We seem to have a potential flaw in extension demands I wanted to note here and maybe it can be reviewed? It is related to guys on rookie contracts (or potentially may also apply to any player on a 4-5+ year deals but seems to be related to only rookies). Essentially, we have star rookies that are on a lower rookie wage scale based on their draft pick. So for example, the #1 pick in our draft is being paid $5.5 million for 5 years. Based on settings in our game, his demand extension asking price should be north of $10 million as he is 91 OVR. But he is only asking for an extension of $5.7 million and will sign an extension for 7 years even though he is still a rookie in year 1 of his rookie contract.

Same thing with the #2 pick in draft. 93 OVR RB that based on setting should be demanding near $10 mil or more at the very least. BUt just signed an extension for 7 years at $5.5 mil.

Extension demands work well overall in other areas and for other players but wanted to check if the demand logic can be looked at related to this aissue where teams are able to lock up rookies for 7 years for basically the same price as their rookie contract. Doesn't really make sense for players to be talking extensions during their rookie year anyways until they are closer to free agency. Often when I try to extend veterans in the first year of a 4 or 5 year deal, their demand price is super high (which makes sense) but this same logic doesn't seem to impact rookie contract / young players.

Update: it doesn't seem to impact lower rated rookies as much. It's almost as if there is a cap in place for how high rookies will demand. Which makes elite rookies demands seem really low. Maybe doesn't impact everything single rookie the same way but odd to see the #1 and #2 pick sign 7 year extensions two weeks into their rookie season for half of what the settings would suggest.

This currently appears to be only happening to rookies based on what i've looked at. Extension logic in this engine has come a long way but is still moderately broken for rookies, who probably shouldn't sign extensions at all if they're under contract for years.

My two cents is that a lot of players simply shouldn't be in the market for extensions, such as a #2 overall rookie, like the one in question here.

I looked at the code and I'm not seeing anything specific to them being rookies. Could be they're accepting a discount since it's a 7 year deal. We used to have it where you could only do extensions in the final year of your deal, but we changed it based on feedback. Will have to look at this in future versions and see if we can improve it.

Brooks_Piggott wrote:I looked at the code and I'm not seeing anything specific to them being rookies. Could be they're accepting a discount since it's a 7 year deal. We used to have it where you could only do extensions in the final year of your deal, but we changed it based on feedback. Will have to look at this in future versions and see if we can improve it.

nope that's not accurate.

it's not just signing 7 year contracts at a discount. rookies' asking prices are roughly half of what a normal player with the same OVR would have. And it doesn't matter how many years are on the contract. I have a vet on a 5 year contract and a rookie on a 5 year contract with the same OVR and the rookie only wants about half the amount of money on an extension as the vet.

Yeah it doesn't seem to impact all rookies and sure different draft class quality and salary settings probably make it a non-issue for a lot of users. But sometimes does seem almost seem like there is a hidden "cap" for how much rookies will demand, which in our case seems to be around $5-$6 mil, even if the player is 90+ OVR and similar players are asking $10+ mil for extensions. Seems to only be issue for the elite rookies in this league's case as other low rated rookies are not good enough to demand over $6 mil even if they were on last year of their contract so their demand still are in line with settings. Just generally odd to see the #1 and #2 pick want to sign 7 year extensions at half the value they should based on settings the first week into their rookie year. Probably better to generally make it tough to extend players prior to the last season of their contract unless they are getting a nice pay raise but just my opinion.

Again, fairly isolated issue not going to effect every rookie/player but just wanted to note it for review for '23 potentially.

I'll have to look further into it and see if something else is triggering it since I'm not seeing anything in the code related to rookies...