>> 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. <<

Some good points.  Most of them irrelevant to this topic.

HBD can come a lot closer to MLB FA.

There's no reason FA bidding has to be limited to the 24 (or whatever) cycles we have now. It could start right after budgets are set. It can go through ST and into the season if the bidding justifies it & the player decided to wait for the the highest bid as long as the offer goes up every 2 or 3 cycles.

The biggest flaw in the current FA bidding system is this (which Mike seems to have lost) -

Say there are 3 really good FA SPs. I want one & know I'll only be able to afford one.  I'm able to spend $20M this season on FAs & I'm will to spend up to $15M on any of those 3 SPs. 

I should be able to offer them each $15M this season, all at the same time, if that's how I want to bid.

I should not have to pick which one I like best or guess on which one I think I have the best change to sign.

I should not have to be in front of a computer every 4 hours, 24 hours a day for over a week so I can withdraw one offer & make another & hope that I get lucky & time the offers so that mine is high when one SP decides to sign or at least close enough to not sign, yet.

I should not have to know the exact last 1/2 cycle players will sign before ST so I can try to game the system by looking at other teams budgets & the trade screens & try to figure out if I can low ball for a few more hours and the at the last hour place a bid that will beat the other offers & I'll win because nobody else will get to bid the next cycle.

I should not be limited to making just 2 bids or any other even more screwball system that the current one.

There are countless ways someone can screw up a team & have a bad impact on a world already if that's what they are out to do. Unless there are a lot of other controls added, there always will be. The thought that changing the FA process is going to unleash a flood of malicious behavior is a paranoid delusion.

Making bids for more than you want to pay or bidding on players you don't want is going to backfire far more times than it's going to somehow benefit the GM or screw the other GMs by fixing the market. Auctions wouldn't work anywhere if they were that easy to game.

I get that Mike isn't going to understand this. Hopefully someone else working on an MLB simulation gets a few good ideas.  It seems pretty obvious WIS isn't doing any further development on HBD. Certainly no more than minor bug fixes or cosmetic screen changes.

Too long.

I'm sure you think you had a point but I'm sure you don't.   

I'll ask again, when everyone else says "Yeah, unlimited bidding does pose some serious problems", do you think there's any chance you're the one missing something?   Just answer that and try to be brief so people will actually read it.

Mike - You're probably a great guy to have a beer with. I admire the energy you put in. I agree with some of your ideas & disagree with others.

I admire that you admit reading comprehension isn't one of your strengths. If you can't read & retain a few sentences, you're not going to understand what I'm proposing. I think others can.  It's not super complicated.

I think there have been 2 or 3 specific points made on why unlimited bidding amounts & length could have problems. I've explained why none of them have to be problems. I'm not missing anything that's been brought up so far.

It's less about comprehension and more about interested.    You've repeated the same thing over and over again.  I assume you have no fresh ideas.

Thus far, no one has agreed with you.   Is it because you're on a higher level than the rest of us?

And, FWIW, you really lost me with "Why can't bidding last forever?"    That is easily one of the dumbest opinions/thoughts I've read in these forums.   Your example of Johnny Damon not signing until May proved how little thought you put into your words.   Damon didn't sign in May because several teams were bidding on him.  He signed in May because no teams were offering him a deal he felt was worthy.

Posted by tufft on 6/21/2012 3:38:00 AM (view original):
>> 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?

So, all teams will hold there bids at one place?  Or is it more likely that a team will increase his bid to outbid mike's inflated bid.   So a player that may go for 3 mill, may go for over 5 mill because mike bid 5 mill.    Just because an offer is withdrawn does not mean the contract will return to where it would be expected.    Or what if the player signs at the inflated price above mike's bid before mike signs one.  You are assuming a lot in order to justify the return to an expected contract

He doesn't understand that it only takes ONE team to go 5.1m for an inflated market to have been set by one owner who can't possibly sign all the players he bids on. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
And, FWIW, you really lost me with "Why can't bidding last forever?"    That is easily one of the dumbest opinions/thoughts I've read in these forums.   Your example of Johnny Damon not signing until May proved how little thought you put into your words.   Damon didn't sign in May because several teams were bidding on him.  He signed in May because no teams were offering him a deal he felt was worthy.

I didn't use Johnny Damon as an example.

Maybe if you put some thoughts into your words, or a little more thought & energy into your reading, you wouldn't have to turn to calling people names so often. You might be able to express your ideas & be able to understand & learn from others.

>>So, all teams will hold there bids at one place?  Or is it more likely that a team will increase his bid to outbid mike's inflated bid.   So a player that may go for 3 mill, may go for over 5 mill because mike bid 5 mill.    Just because an offer is withdrawn does not mean the contract will return to where it would be expected.    Or what if the player signs at the inflated price above mike's bid before mike signs one.  You are assuming a lot in order to justify the return to an expected contract-

Sorry, but I don't think I'm following you.

If you get a "You've been outbid" message, you can chose to raise your bid, hold it, lower it, or withdraw it.

If you hold, and Mike's higher bid goes away, you get a message that you're now the top bid.  And maybe even a message if you're not the top bid, but close.

Maybe you get 4-12 hours to adjust your bid up or down after you get that message. Maybe you don't. If you weren't willing to pay what you bid, you shouldn't have bid, so any of those options are fine.

"the contract will return to where it would be expected" - what does that mean? The contract should be where the top bid is. The current system keeps contacts artificially low, because GMs have to pick which FAs to go after.  FA is about maximizing the amount of money players make, not minimizing it.

Sorry if I missed your point.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):
He doesn't understand that it only takes ONE team to go 5.1m for an inflated market to have been set by one owner who can't possibly sign all the players he bids on. 

That might have helped me figure out something you're not understanding -

You're not the only GM in your world.  You won't be the only GM bidding on more players than you can sign.  So when you get an "You're been outbid" message, you're going to know that some of the bids above you will go away. So will all of the other GMs.  You and everyone else will consider that before you change your bid, hold, or withdraw.

The entire FA process & strategy would change. It would be more realistic. I think that's a good thing.  You don't.  You liking the current system doesn't make you wrong.

Exactly.  There will be 20 owners attempting to set the market for 20 players when they can only afford 1.   If you actually need a player, you will raise your bid.   Otherwise, you might just get shut out.    Which is EXACTLY what happens now.

It's just sad that you don't get it.

One more example to demonstrate you're not thinking it all the way through.  I don't expect to change your mind.

If what you describe happens (which it won't), that means that some GMs would obsess on a few of the top players.  They would keep bidding up & up without any thought to value, other needs or plans.

The result of that would be that the top FAs would get huge contracts by current standards. Since there is a fixed amount of money in the game, that would leave less money to spend on the other FAs.

Smart GMs might sit out the feeding frenzy, or maybe make a few bids in the hope of feeding it (because that would apparently work on you and probably some others) and then stop raising their offers.

That would leave above average, but not superstar, FAs on the market at what would be considered bargain prices by current standards.

Team with mostly above average players win a lot more than they lose in HBD.  So if most GMs do what you describe, the winning move would be patience, not hyper bidding.  It might take a few seasons for some GMs to figure it out, and some probably never would, but soon enough most GMs would realize that winners don't keep upping their FA bids and overpay for a few players.

Given your relative success in HBD, I'm confident you'd figure this out eventually & wouldn't make anything like 20 bids for more than you can afford to pay to fill your team.  You seem not to get that if you make 20 bids, all for more than the players are worth to you, you're going to sign some of those players, and then not have enough for other players or other purposes.  I don't think you'd make that mistake over & over.

Too long. 

"Smart GMs might sit out the feeding frenzy, or maybe make a few bids in the hope of feeding it (because that would apparently work on you and probably some others) and then stop raising their offers."
 
Dumb.   Owners who need players will have to bid on them to get them.   Sitting at 4.9m and NOT leading on ANY player is a good way to ensure you get no one.  In your world, owner after owner will be saying "After being shut out in the FA market, I'm a seller.  Anyone over 27 is available."   And the smart owner will win a lot of games.

I'll ask again, when everyone else says "Yeah, unlimited bidding does pose some serious problems", do you think there's any chance you're the one missing something?