SIM COMPLETE - 1986 - Regular Season 21

[Lintyfresh85]

Infielder John "Balsa Wood"/"Paper Mache"/"Brittle Bones"/"Body Bag" Brenton goes down with an SEI. I'm shocked. Don't know what I was thinking signing his frail ass for the '87 season. I need him to retire in the off-season.

This past off-season somehow I got Joe Stapley to retire. He was due 20 million this year, and he walked away.

I think the trick was, and this is 100% thanks to Pat's suggestions is to constantly DFA the guy and when retirements are announced I figure the game sees the player with no home if he's currently listed as DFA'd so he has a chance of retiring as if he was a current FA.

I didn't think it would work, but it did... so I can't complain about that!

[Clay]

Cheesers

[Pat]

This past off-season somehow I got Joe Stapley to retire. He was due 20 million this year, and he walked away.

I think the trick was, and this is 100% thanks to Pat's suggestions is to constantly DFA the guy and when retirements are announced I figure the game sees the player with no home if he's currently listed as DFA'd so he has a chance of retiring as if he was a current FA.

I didn't think it would work, but it did... so I can't complain about that!

I just think if you are trying to get a player to retire, piss him off. I would waive him, DFA him and if you can, send him down to AAA. If he is "angry" I would assume he is more likely to retire than if he is in a good mood with your organization.

[Lintyfresh85]

I just think if you are trying to get a player to retire, piss him off. I would waive him, DFA him and if you can, send him down to AAA. If he is "angry" I would assume he is more likely to retire than if he is in a good mood with your organization.

Either way, it saved me $20 million I didn't have this year. I'm barely going to make a profit for the season and if Stapley was still around I'd have had to trade off massive amounts of my team to cover his debt.

Cheers!

[Pat]

Either way, it saved me $20 million I didn't have this year. I'm barely going to make a profit for the season and if Stapley was still around I'd have had to trade off massive amounts of my team to cover his debt.

Cheers!

Just take it easy on me when we meet in the playoffs.

[Gyrodork]

This past off-season somehow I got Joe Stapley to retire. He was due 20 million this year, and he walked away.

I think the trick was, and this is 100% thanks to Pat's suggestions is to constantly DFA the guy and when retirements are announced I figure the game sees the player with no home if he's currently listed as DFA'd so he has a chance of retiring as if he was a current FA.

I didn't think it would work, but it did... so I can't complain about that!

Unfortunately OOTP would only allow me to put him on the D/L. He has a 7-month injury, which makes him "healthy" again in April. I'll see if I can DFA him once his D/L time expires; but I doubt it. Something tells me I'm going to be stuck with him one more season. And it's too bad...I just needed a SS that could hit .250 and be an average fielder. He fit the bill perfectly...Except for the constantly being injured part.

[Riverman]

This past off-season somehow I got Joe Stapley to retire. He was due 20 million this year, and he walked away.

I think the trick was, and this is 100% thanks to Pat's suggestions is to constantly DFA the guy and when retirements are announced I figure the game sees the player with no home if he's currently listed as DFA'd so he has a chance of retiring as if he was a current FA.

I didn't think it would work, but it did... so I can't complain about that!

Does anyone else feel that teams should be responsible for the final year(s) of a player's contract and that we should include a provision in the fair-play portion of the rules stating that henceforth playing games with the DFA to escape that obligation is a violation?

[Delandis]

Does anyone else feel that teams should be responsible for the final year(s) of a player's contract and that we should include a provision in the fair-play portion of the rules stating that henceforth playing games with the DFA to escape that obligation is a violation?

I'll have to agree. I think that's kind of a cheesy way to get out of it.

[spot]

I'll have to agree. I think that's kind of a cheesy way to get out of it.

I don't disagree, but if the guy retires then that's the way it goes. If he wasn't DFA'd and he retired with 2 years remaining I don't feel that the team should need to pony up. Also players who get a CEI with years remaining don't get paid.

Now if this DFA thing was a definate way to get a player to retire then I'd want to talk about it, but it seems to me that that hasn't been proven at this point...

:2cents:

[Spectre]

I'll have to agree. I think that's kind of a cheesy way to get out of it.

I agree

[Pat]

I don't disagree, but if the guy retires then that's the way it goes. If he wasn't DFA'd and he retired with 2 years remaining I don't feel that the team should need to pony up. Also players who get a CEI with years remaining don't get paid.

Now if this DFA thing was a definate way to get a player to retire then I'd want to talk about it, but it seems to me that that hasn't been proven at this point...

:2cents:

That is how I feel.

Plus, it's not like Linty, or anyone in the future, did anything unrealistic. If a player sucks, has a chance to retire, odds are that team is going to let him know they don't want him back. How do they do that? Place him on waivers and designate him for assignment. And if he doesn't retire, get picked up via waivers, a lot of teams will likely just cut that player.

Something to consider going into this off-season though.

[Riverman]

That is how I feel.

Plus, it's not like Linty, or anyone in the future, did anything unrealistic. If a player sucks, has a chance to retire, odds are that team is going to let him know they don't want him back. How do they do that? Place him on waivers and designate him for assignment. And if he doesn't retire, get picked up via waivers, a lot of teams will likely just cut that player.

Something to consider going into this off-season though.

What was unrealistic was what the player did. He got treated like shit by the team and decided, "I'll show em; I'll retire and let them keep their $20 million." Real players don't act that way and it is a glitch in the game that allows us to manipulate them into retiring using that approach.

[Pat]

What was unrealistic was what the player did. He got treated like shit by the team and decided, "I'll show em; I'll retire and let them keep their $20 million." Real players don't act that way and it is a glitch in the game that allows us to manipulate them into retiring using that approach.

Didn't think of it that way. Good point.

[Lintyfresh85]

How would I know it would work... everyone and their mother was saying it wouldn't because no player would walk away from 20 million.

[Andrew]

The fair play issue for me is if the player was shuffled back and forth between the active roster and DFA. I agree with Pat that teams waive and DFA players they no longer want but the point of DFA is a temporary location to store a player while a team decides what to do with them. Usually this results in a demotion, trade or outright release. I'd guess the number of times a player is moved from the active roster to DFA back to the active roster is slim to none.

I'm not sure if that's what was done in this case but I think people need to use a little common sense in regards to whether or not a transaction would take place in real life. If the answer is no, it's a fair play issue in my opinion.