Rules for a new league. - Need opinions

[Rob]

Maybe it's just me, I can be dense... But I wasn't clear on the multiplier being used only for the bid.  If you can make that more clear in your rules I think this is perfect.

[snugerud]

Ok, so revamped the FA bidding rules.  Tell me if you were reading this , if it would make sense.

Free Agency

•   All players that are in the free agent pool and not MILR eligible are considered Free Agents.
•   Max contract is 5 years and Min is 1 yr.
•   To pick up a free agent you must create a post under the players name with a contract bid. Contracts can be no longer than 5 years.  Minimum bid is 200k and bids will be in multiples of 100k per year.  The contract amount can not vary year to year.

 Bids must be in this format. (length @ yearly salary x (multiplier) = total contract value)
A player is won by the highest total contract value. Tie break goes to the team bidding the longer number of years due to the commitment.

To determine a contract value/winning bid you need to take the yearly salary amount multiplied by a set value for the length of the contract.
The values are:
1 yr contract = 1
2 yr contract = 1.25
3 yr contract = 1.5
4 yr contract = 2
5 yr contract = 2.5

so for a 3 yr contract @ 2 million you take 2 (being the yearly amout) x 1.5 (because it is a 3yr contract.  = 3 TCV

Examples of bids would be
Dan Boyle -  3 yrs @ 5 million x 1.5(bid multiplier) = 7.5 TCV
4 yrs @ 4 million x 2 = 8.0 TCV
2 yrs @ 7 million x 1.25 = 8.75 TCV. 

[Rob]

Ah, I see. I missed that the value factor is only for bids. It all makes sense now!

[snugerud]

not sure i get what you mean.  The contracts are still going to remain a constant amount for the duration of their contract.  So if you bid 5 yrs @ 4 million,  you still pay that player 4 million per year for 5 years. 

The formula is used only to determine a winning bid.  Currently we would add 4+4+4+4+4=20   with gypsies method we take 4 (being the year salary) and multiply by 2  giving us an adjust value of 8 . 

Think about it from a players point of view.  would you rather make 8 mill with a 1 yr contract  or be paid 4 million a year for the next 5 years.

[Rob]

I've been mulling this over all day and I like the idea but I think it's flawed in that you eliminate any risk of teams running into future cap problems.  With every contract having diminishing value the format basically budgets for you, reducing much of the risk involved in signing free agents.  It's not that I want teams to have cap problems, but to remove the exposure to cap problems might take away from team building strategy.  What are your thoughts on this?

[snugerud]

Actually I am going to retract that,  I crunched some numbers

The real beauty of it, is the lower number contracts tend to favor shorter term contracts, then the higher you go the more and more the longer term tends to outweigh a short term contract because of the savings.

This would only work if there were no free drops in a league. 

200k per year
Ex. here you are only saving 200k to bid 5 yrs as opposed to a 1 yr.
1 yr - 400k x 1 = 400                 1 yr 8      x 1        =  8   
2yr - 400k x 1.25 = 500             2 yr 6.5   x 1.25   = 8.25
3yr - 300k x 1.5 = 450               3 yr 5.5   x 1.5     = 8.25
4 yr - 300k x 1.75 = 525            4 yr 4.75 x 1.75   = 8.5
5 yr - 200k x 2 = 400                 5 yr 4      x   2      = 8

[snugerud]

Snugerud's to the MAX             Snugerud's Recent                         Our way
1 yr 8      x 1        =  8              1 yr at 8 x 1         =  8                1 yr at 8    =    8
2 yr 6.5   x 1.25   = 8.25          3 yr at 4 x 2         =  8                2 yr at 4    =    8
3 yr 5.5   x 1.5     = 8.25          5 yr at 3.25 x 2.5 = 8.25            3 yr at 2.7 =    8.1
4 yr 4.75 x 1.75   = 8.5                                                              4 yr at 3.5   =   14
5 yr 4      x   2      = 8                                                                 5 yr at 5      =  20

I got thinking about this last night.  Your "max" way is really no more difficult than what we are using now.  I cant remember how many times I have swapped back and forth to the rules section to see where the next step up begins for additional years. 

The only thing I could think to add to this would be:
"To bid longer than 3 years , yearly minimum would need to be over 3 million."  So between 0-3 mill per year max length of contract is 3 yrs.  3.1 million and above can be anywhere between 1 -5 years."

This would prevent teams locking players into cheap contracts long term. 

Oh and I would adjust back to a 100k increments since I only used 250k to make the %'s work easier. 
 

[snugerud]

nice job gypsie, i knew i could count on you being as big of a geek as i am.

I like the way you did the Snugerud to the max.  not the way i had envisioned it but fantastically much more simplistic to understand and relay rather than using the percentages. 

Me likeey and will adopt it as my new bidding system. 

[GypsieDeathBringer]

That bidding system sounds very neat.  It adds a nice wrinkle.  I broke it down a couple ways just so people could see the difference in contract values needed to win a player.
 
Snugerud's to the MAX             Snugerud's Recent                         Our way
1 yr 8      x 1        =  8              1 yr at 8 x 1         =  8                1 yr at 8    =    8
2 yr 6.5   x 1.25   = 8.25          3 yr at 4 x 2         =  8                2 yr at 4    =    8
3 yr 5.5   x 1.5     = 8.25          5 yr at 3.25 x 2.5 = 8.25            3 yr at 2.7 =    8.1
4 yr 4.75 x 1.75   = 8.5                                                              4 yr at 3.5   =   14
5 yr 4      x   2      = 8                                                                 5 yr at 5      =  20

(I rounded up, but value had to be over the lowest winning contract value first and then rounded up.  So, in the first column 2 yrs at 6.25 x 1.25 = 7.8 which isn't over 8 so you have to go to 6.5 to win the bid and it rounds to 8.25)

So I think the point is that if a player were offered these in real life which method best represents the choice they'd make and sign for that amount.  Our way is the most accessible and is made more realistic with minimum contract amounts by the year.  But, clearly a guy isn't going to pass up 8 million for 1 year to sign a 3 year deal for 2.7million.  The middle one is more realistic, but the lack of flexibility in contract length is a bummer.  The left column is the most realistic as a player might pass up 1 year at 8million for 3 yr at 5.5.

Sadly with more realistic comes less accessibility.   My preference would always be towards more realistic. 

[snugerud]

ya, i thought about limiting to 1, 3 or 5 yr contracts only. 

So your 1 year is counted at face vaule,

3 yrs,  you just multiply your 1st year by 2

5 yrs you multiply your 1st year by 2.5.    Not sure if that is easier or more confusing , ha ha. 

So your 1 year is counted at face vaule,
(1yr @ 3m = 3 CV)

3 yrs,  you just multiply your 1st year by 2
(ex. 3yrs @ 3 million,   3 x2 = 6 CV)

5 yrs you multiply your 1st year by 2.5. 
(5yrs @ 3 million ,  3 x 2.5 = 7.5 CV)

We are using a variance of this on my Fantrax league but we only go to 3 yrs on it.  In most cases the players are still getting the 3 year contract but you see it more in play for older players and we didnt use the signing bonus option. ... yet.