Recently I lost out on two big-time FA's that I offered max contracts too, and they went to two inferior teams so I did some digging.
On 10/6/2009 patrickm wrote: The logic for when two ML free agents or International free agents are offered the same value for a contract will see some adjustments.  There will be a few tiebreakers introduced before relying on the time the first contract was offered. The tiebreakers are as follows: Playoff contention (based on last seasons winning %), coaching staff, and ballpark.
On 11/15/2010 patrickm wrote: When comparing free agent contracts of the exact same value we are now incorporating loyalty with their previous franchise. If a player has been with a franchise for more than 5 seasons that franchise will have a significant advantage during the negotiation process.

I figured I should be good to sign those FA's because I had the second best record in the world (104 wins) and I had good coaches but the two teams I lost out to had 59 wins and 89 wins respectively and neither was the players previous team. When I looked it up in the FAQ section of HELP to see why I lost I found this bit of information:

"When a free agent has multiple exact offers of any value at the ML level the tiebreakers are as follows: relevant IQs of the coaching staff and ballpark. If the players previous franchise is also bidding on him, then that franchise will receive a loyalty bonus. When the coaching staff is used to break the tie position players will look at the hitting IQ of the hitting coach and the fielding IQ of the fielding coach. Pitchers will look at the pitching IQ of the pitching coach and the bullpen coach. In cases where the offers are still tied and the coaching staff has been factored in ballpark is used to determine which franchise the player will sign with. Pitchers always want to pitch in a pitchers park, while position players will always want to play in a hitters park."

Sorry for the lengthy post but I think it's worth bringing to people's attention since the update we were told about had no mention at all about tiebreakers being removed but that is in fact what has occurred.

WifS knows if there was a shooter on the grassy knoll.  They are refusing to release this information.

I'm not 100% sure what you said, but there was an update somewhere that mentioned the tiebreaker rules being coaches & ballpark (rathr than the 1st to offer the max contract which was the previous standard)  It was mentioned several times on these forums.  I think the recent update just added loyalty into the equation, meaning the former franchise has the upper hand as long as they're willing to match all offers.  Am I reading the tiebreakers wrong?

You forgot that neither of the guys wanted to play for your team because their wife got spit on by your fans.

Also, did you truly offer max contracts? As in, 5 years at max dollars, max bonus AND player option with a no trade clause. If you left out either of those last 2, you werent the best offer.

Are there seriously THREE threads complaining about this "injustice"?

Get over it, man....

I'm talking about the fact that WiS made an upgrade and told us PART of what they did. The fact I didn't get the guys was only the reason I found out about this, its not meant to be the subject. I don't even care that they made the change they did, I would just like them to tell us what they did rather than find out after something happens. They can do what they want when they want just don't keep the paying customers in the dark. Did anyone know that previous seasons record was going to be taken out of the equation because it sounds like most people didn't.

I thought they were going to give the previous team the tie breaker as well?

Hold on...WIS didn't tell us, yet you found it in the FAQ of the help section.

Who wrote that help section then?

Ummm, I can see why the guy is frustrated.  He lined up his ducks thinking (or seemingly knowing) that these free agents would sign with him, and they didn't.  Tim, did you send in a ticket to try and get to the bottom of this?  If not, do so.  If so, let me know what their response is.

It's a bad idea to not have a Plan B.    This isn't the first time something didn't work exactly like we thought it would. 

Posted by shobob on 12/21/2010 7:35:00 PM (view original):
Ummm, I can see why the guy is frustrated.  He lined up his ducks thinking (or seemingly knowing) that these free agents would sign with him, and they didn't.  Tim, did you send in a ticket to try and get to the bottom of this?  If not, do so.  If so, let me know what their response is.

What bottom should he get to? He found the answer in the Help. The bottom has been found. Move along please.

So the answer is that previous record has been taken out of the equation?  If that is the case, I think it's weird that they did so without filling us in.

The implication that timf is trying to make is that previous record has been taken out of the equation.  But we don't know that for a fact.  Winning percentage is just one of a number of factors that are considered.  Perhaps the influence of the other team's coaches or ballparks more than made up for the difference in winning percentage.

We're only seeing part of the puzzle.  For me, it's not enough information to draw the same conclusions that timf has jumped to.  But I do think it would be interesting to see how WIS responds to a ticket (if he submits one).

And I've heard that the core of the HBD game engine was reverse-engineered from microchips salvaged from the Roswell Incident in '47, but that WIS staff is prohibited from confirming this.

"And I've heard that the core of the HBD game engine was reverse-engineered from microchips salvaged from the Roswell Incident in '47, but that WIS staff is prohibited from confirming this."

That would go far in explaining Santa Fe's park factors.