instances (which I think were pretty compelling), I just want to point out that this is something that will appear in FOF 2004. An interesting feature... especially if it makes things like the "Team Loyalty" and maybe even "Play for Winner" ratings a shade more meaningful (which I cannot verify, that's just my speculation).

Anyway... just in case this is of some interest to your who are awaiting the game, I thought I'd drop another nugget that hasn't been unveiled in the demo (to my knowledge).

IMO, this adds both to the challenge and the realism of the game. I like it.

Also, from your report, it does not appear that it happens all that often, which I also like. I would not want to have to deal with 5 of these a year. But a couple every few years or so will just add to the experience for me.

Yea', just another step towards CM, which is pretty much always a good (great) thing.

Sounds great.

I like this feature.

I get the feeling that this thread is the equivalent of the MC having to come out on stage to tell a few jokes in order to keep the crowd entertained because the main act is a bit late.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Sweeeeet....

I can't wait until I get to cut or trade my first whiny holdout. :D

I also like the potential this has for "balancing" various tactics in the game overall. If your strategy to win at FOFC is to go out and sign lots of cheap free agents -- like the guys who are sitting around waiting for an offer toward the end of the free agency period -- then perhaps this might end up being a downside to doing so. If you have a lot of guys signed "under market" and then used in meaningful roles, some of them are bound to get unhappy.

Again - don't yet have a wholesale sense of this, but I too think it sounds pretty good.

I wonder if the hold-out who is denied renegotiation bears some ill will that will translate to a decrease in performance on the playing field? Or, will this only effect his willingness to resign with the team in the future?

Excellent...... I find myself hanging around here, just waiting to see "FOF 2004 Released"....

Originally posted by QuikSand
I also like the potential this has for "balancing" various tactics in the game overall. If your strategy to win at FOFC is to go out and sign lots of cheap free agents -- like the guys who are sitting around waiting for an offer toward the end of the free agency period -- then perhaps this might end up being a downside to doing so. If you have a lot of guys signed "under market" and then used in meaningful roles, some of them are bound to get unhappy.

Again - don't yet have a wholesale sense of this, but I too think it sounds pretty good.

Yep. the "Errict Rhett"-type holdout. Sign me cheap, get more production than you expected...then you better pay me.

One thing I love about CM is that when you offer a guy a contract you have to tell him his role with the team. If you over (or under) use him he will get mad and/or want to adjust his contract. Sounds like this is at least a step in that direction.

QS, when do these e-mails come? Only at one particular stage in the game or throughout the offseason (after the SB, during the FA process, after the draft, etc....)???

Originally posted by QuikSand
In one season, I had a serious injury to a starting WR, requiring a reserve to step in an play most of the season. As it turns out, he did pretty well - posting about 1,100 yards and 7 TDs. Not superstar numbers, but certainly making the case that he was a pretty good performer. (Those numbers exceeded the average production from the starter he replaced)

The following preseason, I got an email from the wide receiver:

“I have decided to hold out until I receive a new contract. As your starting wide receiver last season, I believe I had a solid season. I believe I'm very seriously underpaid, and will not report to camp without a new contract.”

Turns out, this guy had initially signed a pretty modest contract, and was making about 1.5X the veteran minimum. In this instance, I was able to work out a reasonable increase with this player -- he wanted a bit of a bonus and a little adjustment in his base salary to re-sign for the next few seasons, which I agreed to. A couple seasons later, I had another veteran holdout whom I refused to deal with, and in that particular case, he gave up his holdout after training camp and "reported" in time for our first game, saying something about loyalty to the team and such, via email.QUIT MAKING ME DROOL!!!

Originally posted by SkyDog
QUIT MAKING ME DROOL!!!

Does this help?

http://www.sunycgcc.edu/webgallery/ccooper/bigprj/frame/default/navagation/photos/images/c06.jpg

So... why didn't you just title this post, I have FOF2004 while all of you still have to wait?

;)

Originally posted by Franklin
Does this help?

http://www.sunycgcc.edu/webgallery/ccooper/bigprj/frame/default/navagation/photos/images/c06.jpg

you know she pulled that thing out of her rectum

An interesting feature... especially if it makes things like the "Team Loyalty" and maybe even "Play for Winner" ratings a shade more meaningful (which I cannot verify, that's just my speculation).

I think this is the beginning of the enhanced feedback many have been requesting. A welcome addition for sure.

Originally posted by mckerney
So... why didn't you just title this post, I have FOF2004 while all of you still have to wait?

;) I can assure you that faithful beta testing (which I'm SURE Quik does) is quite different from "playing" the game. Heck, I wouldn't even classify it as "fun" most of the time.

This reminds me of a couple Rickey Henderson stories I heard or read somewhere.

The first was him wanting a bigger contract after he signed a small contract to go to spring traning with a team. After hearing he wanted a new contract, the GM asked him, "Rickey, what about that contract we signed you to," to which he replied, "Oh, I canceled it."

The second was when he was unhappy with his contract in Oakland he would show his protest by being the last one to report to camp. This became a bigger problem though when one year Jose Canseco decided to to the same thing. So each morning Rickey would drive by the A's training facitily to see if Jose had reported yet, and if he found he hadn't he'd drive right one by and return the next morning to check.

Originally posted by mckerney
This reminds me of a couple Rickey Henderson stories I heard or read somewhere.

The first was him wanting a bigger contract after he signed a small contract to go to spring traning with a team. After hearing he wanted a new contract, the GM asked him, "Rickey, what about that contract we signed you to," to which he replied, "Oh, I canceled it."

The second was when he was unhappy with his contract in Oakland he would show his protest by being the last one to report to camp. This became a bigger problem though when one year Jose Canseco decided to to the same thing. So each morning Rickey would drive by the A's training facitily to see if Jose had reported yet, and if he found he hadn't he'd drive right one by and return the next morning to check. Those were in the Sports Illustrated article about Rickey this summer. That was one of the funniest things I've ever read. My favorite story from that article went something like this:

Several players were getting riding together in the same car somewhere. One guy said, "Rickey, you get to ride up front, you've got tenure."

Rickey responded, "Ten??? Rickey got TWENTY years in the Big Leagues!!!"


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Originally posted by SkyDog
Those were in the Sports Illustrated article about Rickey this summer. That was one of the funniest things I've ever read.

Ah yes, that's it. Outstanding stuff.

Veteran holdouts is a great feature, glad to see it.

Originally posted by SkyDog
Rickey responded, "Ten??? Rickey got TWENTY years in the Big Leagues!!!"
Would now be a good time to break out the John Olerud story, or has that one been done to death?

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Would now be a good time to break out the John Olerud story, or has that one been done to death? According to the SI article, that one didn't happen.


...but it is still a GREAT story! ;)

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Would now be a good time to break out the John Olerud story, or has that one been done to death?

Is the Olerud one the one where he said, "I used to play with a guy who did the same thing," or something like that?

Originally posted by mckerney
Is the Olerud one the one where he said, "I used to play with a guy who did the same thing," or something like that? The story goes that he saw Olerud taking grounders wearing a batting helmet, and said. "Wow! I used to play in New York with a guy who did the same thing!" Of course, that guy was Olerud...

Yeah, that's what I'd thought.

Just when you thought you saw the last Rickey Henderson steal, he gets an honorary FOFC threadjack...

Originally posted by Dutch
Just when you thought you saw the last Rickey Henderson steal, he gets an honorary FOFC threadjack...

BA-ZING!!!

I wonder if there will be a higher correlation for playings slapped with a franchise tag to hold out, especially for players you try to slap with a tag twice in a row.

I suspect that between features like this and the second-stage FA, there are a number of steps Jim has taken to try and reduce the plethora of "house rules" more skilled players have adopt over the years.

Originally posted by kcchief19
I wonder if there will be a higher correlation for playings slapped with a franchise tag to hold out, especially for players you try to slap with a tag twice in a row.

I suspect that between features like this and the second-stage FA, there are a number of steps Jim has taken to try and reduce the plethora of "house rules" more skilled players have adopt over the years.

I agree to a certain extent. Most of the house rules were put in place to bring us down to close to the level of the AI. With a feature like this, however, I wonder what does the AI do for this? It's one thing for a great feature like this to make it more of a challenge for us, but would it handicap the AI teams equally (thus maintaining our advantage) or does the AI deal with this better by default? (Notice, I didn't say anything about the AI cheating...yet.)

Originally posted by Franklin
Does this help?

http://www.sunycgcc.edu/webgallery/ccooper/bigprj/frame/default/navagation/photos/images/c06.jpg

Whose mom is that?!

Originally posted by Buccaneer
I agree to a certain extent. Most of the house rules were put in place to bring us down to close to the level of the AI. With a feature like this, however, I wonder what does the AI do for this? It's one thing for a great feature like this to make it more of a challenge for us, but would it handicap the AI teams equally (thus maintaining our advantage) or does the AI deal with this better by default? (Notice, I didn't say anything about the AI cheating...yet.)
Well, there you go again.

You were making an excellent point until the very end. I'm not exactly sure why you decide to use the word "cheating" in the last remark. There is no justification for being that sinister.

That being said, you were right about asking about whether the veteran holdout feature will handicap AI teams and thus negate any advantage in its favor. My guess is that the advantage for the AI will come in the fact that a feature like this brings emotion into play for the human while the AI is able to act without emotion. There will certainly be occassions when a human player will choose to reward a player for whom they have an "affinity" for through the immersion process and there will be times when a human player will choose to "stick it" to a player. I think those decisions will be harder for the human player, giving the AI opponent a tactical advantage, but certainly not through tricking up the AI.

We'll see how it plays out. I think it's a cool feature, and I think it's another example of how Jim pays a lot more attention to his fans wants than a lot of people give him credit for.

Matt, think about it. I only threw out the word 'cheating' because it surely would have crossed some folks' mind but if the AI can only act out of tactical reasoning (can only see a multiple of factors in boolean), there would only be limited choices for the AI to handle this - because it would not (I believe) react to consequences, esp. longer-term. We can better balance our decisions but will the AI end up overpaying, underpaying? We can assume a better AI for roster management but you and I have seen in the past where it has weaknesses in truly evaluating the price of talent. This is one area where it wouldn't make that big of a deal but I would hate this to be another area where it overpays (or underpays and end up overpaying a replacement). In solo play, I am concerned about the advantages we have and believe that the challenge must be there for us and equally, a competitive AI. You cannot have one without the other, I think.

That's it, I'm going to bed. Can't think/ramble anymore.

Bump for those that missed this thread yesterday. Good stuff.

Originally posted by SkyDog
The story goes that he saw Olerud taking grounders wearing a batting helmet, and said. "Wow! I used to play in New York with a guy who did the same thing!" Of course, that guy was Olerud... With the additional punchline that they had already won a World Series together in Toronto before they ever got to New York.

I'm stunned to hear it isn't true. Say it isn't so...

Originally posted by SkyDog
Bump for those that missed this thread yesterday. Good stuff.

Especially the chick with the colossal trout. Hubba hubba!

Glad to see it's not an overwhelming feature where half the flipin' team including the kickers do this every year...

First off season and I already saw my first draft-holdout. Bastard. He was my first round pick. A good looking cornerback with a 1 volatility and I just lost my number 1 CB to free agency. Never thought I would have this much fun cursing at the monitor.