A few issues I'd like to see fixed. - Page 2 - Suggestions

Posts: 959 (0)

Hall of Famer

65

Prospect

surf- Why should there be a cuttoff day? If you and I are in a bidding war why shouldn't it go until the middle of the season if we both keep raising our offer every day or two? If you don't want to risk it, you can drop out. That's how it would work in MLB. Why different in HBD? Current system has is overly complex and can be gamed by players who know the odd rules.

6/19/2012 9:14 PM

tufft

Posts: 959 (0)

Hall of Famer

65

Prospect

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2012 7:50:00 PM (view original):
I've thought it out quite clearly. There are several cycles where no player signs. I bid 5m to 75 players on cycle one. For the next 7 cycles, everyone is trying to find the market on those 75 players. On the first signing cycle, I get one guy. The worst guy. Fine, I don't care, I'm leaving the worlds after this season. However, I've set the market on a whole bunch of players because I bid 5m on them on the first cycle and the rest of the world chased that number.

Are you sure you've thought it out?

>> There are several cucles where no player signs.

It doesn't have to be that way. It could be changed.

>> Set the market on a whole bunch of player.

No, you haven't. One of your offers would be quickly accepted. Your other offers disapear. If anyone else made any of those players an offer someone gets an email that they are now the high bidder. Or that offer is accepted. Any offer on the tabe can be accepted at any time.

i think we're done here. You don't seem to understand that the process and logic could be changed. I don't expect to change your mind. I only bother in hope that someone else is working on an MLB simulation that makes some of the recommended improvements.

6/19/2012 9:32 PM

bfkfraser

Posts: 1197 (0)

Hall of Famer

28 120 168

Prospect

Posted by tufft on 6/19/2012 9:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2012 7:50:00 PM (view original):
I've thought it out quite clearly. There are several cycles where no player signs. I bid 5m to 75 players on cycle one. For the next 7 cycles, everyone is trying to find the market on those 75 players. On the first signing cycle, I get one guy. The worst guy. Fine, I don't care, I'm leaving the worlds after this season. However, I've set the market on a whole bunch of players because I bid 5m on them on the first cycle and the rest of the world chased that number.

Are you sure you've thought it out?
>> There are several cucles where no player signs.

It doesn't have to be that way. It could be changed.

>> Set the market on a whole bunch of player.

No, you haven't. One of your offers would be quickly accepted. Your other offers disapear. If anyone else made any of those players an offer someone gets an email that they are now the high bidder. Or that offer is accepted. Any offer on the tabe can be accepted at any time.

i think we're done here. You don't seem to understand that the process and logic could be changed. I don't expect to change your mind. I only bother in hope that someone else is working on an MLB simulation that makes some of the recommended improvements.

It is unlikely that WIS would adopt a system that benefits a select few users who can submit bids the first cycle, So, with that, there will likely be several cycles without signings. Otherwise people who are asleep or working without access are not left out to dry. Besides whose to say a player will jump at the first offer. He may wait to see if there are others interested that have yet to knock on the door. Johnny Damon waited a couple of months before signing with the Tigers a few seasons ago.

Mike is right. By submitting several bids, he sets the market. Some players may be outbid and thus perhaps overpaid since the other owner has no idea when the bi would be withdrawn as we do not know when one will necessarily sign the proverbial dotted line

6/19/2012 10:20 PM (edited)

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Yes, I am right. tuft seems to think some players should sign immediately or almot immediately. Can't see any problems there, right? Won't it be fun when the owner who missed the first 3-4 cycles of FA finds that the half dozen or so players he wanted are gone?

6/19/2012 10:45 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Even more fun is the owner who knows he's got a double-shift in front of him so he doubles his offer in hopes of not being outbid in the first 4 cycles. He gets to pay 10m to a player who asked for 5m and gets no other offers.

6/19/2012 10:49 PM

irondawg

Posts: 20 (0)

Hall of Famer

88

Prospect

I realize that sometimes you have to account for the lowest common denominator and that in this case it would be the guy that's basically trying to screw around with everyone else and then would bail on the league in a heartbeat. That is a problem, I agree.

But there could still be limits and there's no reason the FA cycle can't go longer. Give owners two days to submit initial bids before any FA signs. Allow only overbidding of 2x of your remaining salary budget or something so yeah, you could mess with the market for some guys but you couldn't terrorize the whole FA system.

Ideally the whole FA system would be a bit smarter and more responsive giving you better feedback on the market conditions so you could have a better feel where you stand with guys.

There's never a "perfect" solution with stuff like this but I really think it can be better than what we have today.

6/20/2012 1:25 AM

tufft

Posts: 959 (0)

Hall of Famer

65

Prospect

If Mike's wants to screw a world he's leaving, he can do that now. Offer $5M to a crap FA. He doesn't need to make 74 other offers. He's trying so hard to defend his idea he's not thinking clearly. Allowing us to overbid our budget doesn't give Mike a new way to screw the world on his way out. He can do that now.

The system I'm trying to explain would work fine if no players signed for a few days at the start of FA. If no players sign, there is no market value. The market is set when a deal is make, not when offers that can be pulled at any time are being tossed around. So Mikes 75 offers don't impact anything. At whatever cycle players will start to sign, one will take Mike's $5M. The rest of the offers go away.

If we can get a message that says we were over bid, we can get one that says our offer is now the best . Or a message that says that the offer we pulled is looking pretty good now & would we consider putting it on the table. Just like it works in the real world. None of it is complicated logic.

Just like in the real world, some players would act fast and grab an offer before it's pulled and some would wait longer. MLB teams overbid their budget and it works that way. Would work fine in HBD if the process was changed.

Easy enough to set it up so players with a lot of offer move slower than players with few. If Mike offers $5M to a player asking for $1M, and that player has no other offers, or one offer at $1M, then that player should jump on $5M right away after whatever no signing period there is.

So long as everyone has 36-48 hours to get in a bid, the system is fair. If you want a player, don't low ball. That's how it works in the real world with any offer. Make a low offer & someone might beat you. Make a high offer, and you might pay more than you could have if you slowly raised your bid. It's the way negotiations work.

It wouldn't be hard to add logic to penalize the kind of moves Mike's threatens. There could be a maximum number of offers that could be out at one time (not a maximum dollar amount, so long as no one offer is over what can be spent). Too many pulled offers could trigger a 1-3 day nobody will sign with you situation, as word would get to agents & players that you're wasting their time with offers.

The current system can be gamed in several ways. I think a lot of them have been mentioned, so they don't need to be repeated. I'm don't mean to criticize Mike, but I think he's figured out the current system. He doesn't win them all, but he knows the tricks and he's online all day almost every day so he he wins a lot more than his fair share. So he wants to maintain that system. If the system changed, he's might not win the bidding as often as he does now.

6/20/2012 1:58 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Too long to read so I read the first and last paragraphs.

No, it's not about screwing a world. I used 75 as an exaggeration.   But my "target list" is often in the 20s.   I'd have no problem paying for any of them.   So I'd bid my max on each.   It might be 14m for one and 6m for another.   If I have 15m, I'm setting the market on a bunch of players I won't be able to sign if you've agreed that "instant signings" is a bad idea.

I haven't "figured out" the current system but I know how it works(as does everyone else).    Allowing unlimited offers changes the system and it's not for the better. Think about how coach hiring is manipulated now.    Something very similar will happen with FA.   You offer to 5.   One signs.   4 others sign at an inflated price because no one knows who was bidding on them or how much so they kept bidding them up.

If you really want a "solution" to FA, limiting bids is the way to go.     You can only make two offers to a player. Initial offer and a counter if you've been topped.

6/20/2012 8:38 AM

tufft

Posts: 959 (0)

Hall of Famer

65

Prospect

Bidding in MLB & the real world works well. It has for a very long time. There isn't a 2 bid limit. For the kind of auction I'm proposing, there isn't a deadline. It goes until there's a winner. If there is going to be a deadline, it should work like eBay, where bidder sets a maximum & the system makes sure they don't overpay.

Coach hiring has other problems. Different topic. I'm not proposing moving the problems with coach hiring over to FA hiring.

I think one of the reasons we disagree is you don't understand what 'set the market' means. Final prices set market prices, not bids.

If I was willing to pay $8M for a player, and I get a message that says I've been out bid, I have an option to raise my bid or not. If I don't raise it and then I later get a message that says my $8M is the top bid, that's a good news. They system could work so sometimes I win right away, and sometimes I have a option to withdraw or lower my bid.

If HBD is simulation of MLB, then the goal of FA should be to maximize what the players get, not minimize it. If I over bid the next highest bid by $5M, so be it. I was willing to pay that much. I'm not unhappy. And in HBD, I'd never know how much I overbid, because there's no way to see what bid came in 2nd.

6/20/2012 1:42 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

You don't understand what "set the market" means pertaining to HBD. I send a bid to 10 players for 5m. I've set their price at 5m Anyone who wants them has to bid 5m and $1 in order to beat my bid or, possibly, miss out on said player. No one has any idea that I've bid 5m to 10 players and I'm only getting one. If they want that specific player, they have to bid more than me right now not in 8 cycles.

HBD FA cannont mirror MLB FA. MLB FA have about 120 days between WS and ST. They can accept 10 offers in 3 minutes or 1 offer in 120 days. An agent can take an offer from ATL and immediately call NY to ask if they'll beat it. He can make up numbers and teams that don't exist. Players/teams can agree to a deal but a contract still has to be signed. MLB teams don't even have budgets that they HAVE to live with.

Does it strike you as odd that everyone but you sees the problem with multiple bids that far exceed your payroll capability?

6/20/2012 1:59 PM

irondawg

Posts: 20 (0)

Hall of Famer

88

Prospect

And that's why I'm throwing out something like 2x your available payroll. You can target multiple players, you just can't influence the whole FA pool. The problem as it stand now is say you've got $10M in salary remaining and there are 4 players that your'e interested in and you expect them to go about $5M each you can only pick 2 and roll with the punches in most cases. If you whiff, you'd set your franchise back and that can also cause owners to leave if they whiff in FA multiple years when plan c and d could have been had for what they wanted to spend.

There are way to make it more flexible while still limiting it so that a player or two can't change the whole market.

6/20/2012 2:11 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

On the surface, that seems reasonable.    But there are just problems with any allowance in exceeding what you can actually sign.

If I have 20m, that's 40m under the "double" rule.   I don't have to bid on two players, I can bid 5m on 8.   I might get "stuck" by playing that game but I can make sure all 8 sign for 5m+ if you assume all are worthy of being signed.

Maybe exceed your payroll by 5m if, and only if, you have offers out to multiple players.   That way you can't bid 25m on one player if you have 20m.

6/20/2012 2:22 PM

soursurfer

Posts: 371 (0)

Hall of Famer

72

Prospect

Posted by tufft on 6/19/2012 9:14:00 PM (view original):
surf- Why should there be a cuttoff day? If you and I are in a bidding war why shouldn't it go until the middle of the season if we both keep raising our offer every day or two? If you don't want to risk it, you can drop out. That's how it would work in MLB. Why different in HBD? Current system has is overly complex and can be gamed by players who know the odd rules.

While some of your ideas have merit, I think this one has none. A player wants to sign before the season starts, because after Game 1, his contract value would get prorated.

6/20/2012 4:14 PM

tufft

Posts: 959 (0)

Hall of Famer

65

Prospect

Posted by soursurfer on 6/20/2012 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tufft on 6/19/2012 9:14:00 PM (view original):
surf- Why should there be a cuttoff day? If you and I are in a bidding war why shouldn't it go until the middle of the season if we both keep raising our offer every day or two? If you don't want to risk it, you can drop out. That's how it would work in MLB. Why different in HBD? Current system has is overly complex and can be gamed by players who know the odd rules.
While some of your ideas have merit, I think this one has none. A player wants to sign before the season starts, because after Game 1, his contract value would get prorated.

You do realize that if the offers are going up every day, the amount the player would get could still increase? And if the increase were by such a small amount, easy enough for the player to accept the last offer at any time. You're describing a very rare case, and even that could be handled.

6/21/2012 3:26 AM

tufft

Posts: 959 (0)

Hall of Famer

65

Prospect

>> You don't understand what "set the market" means pertaining to HBD. I send a bid to 10 players for 5m. I've set their price at 5m Anyone who wants them has to bid 5m and $1 in order to beat my bid or, possibly, miss out on said player. No one has any idea that I've bid 5m to 10 players and I'm only getting one. If they want that specific player, they have to bid more than me right now not in 8 cycles. <<

You're not thinking it through. You're describing the current system, that has those 2 options. If I keep my $4.9M (or whatever I'm at below $5M) offer on the table, I can't use that $4.9 to bid on anyone else.

In my system, a 3rd option would be to hold my bid at $4.9 because I know there's a very good chance whoever has the top bid has out multiple bids and bids above mine will go away. Maybe not all of them, but almost certainly some of them. And I still might get him at $4.9.

If I'm willing to pay more, I can raise my bid. If I'm not, I can hold that bid. I don't have to withdraw it so that I can use that $4.9 to bid on someone else.

If we're simulating MLB, it's about the payers getting the maximum amount of money, not the GMs signing them for the lowest amount. Or do you disagree with that, too?

6/21/2012 3:38 AM

Forums

A few issues I'd like to see fixed. Topic

Search Criteria