Free Agency Begins January 17th, 12pm CST

[ThePetis]

Have you ever participated in a free agency bidding process?

Yes, there were a ton of post.  But honestly, I kind of enjoyed that, plus it's like real-life and isn't that what we aim to simulate?

I just don't like the idea of breaking it down by position.  It's too limiting in my opinion.

[Maydab23]

Sounds good to me.

[chrisetc21]

Yes, there were a ton of post.  But honestly, I kind of enjoyed that, plus it's like real-life and isn't that what we aim to simulate?

I just don't like the idea of breaking it down by position.  It's too limiting in my opinion.

No, the process you advocate.  Have you seen it in action?  The format I've proposed is commonly used, I have seen that play out.  If you have an example of what you propose I'd like to see it.  Your proposal is far more limiting actually since it limits the amount of bids with a bigger pool available.  One or two players a week could take months to complete free agency.  It also restricts the number of bidders since you can only bid on one or two guys.  Changing a format we know works for one we don't have any prior experience with right before free agency isn't a really good plan for us I don't believe.

[ThePetis]

No, the process you advocate.  Have you seen it in action?  The format I've proposed is commonly used, I have seen that play out.  If you have an example of what you propose I'd like to see it.  Your proposal is far more limiting actually since it limits the amount of bids with a bigger pool available.  One or two players a week could take months to complete free agency.  It also restricts the number of bidders since you can only bid on one or two guys.  Changing a format we know works for one we don't have any prior experience with right before free agency isn't a really good plan for us I don't believe.

I said one or two nominations per owner, not overall. That would be 30-60 players up forbid at a time.  A lot, but not unmanageable.

I've been in leagues with a free for all and also one where only 15 players at a time are up for bid, using an for nomination. Both seem preferable to this system.

My main concern is breaking it up like this limits the decent options available at one time. I think that would drive up the prices on everybody.

[seanrmgallagher]

I think teams have specific positional needs and it makes sense for them to bid on them at once. While it will probably drive the price up for certain positions, I think that just adds to the strategy for owners to take into account. Breaking it up by position allows owners to target all the replacements at once for specific holes and seems to make the most sense to me.

[chrisetc21]

I said one or two nominations per owner, not overall. That would be 30-60 players up forbid at a time.  A lot, but not unmanageable.

I've been in leagues with a free for all and also one where only 15 players at a time are up for bid, using an for nomination. Both seem preferable to this system.

My main concern is breaking it up like this limits the decent options available at one time. I think that would drive up the prices on everybody.

Yes, do the math.  4 bids per owner for 100 catchers.  2 bids per owner for 1,000 players.  This process is in place to make it manageable while your process artificially suppresses free agent salaries. 

I think if we change the process going forward we could try what we discussed already which is limiting the amount of bids per player to two bids.  Owners will have to make real bids instead of simply bidding the minimum to raise the bid.

[Fitzy1962]

"Limiting the number of bids per player to two bids" would be a horrible idea, IMO. Certain positions are so limited as it is and only allowing two owners to bid on each player would ensure that only two or three teams would actually be able to get a player worth owning at those very limited positions, such as 2B & SS..

[Maydab23]

"Limiting the number of bids per player to two bids" would be a horrible idea, IMO. Certain positions are so limited as it is and only allowing two owners to bid on each player would ensure that only two or three teams would actually be able to get a player worth owning at those very limited positions, such as 2B & SS..

Chris can correct me if I am mistaken but I'm pretty sure he meant each owner can only make 2 bids per player. That way when you bid you have to make it count. Otherwise you can have 2 people bidding 20 times each on a player like Votto over the course of 3 weeks as they slowly raise the bid in a standoff.
Example - owner 1 6.5M, owner 2 bids 7M, next day owner 1 bids 7.5M.........and it drags on like that for weeks until somebody wins at 60M or something

If each owner can only bid twice on each player you really have to think and make your bids count.

Personally, I am fine with it the way it is but if we do run into issues the 2 bid limit per owner per player is a solid idea.

[chrisetc21]

It's very simple.  Every owner gets two bids per player after the initial posting.

Initial poster bids, 2 years $5m per year, $10m total.

Every owner at that point gets two bids total for that player.  It's a simpler more thoughtful bidding process.  I'd also like to have the first bid for each owner to take place within 24 hours of the initial posting.  That way, everyone who has interest posts their bid within 24 hours.  After that period is over, no one else can place a bid except those who placed bids within the first 24 hours.  This draws out the interested parties for bidding, 24 hours expires, and then those bidders get one final bid.   

[haseloff]

This thread regarding only 2 bids (following the initial bid) should be over in the transactions board.  It's nowhere in the following threads:

http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=131563.0
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=131562.0

Thanks.