Many have thought that is was the team with the highest winning % in the previous season to that I give you this:


Carlos Rodriguez the player

Team A that offered max deal Gators

13 cdc80uf ML 44-118 .272 3rd No No

Team B said he also offered the same contract the player signed for.

Eagles

13 mike1184 ML 102-60 .630 1st No Yes yes yes no

Ballpark is one of the things. The best FA pitcher in MLB league went to the team with the most favorable pitching stadium on one of the worst teams.

I offered the max contract also and i had a better winning pct too!

There you go guys: From the 11/09/09 Dev Chat:

Q: In the 11/3 update, you mention adding tie breakers beyond first contract offered for a FA agent that has been offered the max contract by multiple teams. In the knowledge base and in responses from CS, we have long been told that tie breakers already existed beyond first contract offered. Is this update adding additional tie breakers (and, if so, can you share them) or just fixing logic that hasn't been working as intended? thanks (cmthieme - All*Star - 3:29 PM)

A: There were tiebreakers previously, the last one we used was time the offer was presented, which obviously didn't cut it. We added two additional tie breakers. The first is the relevant IQs of the coaching staff. Position players will always look at the hitting IQ of the hitting coach and the fielding IQ of the fielding coach. Pitchers will always look at the Pitching IQ of the pitching coach and the bullpen coach. The second tiebreak is ballpark. Pitchers will always want to pitch in a pitchers park and position players will always want to play in a hitters park.

I offered the Max about 45 seconds after the cycle roll and my pitching coach IQ is 86 to mike's 83 and jmarino's 82...My park is pretty neutral in Tampa, mike's would be the favorite with Wichita, and jmarino's is a push in NY. SO If I offered first and had the best pitcher IQ then for the code I won 2/3 tiebreakers outright thus winning the bid...

Quote: Originally Posted By cdc80uf on 12/20/2009There you go guys: From the 11/09/09 Dev Chat:

Q: In the 11/3 update, you mention adding tie breakers beyond first contract offered for a FA agent that has been offered the max contract by multiple teams. In the knowledge base and in responses from CS, we have long been told that tie breakers already existed beyond first contract offered. Is this update adding additional tie breakers (and, if so, can you share them) or just fixing logic that hasn't been working as intended? thanks (cmthieme - All*Star - 3:29 PM)

A: There were tiebreakers previously, the last one we used was time the offer was presented, which obviously didn't cut it. We added two additional tie breakers. The first is the relevant IQs of the coaching staff. Position players will always look at the hitting IQ of the hitting coach and the fielding IQ of the fielding coach. Pitchers will always look at the Pitching IQ of the pitching coach and the bullpen coach. The second tiebreak is ballpark. Pitchers will always want to pitch in a pitchers park and position players will always want to play in a hitters park.

Wait, so winning doesnt have any factor at all? That is fing stupid.

The only thing that should decide the tiebreakers Should be money! Like i said on my league post. When they say its not about the money,its about the money!Owners shouldn't be allowed to offer more money for future years but if they have money avaiable for that season they should at least be able to offer more bonus money to try to get the FA

Also if the guy offers a max contract 20 seconds after the cylcle rools then there should be a different message sent to the other owners so they have a chance to go in another direction if they chose to before the other free agents are gone!

Once you saw that you werent #1 after you offered the Max contract you should have gone another direction...I know had one of the other 5 or so that offered had better coaching then I would have dropped out as soon as I saw I wasn't #1. Brower was available and I would have outbid the Cleveland team for him with no problem.

You would have spent that much on a guy already declining fast? Did I teach you nothing?

I actually liked it when times was the tie breaker... it worked as a proxy for how much a team "wanted" said player, and woed him. Like recruiting.

Really, the best way to do it is to have a range of potential tie breakers and have the tie breaker that applies be random for each specific player, so that way you can't game it. Something like:

Winning %
Playoff Success
Time of Bid
Coaching IQ
Home Park
Distance to home

Quote: Originally Posted By mrauseo on 12/21/2009
I actually liked it when times was the tie breaker... it worked as a proxy for how much a team "wanted" said player, and woed him. Like recruiting.

Really, the best way to do it is to have a range of potential tie breakers and have the tie breaker that applies be random for each specific player, so that way you can't game it. Something like:

Winning %
Playoff Success
Time of Bid
Coaching IQ
Home Park
Distance to home

I'd drop time of bid, thats not fair. Distance to home is interesting, but probably not too practical. I honestly thought the other 4 were factors, if win % isnt then FA signing is stupid. Ballparks and coaches? Really, thats what guys consider in real life?

Quote: Originally Posted By mrauseo on 12/21/2009
I actually liked it when times was the tie breaker... it worked as a proxy for how much a team "wanted" said player, and woed him. Like recruiting. [WIS liked it, too. Anything that favors the guy who sits at the computer 24/7 playing games.]
Really, the best way to do it is to have a range of potential tie breakers and have the tie breaker that applies be random for each specific player, so that way you can't game it.

Variable tie breakers ... that's an interesting idea.

I agree time. If someone goes big right away and then someone inches up a little at a time, how fair is that?