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

soursurfer
Posts: 371 (0)
Hall of Famer
72
Prospect
I just realized something.  Isn't what tufft describes, or something very similar, how coach signing works already?...

Allowed to exceed your budget, makes multiple offers to fill 1 spot, etc.
6/22/2012 2:30 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Yes, I suggested that his idea would create some of the coach hiring issues we face now. 
6/22/2012 2:39 PM
tufft
Posts: 959 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
The coach hiring issues have nothing to do with bidding over budget.  Demonstrating that bidding over budget does not cause the problems Mike is worried about.

Coach hiring issue is mostly that coaches don't value money at all, instead accepting offers based on role & level. Silly & unrealistic that a coach would turn down millions of dollars to coach at AA because they're holding out for $240K to coach at AAA.  Or that they'll take a bench coach job for $600K instead of a pitching coach job for $1.5M.

Other issue is the needless deadline and short hiring period, which makes it mostly about gaming the bids in the last 1/2 cycle. You don't know how to do that, or you can't be on a computer for those 4 hours and you're often screwed.

What I'm proposing does not include either of these. 

Mike, why are you so desperate to be right that your are making things up?

6/22/2012 3:34 PM
mongoose_22
Posts: 597 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 5 124
Prospect
IMO (and I hate to feed MikeT's ego ;), tuft's idea is a terrible one. For all of the reasons that MikeT metioned that I'm not going to bother to repeat.

Tuft, I don't think you've fully thought out the consequences of what you are proposing.
6/22/2012 4:37 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Of course he hasn't.   Otherwise, he wouldn't keep repeating the same nonsense. 
6/22/2012 4:40 PM
tufft
Posts: 959 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2012 8:08:00 AM (view original):
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.

You're making up crazier & crazier stuff as you go. Now you're bringing up things that have nothing to do with this topic.

No matter how FA bidding works each player can only go to one team. So GMs are going to get shutout, not get the player they want, etc. no matter how it's done.  And some GMs might then decide to become sellers.

Please think for a few minutes before spitting out your next objection. I think it's great that you care enough to challenge my suggestion. I've given pretty detailed examples & reasons why all of the issues you've brought up are not problems, won't cause problems greater than the current ones, or won't happen very often.

If you've got something new, great. But continuing to post it's bad because it's bad, without anything new to support your opinion, isn't very interesting.
6/22/2012 4:42 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
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?  
6/22/2012 4:51 PM
tufft
Posts: 959 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
Posted by mongoose_22 on 6/22/2012 4:37:00 PM (view original):
IMO (and I hate to feed MikeT's ego ;), tuft's idea is a terrible one. For all of the reasons that MikeT metioned that I'm not going to bother to repeat.

Tuft, I don't think you've fully thought out the consequences of what you are proposing.
I know I have. And I think I've explained them. Mike's proposed very few specific objections. For each one, I've tried to explain exactly why his disaster scenarios won't happen.  Or how if anyone acted like Mike claims everyone would act it would likely have a negative effect on their team.

What I'm proposing is how auctions work in the real world. They've worked for thousands of years. It's how people shop for & buy houses and cars. Auctions do not create runaway markets or bankrupt everyone involved as Mike's claiming they do.

Outside of Mike's irrelevant objections (as in they exist in the current system also and nothing I'm proposing would change that), he's made one specific valid point & I think I acknowledge we disagree.  Mike want's a system where all FAs are as cheap as possible, which the current system supports.  I want a real world system and in a real world system FAs get the maximum amount the market will pay.  That's how FA works in MLB and how auctions work in the realword.

I can't argue with anyone that likes the current system better. That's an opinion. But Mike is making up facts that are not true and won't ever be true to justify his argument.  Those are the points I'm debating with him. Not easy because he'll be able to make up thing forever.

His point yesterday was that since I used Johnny Damon as an example, the whole idea is stupid. When I pointed out I didn't use Johnny Damon as an example, he didn't even pause to acknowledge he made a mistake. He just made up something else. I'm sure I'll tire of this before he will, but that won't make any of the stuff he's made up any more true.

6/22/2012 5:11 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2012 4:51:00 PM (view original):
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?  
This.
6/22/2012 5:12 PM
soursurfer
Posts: 371 (0)
Hall of Famer
72
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I suggested that his idea would create some of the coach hiring issues we face now. 
What issues are there with the coaching bidding system?  There are lots of issues with coach hiring overall, some of which tufft illuminated, but I don't think any of them stem from being able to exceed your budget/hand out a bunch of offers, do they?  Maybe they do and I'm just unaware of them.

More and more I'm kinda thinking tufft's idea COULD work with the right implementation, but I absolutely think there would still need to be an FA signing deadline (Ebay has deadlines too, after all).
6/22/2012 5:22 PM
tufft
Posts: 959 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2012 4:51:00 PM (view original):
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?  
This seems to be 99% a debate between you and I. We don't speak for everyone.

What you are posting as facts are not. A lot of made up fears & typing anything that pops into your head without checking if it's true or thinking for even a minute if it might turn out that way.  You could ask your buddies to post here on your side. That wouldn't make your made up fears any more real.

Maybe you're only seeing one part of how this would work.  Yes, the max bid would go up.  To more than some GMs would want to spend on that player. But if GMs could hold their bid, and not have to pull it to free the money to bid on someone else, the market price on many players would come back to their bid.  I don't think you're able or willing to see that.

Prices would not go up & up forever.  There would still be a fixed amount of money in the game.  And a fixed amount that GMs are willing to spend on salary & FAs vs the other places to spend money.  I really don't mean to be attacking you personally.  I really don't think you are thinking it all the way through.
6/22/2012 5:25 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Just because you're only responding to me doesn't mean I'm the only one posting.  Go back and read the thread.

6/22/2012 5:27 PM
tufft
Posts: 959 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2012 5:27:00 PM (view original):

Just because you're only responding to me doesn't mean I'm the only one posting.  Go back and read the thread.

Let me go see if I can find that post where I used Damon as a example, which I recall you said proved your point.
6/22/2012 6:31 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by soursurfer on 6/22/2012 5:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I suggested that his idea would create some of the coach hiring issues we face now. 
What issues are there with the coaching bidding system?  There are lots of issues with coach hiring overall, some of which tufft illuminated, but I don't think any of them stem from being able to exceed your budget/hand out a bunch of offers, do they?  Maybe they do and I'm just unaware of them.

More and more I'm kinda thinking tufft's idea COULD work with the right implementation, but I absolutely think there would still need to be an FA signing deadline (Ebay has deadlines too, after all).
Here's an example.    You can only hire one FI.   You bid your max on the top 3.   You're #1 the entire time.   You can slowly decrease your bids to see how low you can go as you've already scared everyone off.   Meanwhile, the other 12 owners HAVE to seek other options because all they know is that they can't get to #1 on those 3.   Some owners may leave their bids out there but, because they can only bid on THREE, they may choose to hedge their bets and bid on 1-2 others.   Someone might get lucky and get the 2nd best for his original bid.   Or he might find that his original bid was 4th highest on all 3.  So, while he patiently waited to see who signed where, FI 4-31 were signed.   Now he gets the worst FI at 32.

Now, increase an owner's ability to offer max money to 20 FI.  Where does that leave everyone?  That's what would happen with FA with unlimited offers.
6/23/2012 8:51 AM
jtrinsey
Posts: 237 (0)
All Star
1 4 2 30
Rookie
While I wouldn't go with tuft's suggestion, I think Mike is being creating deliberately dumb strawmen in his sample scenarios.

What would happen with unlimited bidding is that you would just offer what you feel is an appropriate bid to all of your players, A high bid on a player would never scare anybody off, they would just leave their bid out there because there is no cost to it.

However, I think the unlimited bidding would create a less strategic and less skilled game. Right now, I like the fact that, during the FA process, I really only have the ability to pursue one or two players at a time, and you have to understand your league and the market for each player. If I have 14M available and I want that stud CF, I have to look at the cap space other teams have and if it's likely that he will go for more than that. With unlimited bidding, I could just throw my max bid out there with no real repercussions, and still pursue other guys.

I think the way the system is currently constructed rewards owners who:
(a) Log in a lot to see the activity from cycle to cycle to be able to change bids or player targets in response to what is happening
(b) Are good at pricing the market ahead of time to know if they have a shot at getting a certain player.
6/23/2012 10:13 AM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
A few issues I'd like to see fixed. Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.