FA bidding

[Lucas Lima #52]

I'm not from the Rules Commitee, but just one thing that crossed my mind while reading the posts here...

If you wanna do a 'realistic' years/sallary relation, I would say that you should consider the player age factor... Youngsters normaly want more cash guaranteed... Old players want more years... And players in the middle look for both...

I don't know if it's really going to be practical and useful, but just to give you the idea...

[Dan Wood]

I am not on the RC either but I do like Chris's idea for FA's. However as we have noticed teams like to backload contracts. So lets my team offers Holliday a 4 year contract at 100 mil, and no one tops that. Would I, for instance, be able to do something like yr1 - 15, yr 2 - 25, yr 3 - 30, yr 4 30... I think that is something to think about. Not that I have the room or the budget for Holliday, nor do I think he is worth that much in fantasy or in real life, but I think it is something we should consider, since we are trying to mimic the MLB.

[Colby]

I am not on the RC either but I do like Chris's idea for FA's. However as we have noticed teams like to backload contracts. So lets my team offers Holliday a 4 year contract at 100 mil, and no one tops that. Would I, for instance, be able to do something like yr1 - 15, yr 2 - 25, yr 3 - 30, yr 4 30... I think that is something to think about. Not that I have the room or the budget for Holliday, nor do I think he is worth that much in fantasy or in real life, but I think it is something we should consider, since we are trying to mimic the MLB.

Dan, this would pertain to you as the up and coming league executive, but that would require much more administration.  This is why I set up the flat salaries.  I think we could do something simple for bidding as Chris suggested.  All bids are in form of annual salary with # of years (no years listed is assumed to be 1).    Adding years to contract allows you to lower salary by 25%.  Subtracting years to a contract bid forces you to raise salary by 50%.

Example
Pirates open up bid on Matt Holliday for $10m
Cardinals bid at $7.5m for 2 years (25% less for one additional year)
Rays bid $15m for 3 years
Rangers bid $11m for 4 years (25% less rounded up for one additional year)
Blue Jays bid $18m for 4 years
Rays bid $13.5 for 5 years (25% less again)
Yankees bid $18m for 5 years
Mariners bid $27m for 4 years (50% raise per 1 year)
Phillies bid $20m for 5 years (25% less per 1 year)
Blue Jays bid $22m for 5 years... at this point one less year will cost $11m more per year, so the contract will surely be the maximum of 5 years

This is about as simple as you can get with giving a lot of respect to a longer contract.  Let the GM dictate how much they want to give (young or old).  The home-team discount is already present in the extensions and RFA process.

[lp815]

Dan, this would pertain to you as the up and coming league executive, but that would require much more administration.  This is why I set up the flat salaries.  I think we could do something simple for bidding as Chris suggested.  All bids are in form of annual salary with # of years (no years listed is assumed to be 1).    Adding years to contract allows you to lower salary by 25%.  Subtracting years to a contract bid forces you to raise salary by 50%.

Example
Pirates open up bid on Matt Holliday for $10m
Cardinals bid at $7.5m for 2 years (25% less for one additional year)
Rays bid $15m for 3 years
Rangers bid $11m for 4 years (25% less rounded up for one additional year)
Blue Jays bid $18m for 4 years
Rays bid $13.5 for 5 years (25% less again)
Yankees bid $18m for 5 years
Mariners bid $27m for 4 years (50% raise per 1 year)
Phillies bid $20m for 5 years (25% less per 1 year)
Blue Jays bid $22m for 5 years... at this point one less year will cost $11m more per year, so the contract will surely be the maximum of 5 years

This is about as simple as you can get with giving a lot of respect to a longer contract.  Let the GM dictate how much they want to give (young or old).  The home-team discount is already present in the extensions and RFA process.

A sound idea, but I want to point something out.  According to our rules, if I interpret them right, when a team claims an RFA tag on a player (say I claim Holliday's $22 at 5 years bid by the Blue Jays), the team who claimed them is allowed to set the years they want.  Is that correct?  I'll post the official ruling here:

RFA tags
When a player is due to become a free agent in the off-season, a team may tag them as restricted. Therefore, whenever a bid is finalized on the player, the team that tagged the FA restricted will be allowed to match the highest bid.  They will be given one week to match the bid.  Teams are given X RFA tags based on which tier they sit in.

For example, say Adrian Gonzalez is tagged RFA entering the 09-10 off-season.  If the final bid is at $21m, then the retainer of the RFA's rights must match the salary amount ($21m) for any length up to 5 years (the contract limit).

Wouldn't our proposed ruling force RFA's that are claimed to take the final bid (in years) and not set the years for themselves?

[ChinMusic]

Dan, this would pertain to you as the up and coming league executive, but that would require much more administration.  This is why I set up the flat salaries.  I think we could do something simple for bidding as Chris suggested.  All bids are in form of annual salary with # of years (no years listed is assumed to be 1).    Adding years to contract allows you to lower salary by 25%.  Subtracting years to a contract bid forces you to raise salary by 50%.

Example
Pirates open up bid on Matt Holliday for $10m
Cardinals bid at $7.5m for 2 years (25% less for one additional year)
Rays bid $15m for 3 years
Rangers bid $11m for 4 years (25% less rounded up for one additional year)
Blue Jays bid $18m for 4 years
Rays bid $13.5 for 5 years (25% less again)
Yankees bid $18m for 5 years
Mariners bid $27m for 4 years (50% raise per 1 year)
Phillies bid $20m for 5 years (25% less per 1 year)
Blue Jays bid $22m for 5 years... at this point one less year will cost $11m more per year, so the contract will surely be the maximum of 5 years

This is about as simple as you can get with giving a lot of respect to a longer contract.  Let the GM dictate how much they want to give (young or old).  The home-team discount is already present in the extensions and RFA process.

Like it. Particularly like the simplicity in that it's just the last offer which you baseline the next step on - Add dollars, add years at -25%, take away years at +50%, or drop out of the running. 4 simple options.

However referencing the above example I think we need to challenge or even remove the 25% threshold with possible tiering. In the example the step from the Rays to the Orioles reduces the contract value from $45m to $44m - and with one extra season played. I've just run some stats and as an example, a $25m deal for year 1 can be converted to $20m for year 2 ($45m total)...running this over at the maximum discount for a 5 year deal is total $50.2million, as the per year value continues to backflush and reduce the overall dollar value. Anyone would take the 2 year deal but that would not win out here. The 5 year deal would.

Maybe just drop the 25% reduction alltogether? More years, More dollars, or 50% premium for less years would be the 3 options.

Cheers,
Chris

[Lucas Lima #52]

Like it. Particularly like the simplicity in that it's just the last offer which you baseline the next step on - Add dollars, add years at -25%, take away years at +50%, or drop out of the running. 4 simple options.

However referencing the above example I think we need to challenge or even remove the 25% threshold with possible tiering. In the example the step from the Rays to the Orioles reduces the contract value from $45m to $44m - and with one extra season played. I've just run some stats and as an example, a $25m deal for year 1 can be converted to $20m for year 2 ($45m total)...running this over at the maximum discount for a 5 year deal is total $50.2million, as the per year value continues to backflush and reduce the overall dollar value. Anyone would take the 2 year deal but that would not win out here. The 5 year deal would.

Maybe just drop the 25% reduction alltogether? More years, More dollars, or 50% premium for less years would be the 3 options.

Cheers,
Chris

I noticed the exact same thing... I found one formula that would protect against those flaws, but would be a little bit complicated

To add years, the bid yearly value must be greater than:

[(# of Years added)*0.5 + (Old Bid # of Years)]*(Old Bid Value)/(New Total # of Years)

To remove years, the bid yearly value must be greater than:

(Old Bid Total Value)/[Old bid # of Years - (Years Removed)*0.5]

I'm thinking about ways to simplfy those formulas... I already got one idea for adding years, but I haven't found anything for removing years...

[Colby]

We are trying to keep it from being complicated.  I like the idea of the years varying, so the 25% reduction is needed.  We could always make it 20% if need be.

Jake, if this rule went through, I would add the caveat that if a team with the RFA rights matched the bid then they could still choose the years.  There has to be some inherent advantage for the RFA tag.

[lp815]

We are trying to keep it from being complicated.  I like the idea of the years varying, so the 25% reduction is needed.  We could always make it 20% if need be.

Jake, if this rule went through, I would add the caveat that if a team with the RFA rights matched the bid then they could still choose the years.  There has to be some inherent advantage for the RFA tag.

Gotcha.  I'm all for some sort of new implementation then.  I'll check back to see what the major players in this debate can agree to.

[KDoc09]

I don't know if you are looking for everyone to chime in on this, but I figured I'd throw my two cents out there from the mathematically challenged perspective. I think the less complicated the process the better, especially once bidding starts, since many of us might be bidding on multiple players at the same time, while managing our own payrolls as well, things could get a bit complicated. Just the explanations for some of these possible solutions; while well thought out and extremely thorough make my head hurt. And that's not a knock on any of you that presented them; it's more a knock on me and my own limited mathematical abilities. 

Personally, I like the total value of the contract being the deciding factor, providing that the per year salary is at least 75-80 percent of the highest offer made. I don't know any player that would take one year for 25 over a two year for 38-40, especially in a sport where injury or one bad month could completely change your market value in a flash. Guaranteed money is almost always the deciding factor in all of the deals these days; its all about security and if we are trying to mimic real-life as much as possible, total dollars is more important than even the per-year average... provided that the per-year is commensurate with the market value of a player in their free agent year. Just my two cents. Trying to make it as simple and equitable as possible.

[KDoc09]

You could even tier up the percentages based on the length of the contract. For example.

Team A offers Matt Holliday a 1 yr/$20m deal, which is the highest dollar offer.

Based on a pre-established percent structure of 90-85-80-75 for each additional year, a two-year deal would need to be 90 percent of the $20m, or $18m per ($36m total). A three-year deal would need to be $17m per ($51m total). A four-year deal would need to be $16m per ($64m total), and a five-year deal would need to be $15m per ($75m total).