Author Topic: FA bidding  (Read 6011 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
FA bidding
« on: January 06, 2010, 12:59:20 PM »
My original designs for this league had some simpler rules.  I never expected the league to become this good or MLFB to grow as much as it did.  With that said, I think the FA bidding process should be reviewed, specifically for the number of years in the contract.  Currently, the winner of the bid gets to choose the years.  However, this is flawed big time.

Wouldn't Matt Holliday go for a 5-year deal paying $18m a year versus a 2-year paying $23m a year?  I wish there was some way we could fix this before free agency started, but I suppose it is a bit late.  If you have any ideas, feel free to shoot them...
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

lp815

  • Guest
Re: FA bidding
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2010, 05:12:16 PM »
Another league I play in has minimum years set for players that in the top 10 and top 20 of their position in the year prior.  I believe it's 5 year minimum if they are in the top 10, 3 years if they are in the top 20.  Just a thought, it seems to work well in that league.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

ChinMusic

  • Guest
Re: FA bidding
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2010, 05:18:27 PM »
My original designs for this league had some simpler rules.  I never expected the league to become this good or MLFB to grow as much as it did.  With that said, I think the FA bidding process should be reviewed, specifically for the number of years in the contract.  Currently, the winner of the bid gets to choose the years.  However, this is flawed big time.

Wouldn't Matt Holliday go for a 5-year deal paying $18m a year versus a 2-year paying $23m a year?  I wish there was some way we could fix this before free agency started, but I suppose it is a bit late.  If you have any ideas, feel free to shoot them...

Not sure if you want my opinions here as I'm not a member of the RC, but here goes anyway...

How about the overall contract value takes the player, with the dollar value per year being within a certain percentage of the highest offer regardless of years.

Simple example

Mariners offer Holliday $25m per year, 1 year contract

If the percentage was set at 20% with a round-down rule, the further years could be offered at a minimum of $20m per year

So the Pirates then offer 2 years, $20m per = $40m. They lead the race for his signature.

Anyone wanting to offer more years would have to offer at least $20m per going forward.

Anyone wanting to offer the same number of years could do so at a higher rate i.e. $20.5m+

To continue the example -
Cardinals would like to offer 3 years, they would have to offer between $20m and $25m (or indeed more than $25m if they so wish)

Let's say they offer 3 years, $22.5m = $67.5m

Further interested parties would be looking at $23m+ on a 3 year basis ($68m), or offer the 4th year from within the original range of $20 - $25m from the maximum offer per year

There would have to be a rule that the maximum per year offer can only be increased if this makes the offer the highest dollar value contract, otherwise the baseline figure from which the percentage is flexed can be manipulated.

So any interested teams basically have to increase the dollar value for the same number of years, or add a further year from the given range to increase the overall value of the contract.

I think this may better reflect the free agency market, where offering the years normally is the deal maker rather than dollars, expecially over 1 year.

I think the main flaw with the current system is that you can offer a massive 1-year deal, then settle back next offseason and pay the contract rate, almost definitely at a lower dollar value.

funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Daniel

  • MVP
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 3918
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :LAL:
    • :LA:
    • :UCLA:
    • :LIV:
    • View Profile
Re: FA bidding
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2010, 05:25:51 PM »
we could use a formula to calculate total value for the contract, but I also have an interesting proposition, how about giving a winning team from last season a small advantage over a losing team? that would make it even more realistic. I would suggest this:

Total Value = winning factor * (# of years * yearly contract value + yearly contract value ^ 1.3)

I would suggest that the winning factor should be something like this:

win percentage  (minimum)         winning factor
     1.000                                      1.15
      .750                                       1.10
      .600                                       1.05
      .500                                       1.00
      .400                                       0.95
      .250                                       0.90
      .000                                       0.85

This way it will be a small difference, but it may be more realistic. I would also suggest that the hometown team for each player always get the multiplier of 1.1 regardless of it's record.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Franchise GM: Toronto Blue Jays

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Re: FA bidding
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2010, 07:00:11 PM »
I like both of those suggestions, and these were dynamics that I thought of before I created the league a year ago.  If existing GMs are proposing such rules then this is something the RC should seriously consider.  I think we could go with something simple in the mean time as this would have to be passed before the 15th.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

Canada8999

  • Guest
Re: FA bidding
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2010, 08:03:15 PM »
Another option is to impose minimum contract lengths based on the salary, similar to the currently implemented maximum lengths.  There are some MLB cases where players sign large contracts for only 1-2 seasons, but it seems to me that often than not big money means a long deal (3+ years), and this would be a simple way to enforce that.

For a more complex solution, we could calculate the total value of a contract using a time-value of money type approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money, where the value of future seasons are discounted.  Teams propose a yearly salary and number of years - highest total value wins.

PV = [A / i] * [1 - 1/((1+i)^n)]

PV = Present Value
A = Annual Salary
i = Interest Rate (discount rate)
n = Number of Years

Comparing the hypothetical Holliday contracts of $18.0M/year, 5-years ($90M total) vs. $23.0M/year, 2-years ($46M total), and using an example discount rate of 0.05:

$18.0M/year, 5-years: PV = $77.93
$23.0M/year, 2-years: PV = $42.76
For the 2-year deal to be worth more, it would have to be $42.0M/year

If the interest rate were set to 0.5:
$18.0M/year, 5-years: PV = $31.26
$23.0M/year, 2-years: PV = $25.56
For the 2-year deal to be worth more, it would have to be $28.5M/year
Also, increasing to 3-years would be more - $23.0M/year, 3-years: PV = $32.37
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 08:16:53 PM by Brewers GM »
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

ChinMusic

  • Guest
Re: FA bidding
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2010, 08:07:52 AM »
I think any system would need to be simple to understand and apply, free agency will be hectic enough I would imagine and I think the values need to be easy to determine and move on. Plus any system that we were thinking of using before FA this year would need to be very clear to understand. I fear that applying net present values to contract offers would cause some confusion.

Not that I'm simply pushing my own idea, but one practical addition to it would be a clear statement per bid to set the current market state.

i.e. If the current market was at 1-year, $15m and I pushed to 2 years, $15m I would post

Seattle offer 2 years, $15m
Current contract value $30m
Current highest per year offer $15m

or some shortened format to make clear the current terms of engagement within the latest high bid.

Regarding home town discounts this is a nice idea to me, but I wonder how this affects RFA tagging. Multiple tags for the smaller market teams is a key advantage, if we are saying that they also get a discount for their additional tags then this would potentially increase that. Also with the ability to offer new contracts with no fear of refusal or the players agent taking them to the open market, that seems like a hometown advantage  already.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Re: FA bidding
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2010, 09:21:16 AM »
Ben, I am an actuary, and while I would love to see discounted contracts used, it is a bit too complex for most people in the league.  I am not saying that people are dumb, but the league should still be easy to understand and play.  There is enough research that goes into one move.  I am interested in what Chris has to say though.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

clidwin

  • Guest
Re: FA bidding
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2010, 09:56:17 AM »
Hey lets make it a little easier for the guys. But we really need to get this WRAP UP! in the next couple days!
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

ChinMusic

  • Guest
Re: FA bidding
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2010, 01:10:23 PM »
Ben, I am an actuary, and while I would love to see discounted contracts used, it is a bit too complex for most people in the league.  I am not saying that people are dumb, but the league should still be easy to understand and play.  There is enough research that goes into one move.  I am interested in what Chris has to say though.

Thats put it over exactly. I'm sure the members all followed the logic and understood the premise, but we are going to be dealing with multiple threads, maybe with more than one player on offer for your franchise, and we need to be able to look straight at the thread and see what it takes to get the lead bidding for the player.

If you guys are happy for me to run with this idea I can put a proposal together that reads like a genuine rule, and have that rejected / approved or tweaked.

This should be able to be done with the urgency reminded by Clive in his earlier thread. Do you think it's possible to review before FA begins, assuming I get the green light to post it up later today?

Chris
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

 

Forum Search


Quick Profile

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Chat Room

Refresh History
  • Daddy: A lot. I think about $300 per season.
    Yesterday at 05:24:18 PM
  • Daddy: Added to the cable bill of like $200. That nobody ever used.
    Yesterday at 05:25:01 PM
  • Daddy: So i had DirecTV for 12 months to use Sunday ticket for 3 months and paid like 3 installments of roughly $100 added to my $200m bill.
    Yesterday at 05:26:18 PM
  • Daddy: For that i got two TVs that could watch any game any time any where. Problem is they getting played at the same times. You cant watch every game. Why you charging me for every game?
    Yesterday at 05:27:40 PM
  • Daddy: If thats the case i should have access to 32 different monitors. Right?
    Yesterday at 05:30:19 PM
  • Daddy: Or maybe 16. I would take 16. But two. Give me my bread back Mafia!
    Yesterday at 05:31:38 PM
  • Daddy: Making me watch  Bo Nix + Zach Wilson + Jared Stidham = you should be paying me
    Yesterday at 05:33:56 PM
  • Daddy: Me and coach Payton [link]
    Yesterday at 05:34:53 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Thats cap by the way. I pay for my own way to watch my team
    Yesterday at 05:41:55 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I dont have your account or login
    Yesterday at 05:42:07 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I used yours for 1-2 seasons.
    Yesterday at 05:43:32 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I used my mothers for a decade before that
    Yesterday at 05:43:46 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: But ive used my way for the past few years. Ill be paying attention like i said
    Yesterday at 05:44:27 PM
  • Daddy: She deserves a refund too
    Yesterday at 05:46:27 PM
  • Daddy: The point was DirecTV never got in your pockets and it was a rip-off but they had a monopoly on the product. Im not loving all the streaming games but DTV will be paying $$$.
    Yesterday at 05:48:22 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: The new iteration with Youtube TV isnt the greatest either but an improvement on Directtv version
    Yesterday at 05:48:37 PM
  • Daddy: And your grandfather used it every year besides those two :rofl:
    Yesterday at 05:49:26 PM
  • Daddy: I kept DirecTV and always willing to share. But thats my point.
    Yesterday at 05:49:47 PM
  • Daddy: If i had 3 monitors rather than two or four rather than two, either me or moms save money. Lots of it.
    Yesterday at 05:50:26 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Yea your point is just wrong is all. Theyve gotten into my pockets directly and indirectly
    Yesterday at 05:51:03 PM
  • Daddy: Oh, i was unaware. DTV must have got us all.
    Yesterday at 05:51:55 PM
  • Daddy: I know you dont endorse them. Never did. I paid for lots of crap i never used. Just for NFL Sunday Ticket.
    Yesterday at 05:52:45 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I dont and didnt endorse cable period. The irony is streaming is becoming cable now.
    Yesterday at 05:55:39 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I paid for directtv version 1-2 years when i had my apartment. Not as much as the 35+ crowd but they did
    Yesterday at 05:56:34 PM
  • Daddy: Still never watched a game on YouTube. I miss the days of CBS = AFC >> FOX/NBC = NFC >> ABC = MNF
    Yesterday at 05:56:42 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: There was no reason to have directtv outside of sunday ticket. My apartment couldnt get it so i paid ONLY for sunday ticket
    Yesterday at 05:57:04 PM
  • Daddy: I was ok with TNF & SNF.
    Yesterday at 05:57:43 PM
  • Daddy: Its all over the place now. So ive stuck with what i know. The Ticket. I can't miss a Rams game. Not gonna do it.
    Yesterday at 05:58:45 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Now they stream some games only on amazon and peacock. I need a streaming lawsuit
    Yesterday at 06:01:20 PM
  • indiansnation: Dont forget disney + soon u will stream games pn their
    Yesterday at 09:43:09 PM
  • indiansnation: Disney trying yo buy nfl network and using espn as part of the trade off nfl will own a certain % of espn. First deal eas 70m for nfl network but nfl turned that down real quick
    Yesterday at 09:46:43 PM
  • indiansnation: Anyone want to talk trade nfl live,mlb live,fgm,armchair
    Yesterday at 10:00:02 PM
  • indiansnation: And any other league that im in that i didnt post yet
    Yesterday at 10:00:35 PM
  • Daddy: They keep throwing insane money at the NFL to televise games and owners share those shiny pennies just enough with the players.
    Yesterday at 10:39:25 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: I'm available.  Not sure if we match up anywhere other than NHL Live, but let me know if there's something you're interested in @Brian
    Yesterday at 10:45:39 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: The other leagues for me are FGM, MLB Live and DNHL in case any-one else is looking to do a deal
    Yesterday at 10:49:01 PM
  • Daddy: Healthy mix. Couple baseball, couple hockey, different scoring options.
    Yesterday at 11:08:15 PM
  • Daddy: You probably kick ass in all of them although NHL LIVE hasnt officially started.
    Yesterday at 11:08:42 PM
  • Daddy: I respect your gaming options
    Yesterday at 11:09:54 PM
  • Daddy: I would for sure be an FGM or Armchair owner if i were here for baseball. Powerhouse too. Why not? Great leagues with better LMs.
    Yesterday at 11:16:38 PM
  • Daddy: DNHL must be 15 years old. Gotta be doing something right. Most leagues dont make it past 5. Very few make it 10.
    Yesterday at 11:20:45 PM
  • Daddy: I think Rob been running that league longer than ive been on profsl. Legendary LM.
    Yesterday at 11:22:42 PM
  • indiansnation: Jmntl82 pm important messave about armchair
    Yesterday at 11:45:05 PM
  • jmntl82: indiansnation-replied
    Yesterday at 11:48:26 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: thanks @daddy.  I hold my own
    Today at 12:05:43 AM
  • Braves155: Will be around today for deal talks - ANY sport
    Today at 10:12:32 AM
  • Daddy: You tellem @Braves!
    Today at 11:47:14 AM
  • IndianaBuc: Braves PM
    Today at 03:04:47 PM
  • Braves155: Back
    Today at 03:10:34 PM
  • IndianaBuc: Back
    Today at 03:19:17 PM