ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball => MLB Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball: Archives => Topic started by: chrisetc21 on December 23, 2013, 06:07:29 PM
-
Free agency is scheduled to start on January 17th. One request I have in the name of organization and preventing confusion is a format for posting free agents. Linder has a pretty good requirement in his league (Mendoza Line) so we're going to steal it and use it here.
All GMs will now be required to post Free Agent threads in a specific format. All Free Agent threads that aren't posted in this format will be declared invalid and locked.
Here are the two posting requirements:
1. The subject header will include position, then the player's full name.
(ex: SP Javier Osuna)
2. A link to the players profile page must be posted in the thread.
Profile pages should come from Baseball-Reference.com or FanGraphs.com
If those are not available, a "signing announcement" from baseballamerica.com, MiLB.com, or another reputable source will be required.
Profile Pages are preferred over Signing Announcements.
-
At this point I would say we're going to begin free agency on Friday, January 17th at 12pm CST. That should give us plenty of time to sign players before the season starts. Please keep the posting guidelines in mind when posting your free agents. Thanks.
-
Last year we broke it up a bit by only allowing some people to be bid on at a time. Have a hundred or more open bidding wars could be a bit overwhelming and it might be easier for everybody to have bidding on only certain positions or alphabetical groups start at different times. Just a suggestion.
-
Yes, definitely good suggestion. We'll break it up by position and limit the amount of winning bids at one time, probably to four bids which seems to be a good number used in other leagues.
-
Is there a thread that lists all the available free agents that will be up for bid come the 17th? Am I just going right past it?
Nevermind, I found the thread that talks about how all available players in FanTrax will be our FA list. Sorry for the unneeded post. :doh:
-
Someone had asked about how to sign minor leaguers. I can't find the message or what have you. Minor leaguers would receive an initial prospect contract. To place a bid you would simply start a thread with the guidelines above for the thread title and then in the body of the post you would put PC or prospect contract. Every bid thereafter would say PC+ an amount that is considered a one time bonus. So PC + $2m is an example. If you were to win that bid you would give the player a $2m bonus, deducted from your salary cap for that season. You would then assign the player to your minor league system whereby he would follow the six year contract platform for arbitration salaries once he was promoted to the 40 man roster. Players on the 25 man roster are automatically part of the 40 man roster. Hope that clears up the question.
-
We're going to open different positions each week for free agency. Once the week is up for each position, no opening bids may be placed. So, for example, on day 7 an opening bid is placed for a position. Bidding on that player will continue until the player is won however no more opening bids past day 7 of that position. Once all positions have been opened and closed for their period, all positions will re-open until the free agency period closes for the year on the final day of the World Series.
There's no strategy in which positions open at what time, I just picked them from catcher through the outfield and then pitching.
Week 1 - Catchers
Week 2 - 1B & 3B
Week 3 - SS & 2B
Week 4 - Outfield
Week 5 - Pitchers
You can structure your bids however you like but the contract amount per year must be constant. You cannot offer $20 million in the first season and $3million in the second season or vice versa. There is no restructuring of deals at this point.
International free agents under age 23 who have not signed a contract with a major league franchise as of July 1st, 2013 are NOT eligible for this free agent period. These international free agents will be part of the international free agency period beginning in July of 2014. While a major league contract automatically trumps a minor league contract regardless of value, no minor leaguer under the age of 23 may be offered a major league contract.
There are no more than 4 winning bids allowed at one time for any one owner regardless of major or minor league bidding.
Major League Free Agents
The bidding should note the following. Thread title should have position followed by player name. First Post must include a link to the player. Bidding needs to include... number of years, salary per season, and total salary.
k abbreviation stands for thousand and m abbreviation stands for million so there should be no confusing the terms. $500k is $500,000 and $50m is $50,000,000.
Winning bids must stand for 48 hours.
Minimum bid increase amounts for major league contracts are $500k for bids under $50 million and $2m for bids over $50 million.
Thread title example
SP Roger Clemens
First post/initial bid example
Roger Clemens
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemero02.shtml
5 years, $10m per year, $50m total
Additional bids example
5 years, $10.5m per year, $52.5m total
Minor League Free Agents
Minor leaguers can be bid on as well however their initial bid will be stated as PC or Prospect Contract which carries no bonus. Every successive bid from a PC or Prospect Contract should be noted as PC + $. The minimum bid raise for minor leaguers is $50k.
Winning bids must stand for 48 hours.
Minimum bid increase amounts for prospect contracts are $50k for bids under $5 million and $200k for bids over $5 million.
Thread title example
SP Mark Appel
First post/initial bid example
Mark Appel
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=appel-001mar
PC
Additional bids example
PC + $50k
-
good to go
-
We're going to open different positions each week for free agency. Once the week is up for each position, no opening bids may be placed. So, for example, on day 7 an opening bid is placed for a position. Bidding on that player will continue until the player is won however no more opening bids past day 7 of that position. Once all positions have been opened and closed for their period, all positions will re-open until the free agency period closes for the year on the final day of the World Series.
There's no strategy in which positions open at what time, I just picked them from catcher through the outfield and then pitching.
Week 1 - Catchers
Week 2 - 1B & 3B
Week 3 - SS & 2B
Week 4 - Outfield
Week 5 - Pitchers
I'm not crazy about this idea. I understand not wanted 50-100 bids going at one time, but I'd prefer another method. Perhaps a rule that lets an owner open a bid on only one, or possibly two players per week, regardless of position.
-
I'm not crazy about this idea. I understand not wanted 50-100 bids going at one time, but I'd prefer another method. Perhaps a rule that lets an owner open a bid on only one, or possibly two players per week, regardless of position.
Have you ever participated in a free agency bidding process?
-
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.
-
Sounds good to me.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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..
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
It's just a proposal at this point.
-
Yes, just a proposal for 2015 free agency. At some point before the season I will write it up, ask for thoughts, make any corrections, and we will vote on it.
-
The more we see how Free Agency plays out in here the more inclined I am to promote changing the bidding to what we've discussed.
-
The more we see how Free Agency plays out in here the more inclined I am to promote changing the bidding to what we've discussed.
Agreed, some changes are necessary just to speed it up and stop the minimal raises.
-
I think 2 bids is personally too low. I would never nominate a guy unless the nomination didn't count toward the 2 limit. At that point I'd just wait until everyone else put some bids in and bid on him late into the week when I still had available bids left. This would lead to a longer, more drawn out bidding process as people conserve there bids until as long as possible (which punishes and disincentivises early bidders who get player up to near-market value).
The market gets them up to market value pretty quickly. Votto was opened at $25M and made it to $110M in a few hours, almost market value. The delays come when people wait until the 47th hour to rebid. I've counted down the minutes twice with a few of my bids only to see the 48hour clock start over.
I'm also not a fan of a manager having only 4 leading bids (especially when we get into pitching category where some owners with bad inherited rosters need to make up a lot of ground). If we limit everyone to only 4 leading bids then it will definitely take longer for bidding on players to get up to market value faster (the problem we are trying to fix by limiting to only 2 bids per player above). The rule should be that you can bid on every player you're interested in as long as the max of all outstanding winning bids is less than your cap. I have a spreadsheet that has my winning bids so I know how much I'm on the hook for if I win all open bids. Easy stuff.
To illustrate this, I would love to raise bids on Morneau and Votto right now but I have to wait until Sat night and Sun morning when I won't be leading more than 4 bids. This means delays the bidding on both players since they won't get a new 48hour clock until Sunday (instead of now).
Just thoughts.
-
These are the proposed rule changes.
a) Two bids per owner per player after the initial bid/thread has been created. The first bid from the initial post does count against your bid limit.
b) If your first bid is not the initial bid you must place your first bid of your two bid limit within 24 hours of the initial bid. You will not be allowed to bid on the player if you do not bid within the first 24 hours.
What we need is a time mechanism so that the bidding after 24 hours doesn't get drawn out. Something like the winning bid, which may be the initial bid or your first bid or second bid depending on the bidding, must be placed within 48 hours of the initial bid.
This should put a time cap on bidding and give people plenty of time to put their bids in to win the player.
-
I think 2 bids is personally too low. I would never nominate a guy unless the nomination didn't count toward the 2 limit. At that point I'd just wait until everyone else put some bids in and bid on him late into the week when I still had available bids left. This would lead to a longer, more drawn out bidding process as people conserve there bids until as long as possible (which punishes and disincentivises early bidders who get player up to near-market value).
With a time limit, whether you had the initial bid or not wouldn't really matter.
The market gets them up to market value pretty quickly. Votto was opened at $25M and made it to $110M in a few hours, almost market value. The delays come when people wait until the 47th hour to rebid. I've counted down the minutes twice with a few of my bids only to see the 48hour clock start over.
The new system would change all of that. There'd be no bumping bids at the last minute to start all over again.
I'm also not a fan of a manager having only 4 leading bids (especially when we get into pitching category where some owners with bad inherited rosters need to make up a lot of ground). If we limit everyone to only 4 leading bids then it will definitely take longer for bidding on players to get up to market value faster (the problem we are trying to fix by limiting to only 2 bids per player above). The rule should be that you can bid on every player you're interested in as long as the max of all outstanding winning bids is less than your cap. I have a spreadsheet that has my winning bids so I know how much I'm on the hook for if I win all open bids. Easy stuff.
So me with my $97 million to spend should be allowed to post 50 pitchers at one time? Who's going to track and process all of those transactions?
To illustrate this, I would love to raise bids on Morneau and Votto right now but I have to wait until Sat night and Sun morning when I won't be leading more than 4 bids. This means delays the bidding on both players since they won't get a new 48hour clock until Sunday (instead of now).
If you're going to use an example at least make it accurate.
-
These are the proposed rule changes.
a) Two bids per owner per player after the initial bid/thread has been created. The first bid from the initial post does count against your bid limit.
b) If your first bid is not the initial bid you must place your first bid of your two bid limit within 24 hours of the initial bid. You will not be allowed to bid on the player if you do not bid within the first 24 hours.
What we need is a time mechanism so that the bidding after 24 hours doesn't get drawn out. Something like the winning bid, which may be the initial bid or your first bid or second bid depending on the bidding, must be placed within 48 hours of the initial bid.
This should put a time cap on bidding and give people plenty of time to put their bids in to win the player.
I think the initial bidder should have some sort of advantage. Maybe the initial bidder 48 hours to make his final bid. Secondary bidders get 24 to make their second bids. Limit initial bids to four bids per owner at one time. Unlimited winning bids.
-
If you're going to use an example at least make it accurate.
Earliest closing bids:
Yesterday at 01:44:37 AM
by haseloff
will close Saturday
Today at 12:18:24 AM
by haseloff
will close Sunday
I am currently high bid on Soto, Pacheco, Choi and Pena. I would also like to be in on Abrea, Votto, Morneau and Callaspo. I will not be bidding on them (thus extending the 48hr window) until Saturday and Sunday.
A question on how the 2-bid system would work:
I want in on Player A so I place a bid within the first 24 hours. If I really want him, why would I place my second and final bid unless I login at the 47hr 59min mark. I'd risk getting outbid. If only myself and 3 others made the inital 24hour bid, I'd just wait during the second 24hour window until the other 3 placed bids and bid 500k more (or 5m, etc).
-
I think the initial bidder should have some sort of advantage. Maybe the initial bidder 48 hours to make his final bid. Secondary bidders get 24 to make their second bids. Limit initial bids to four bids per owner at one time. Unlimited winning bids.
This would heavily favor the moderators who get to post "FA open for SP" then immediately post 4 SP opening bids. If the opening bidder gets 'final snipe ability', that prevents people who are willing to pay more from getting the player (thus the player doesn't get the best deal).
-
This new FA system is extremely advantageous to those that get on the site more than others. The current system is not broken so why try to fix it?
I can understand tweaking the current one for many reasons. However, if the league votes to change it to the one being proposed here, there will be a lot more griping and complaining not to mention some people might leave the league over it if they lose a player because they could not get on in time to bid on the player again.
48 hours is MUCH BETTER for those of us that have busy lives and only giving 24 hours never works in dynasty leagues. I have seen it time and time again in my experience.
This sounds like 3-4 people want this kind of system and it's almost being forced upon the league regardless whether it's just being discussed.
Also, it's a lot more to remember with how deep this league is already. I think we should just close this discussion up and look at avenues to tweak the current system. Some variation of this system has worked in other leagues and there's no reason why it cannot work here either.
-
Earliest closing bids:
Yesterday at 01:44:37 AM
by haseloff
will close Saturday
Today at 12:18:24 AM
by haseloff
will close Sunday
I am currently high bid on Soto, Pacheco, Choi and Pena. I would also like to be in on Abrea, Votto, Morneau and Callaspo. I will not be bidding on them (thus extending the 48hr window) until Saturday and Sunday.
Actually your bid for Soto hits 48 hours at 11:44pm CST tonight so you can bid on another player tonight if you want. In addition, your Choi bid
was outbid at 5:16pm CST today which cleared you to bid on another player.
Everyone is playing the same rules with the same limitations.
A question on how the 2-bid system would work:
I want in on Player A so I place a bid within the first 24 hours. If I really want him, why would I place my second and final bid unless I login at the 47hr 59min mark. I'd risk getting outbid. If only myself and 3 others made the inital 24hour bid, I'd just wait during the second 24hour window until the other 3 placed bids and bid 500k more (or 5m, etc).
If someone bids 5 years $75m and you want to wait until the last second to bid 5 years $77m... so what? If you're determined to outbid someone no matter the cost then what does it matter if it's on a time limit?
This type of system pushes people to place their best bids within 48 hours instead of mindless back and forth bidding for days on end.
-
This would heavily favor the moderators who get to post "FA open for SP" then immediately post 4 SP opening bids. If the opening bidder gets 'final snipe ability', that prevents people who are willing to pay more from getting the player (thus the player doesn't get the best deal).
I'm the only moderator. If free agency opens at a particular date and time, how does that favor me?
If you're willing to pay more then post your best bid. That's the point. You have 48 hours to post your best offer. If you're the initial bidder and want to wait until the last second to top the best offer then that's your choice and it's the advantage the opening bidder will have.
-
This new FA system is extremely advantageous to those that get on the site more than others. The current system is not broken so why try to fix it?
I can understand tweaking the current one for many reasons. However, if the league votes to change it to the one being proposed here, there will be a lot more griping and complaining not to mention some people might leave the league over it if they lose a player because they could not get on in time to bid on the player again.
48 hours is MUCH BETTER for those of us that have busy lives and only giving 24 hours never works in dynasty leagues. I have seen it time and time again in my experience.
This sounds like 3-4 people want this kind of system and it's almost being forced upon the league regardless whether it's just being discussed.
Also, it's a lot more to remember with how deep this league is already. I think we should just close this discussion up and look at avenues to tweak the current system. Some variation of this system has worked in other leagues and there's no reason why it cannot work here either.
We can change it to 72 hours, that's fine. We're discussing it all right now. Anyone that has ideas should bring them forward.
As much as some may believe this current system works, a lot of people think it's mindless and dumb. Certainly we can do better.
-
How is the current system dumb and mindless?
-
How is the current system dumb and mindless?
I thought that was pretty self-explanatory. haha
-
If someone bids 5 years $75m and you want to wait until the last second to bid 5 years $77m... so what? If you're determined to outbid someone no matter the cost then what does it matter if it's on a time limit?
So determination and ability to get online at a certain time wins out over highest bidder? If this was a redraft league, sure. If I miss out on a player for the next 5 years because someone sniped me at the 47th hour, that doesn't seem to be the perfect system we're looking for.
-
So determination and ability to get online at a certain time wins out over highest bidder? If this was a redraft league, sure. If I miss out on a player for the next 5 years because someone sniped me at the 47th hour, that doesn't seem to be the perfect system we're looking for.
Your ability to post your best bid in a 72 hour period "wins out". You can't be "sniped" if you're posting your best and final offer. Again, that's the point.
I'm all ears for your perfect system in place of the one we're contemplating.
-
Actually your bid for Soto hits 48 hours at 11:44pm CST tonight so you can bid on another player tonight if you want. In addition, your Choi bid
was outbid at 5:16pm CST today which cleared you to bid on another player.
So when I was outbid for Choi, I should've used that to bid on another guy I wanted. Once another leading bid clears (let's say, tomorrow) I use that on Choi again creating another 48 hour window pushing the problem further out?
If we could bid on as many as we wanted, we wouldn't have so many 40hour rebids starting the process over. I understand what you are saying regarding a rich team like :HOU: starting so many SP player bidding wars that managers won't know exactly how much money they have in outstanding leading bids but that is the only problem (thus why I have a spreadsheet).
If the problem is there are so many players going on that you wouldn't be able to track them, I'll volunteer to assist in STICKYing the 48hour closers. Considering there is a timestamp on the forums though, this is a nonissue. As long as people ONLY POST BIDS and no commentary as you put out earlier, we can count 2 days between post times to determine winners (if tragically no one can STICKY the winner immediately).
You're ability to post your best bid in a 72 hour period "wins out".
I'm all ears for your perfect system in place of the one we're contemplating.
I'm all for the best bid idea until we put in in place and see how people are incentivized into using their second bid. Yes, go big or go home works until the snipers wait until the last minute. Maybe i thought 27M for 5Yrs was perfect for Votto. If I get outbid by 5M, I may be willing to go more. A finite number of bids gives extreme preference to those who can time the last bid into the 72hr window.
The current system seams fine. Let people battle it out, close down the position at the end of the week until after all positions have been visited, bring in a few more FA Moderators to assist in identifying winning bids, managers get the player they want at the price they want and have the opportunity to overpay for a career season (Vernon Wells).
-
So when I was outbid for Choi, I should've used that to bid on another guy I wanted. Once another leading bid clears (let's say, tomorrow) I use that on Choi again creating another 48 hour window pushing the problem further out?
If we could bid on as many as we wanted, we wouldn't have so many 40hour rebids starting the process over. I understand what you are saying regarding a rich team like :HOU: starting so many SP player bidding wars that managers won't know exactly how much money they have in outstanding leading bids but that is the only problem (thus why I have a spreadsheet).
If the problem is there are so many players going on that you wouldn't be able to track them, I'll volunteer to assist in STICKYing the 48hour closers. Considering there is a timestamp on the forums though, this is a nonissue. As long as people ONLY POST BIDS and no commentary as you put out earlier, we can count 2 days between post times to determine winners (if tragically no one can STICKY the winner immediately).
It's your decision how you want to use your bids. There's certainly varying strategies in how to use your four winning bids but the rules are the same for everyone.
You're going to have to volunteer to do a heck of a lot more than sticky threads. That's the least of the problems involving unlimited free agency. You don't really seem to understand the amount of work involved in managing an unlimited amount of free agent threads along with roster moves and trades. You also don't understand how difficult it would be for owners to monitor an unlimited amount of free agent threads and to manage their cap and roster space appropriately.
If I had unlimited amount of free agent threads allowed, there's no question I would personally flood the board with 50 free agents and force people to look at every single one of them. If you don't have the time to sign in once every 72 hours... there's no way you're going to have the time to check my 50 threads.
I'm all for the best bid idea until we put in in place and see how people are incentivized into using their second bid. Yes, go big or go home works until the snipers wait until the last minute. Maybe i thought 27M for 5Yrs was perfect for Votto. If I get outbid by 5M, I may be willing to go more. A finite number of bids gives extreme preference to those who can time the last bid into the 72hr window.
There is no sniping when all bids are best and final. If you get outbid, your bid wasn't good enough. It's that simple.
The current system seams fine. Let people battle it out, close down the position at the end of the week until after all positions have been visited, bring in a few more FA Moderators to assist in identifying winning bids, managers get the player they want at the price they want and have the opportunity to overpay for a career season (Vernon Wells).
Your comment seems to be at odds with your recent complaints about the limited winning bids.
-
Quote
The current system seams fine. Let people battle it out, close down the position at the end of the week until after all positions have been visited, bring in a few more FA Moderators to assist in identifying winning bids, managers get the player they want at the price they want and have the opportunity to overpay for a career season (Vernon Wells).
Your comment seems to be at odds with your recent complaints about the limited winning bids.
Explain how?
Fine, make it 8 winning bids at a time. No one would want more than 8 Cs or 8 SSs. Expand it to 12 for SP. Anything to get away from your '50-player nomination' nightmare scenario. But 4 during the crossover period between positions sucks. But 4 during the crossover period between positions sucks.
This '2-bid' monstrosity is your idea so I don't expect you to take any feedback, good or bad for it. I'm just trying to tell you the effects of it. In a league where sniping means control of a player for 5 years, it's significant and the winners aren't based on highest bid, it's on timing the bid to be 5M higher than the guy who needs to go to sleep because he doesn't want to wait until the 47th hour.
You also don't want to understand the velocity concept of how a wider market with more than just 4 leading bids gets the player to market value faster. That's fine too. I'd have already bid up 4 other players if I wasn't confined to 4 leading bids. Yes, I got outbid on Choi and I could have stopped him and started another player. But I would have come back to him in a couple days (before his 48 hour window) to start him up again. This perpetuates the long drawn out problem you're trying to fix.
I understand it's not just about STICKYing a player when 48 hours is up. But that's the management part that we can all make very easy for you. The FANTRAXing and Roster updating doesn't have to be instantaneous. Rosters can be updated at the end of the week, every two weeks, first of every month, doesn't matter you and JSS already do a great job with it. The same number of players will still be signed, there will just be more bidding on their nomination thread.
You're the commish. If you want this policy, put the policy in place. If you're going to propose it though, don't get frustrated with those of us who dislike it and think it will have negative effects.
I'd just hope that everyone in this league will reread some of this discussion in this thread and chime in on what they think. By my count, we might only classify half the league as 'very active'.
-
Your comment seems to be at odds with your recent complaints about the limited winning bids.
Explain how?
Fine, make it 8 winning bids at a time. No one would want more than 8 Cs or 8 SSs. Expand it to 12 for SP. Anything to get away from your '50-player nomination' nightmare scenario. But 4 during the crossover period between positions sucks. But 4 during the crossover period between positions sucks.
Your direct quotes.
The current system seams fine. But 4 during the crossover period between positions sucks.
This '2-bid' monstrosity is your idea so I don't expect you to take any feedback, good or bad for it.
All I've done is ask for feedback. :o That's what this is here for.
I'm just trying to tell you the effects of it. In a league where sniping means control of a player for 5 years, it's significant and the winners aren't based on highest bid, it's on timing the bid to be 5M higher than the guy who needs to go to sleep because he doesn't want to wait until the 47th hour.
Once again, you fail the understand the concept of a best and final bid. If you place your best and final bid and someone outbids you then your bid wasn't good enough regardless of when you posted it.
You also don't want to understand the velocity concept of how a wider market with more than just 4 leading bids gets the player to market value faster. That's fine too. I'd have already bid up 4 other players if I wasn't confined to 4 leading bids. Yes, I got outbid on Choi and I could have stopped him and started another player. But I would have come back to him in a couple days (before his 48 hour window) to start him up again. This perpetuates the long drawn out problem you're trying to fix.
You just said and I quote...
The current system seams fine.
If it's fine why are you complaining about it? You're just all over the place here.
The problem I'm trying to fix is the fact that free agent bidding has little strategy whatsoever and is a long drawn out process. Owners simply bid players up to the minimum amount possible over and over and over again in a mindless fashion until the other owner gives up. Other owners use the 48 hour rule to foil bidding and simply keep players up for bidding. I've experienced this over and over again in other leagues. It's dumb. So yes, we could open it up to 10 winning bids but that's hard to track and manage which is why there's a 4 winning bid limit currently. I'm looking for some combination of increasing the strategy in bidding, stopping this 48 hour bid foil strategy, and moving the process along more quickly.
I understand it's not just about STICKYing a player when 48 hours is up. But that's the management part that we can all make very easy for you. The FANTRAXing and Roster updating doesn't have to be instantaneous. Rosters can be updated at the end of the week, every two weeks, first of every month, doesn't matter you and JSS already do a great job with it. The same number of players will still be signed, there will just be more bidding on their nomination thread.
The fewer people involved with the management the better honestly. I'd like to run an organized league and that's why I've changed the thread titles and been strict about the bidding rules/formats. Rosters shouldn't wait a week or two weeks. This stuff should get done within 48 hours and that's my goal. This league has had 3 commissioners in 3 seasons, let's have a little continuity and structure for a while.
You're the commish. If you want this policy, put the policy in place. If you're going to propose it though, don't get frustrated with those of us who dislike it and think it will have negative effects.
I'd just hope that everyone in this league will reread some of this discussion in this thread and chime in on what they think. By my count, we might only classify half the league as 'very active'.
I'm not putting anything in place this large without feedback from the league. That's what this thread is for but you can't have your own facts. A best and final bid can't be sniped, it can only be outbid.
-
Sure. Play with my words however you like. The current system seems fine; just needs some tweaking. Hopefully that's not too all-over-the-place.
The final 2-bid only system proposed is not fair. Any objective person can read above what I think will happen under that rule.
Just my thoughts.
-
I personally like auction style, I think it sets the market value on the players fairly accurately. The prospects are the guys that we've seen go for higher than expected, but they have gone to the teams with the most money available to win them. I think most of the problems that we have had with rules and the newer owners will be cleared up with experience as we go forward. going to 6 leading bids should help during position transition.
-
Sure. Play with my words however you like. The current system seems fine; just needs some tweaking. Hopefully that's not too all-over-the-place.
The final 2-bid only system proposed is not fair. Any objective person can read above what I think will happen under that rule.
Just my thoughts.
Quoting you isn't playing with your words. Any objective person can read your posts and see your conflicting opinions.
What is not fair about people posting their best and final offers in a certain time frame as opposed to endlessly bidding minimum bids for a week?
We've gone to a six bid limit for winning bids so we'll see how it goes. The discussion is still open here for anyone that wants to add their thoughts.
-
I think 5 year contracts for players over 30 is another thing we should address.