Free Agent Bidding Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I think it's so player salaries won't be artificially inflated.    I've already detailed how I'd abuse the system if I wasn't restricted by the cap.   I doubt I'm the only one.
11/16/2010 9:27 AM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2010 8:45:00 AM (view original):
Nothing "prevents" you from lowering your offer.  If you lower, you won't immediately know that you've now underbid somebody else.  And you always run the risk that you've just underbid yourself out of the player if he chooses to sign on the next cycle with the guy you just leap-frogged behind.

I understand the point that folks are trying to make.  You're just all doing a ****-poor job in trying to make your argument.
No, I'm not.  You've jumped on a specific point to a specific post and pretend like I'm making a big generalized point.  That you can't understand that isn't my problem.

I understand the need to limit how much you can offer.  But if Mike's point is that because you're in HBD, teams are restricted to budgets, then I'm simply pointing out the counter, which is that you can offer players less money without them getting ******.  Is there a risk?  Sure, but that wasn't my point.
11/16/2010 10:23 AM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by WiredTiger on 11/16/2010 9:24:00 AM (view original):
I do find the FA bidding process a little frustrating sometimes. Nothing worse than targeting one player and losing out and then no other FAs are available.  Maybe it can be limited to twice your available budget or something similar. It also would be nice to have some mechanism where lesser players need to wait until the elite players at their position sign. So a team loses out on a Carl Crawford type and then has time to sign a Magglio Ordonez because Ordonez has had to wait until the bidding on Crawford was sorted out.
I don't really like that idea at all.

Great GMs always swoop in and sign "lesser" players while there is bidding on big-time guys.  I think it would be a mistake to allow the "losers" on the big-time FAs an opportunity to mitigate their poor planning.  Obviously, some of the secon-tier guys won't sign, but I'm simply saying that making it a tiered system would be a poor decision, in my opinion.
11/16/2010 10:38 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
A worse idea than allowing unlimited bids.   That system would simply ensure that those with the most cap space would get all the best players.  No bargain shopping for the owners with 6-7m.
11/16/2010 10:41 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2010 8:46:00 AM (view original):
I'll try to do this again.

jtpops has 10.5m in cap space.  jtpops bids 10m on the top 10 pitchers.  He can only sign one.  Other owners would also like these pitchers(after all, they are the 10 best).   They also have to bid 10m or more.    8 of these owners only have 9m.   They see they're outbid so they move on and sign two 4m pitchers.  Finally, jtpops gets his man.   Too bad for those other 8 owners because they've already spent their money because they weren't interested in getting shutout.  

A smart owner, with no restrictions and a lot of cap space, would bid a lot on every good player so his competitors would be forced to offer big $$$ and limit their options.    If you don't see how this is bad, I can't help you.
Yes, but the same rule would apply to everyone.  Therefore, if I offer $10mil to 10 different pitchers (obviously a very extreme example), then the guy wih $9mil in cap space could offer $9mil to those same ten pitchers.  Then as soon as 9 of my offers are voided once a guy signs, the $9mil guy is in the lead/running for the other 9.

And I know the RL teams aren't restricted by a cap.  My point is, they often make offers to multiple FA at the same position, knowing they only need one. Once they get one guy, they take themselves out of the running for the rest.

Perhaps one way to make it work would be to let the entire league know who's in the lead and what their bid is.  In RL, you always know the top teams in the bidding for FA and usually what the highest current offer is.

If someone can see that I have $10mil in cap space and offers out to 10 different pitchers, they can then say "Ok, well, JT can only get one of these guys, so I'm going to throw out offers to some of the other ones so I'll be in the bidding for the ones he can't get."

It could also make things more competitive (ie: the Red Sox and Yankees often going after players just so the other can't have them. If I see someone in my division leading for a big FA, maybe I offer more than I was willing to try and get him).

11/16/2010 1:41 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
No.   Just won't work because it's not real-time offer/acceptance.    What you're asking for is the team with the most cap space to run the FA show.  Their results determine what everyone else can do.   No good.

Here's a solution.   One bid per player.  Bid on as many as you want.   Order is prioritized.   Signings are at a pre-determined time.  Horrible solution to something that isn't broken but it solves your problem with the FA process.  And, after all, isn't that why we're here?
11/16/2010 2:41 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
I'm not necessarily saying something's broken.  But as I've said....if I have two guys I want, I have to choose which one to make an offer to.  I go with Guy A and eventually lose him.  In the meantime, Guy B, who maybe I could have had, is gone to someone else before I have a chance to make him an offer.  That seems like a problem to me.  Is it an earth-shattering glitch? Not by any means.  But it can be frustrating.
11/16/2010 11:21 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So you have to make a decision in a game that's based on making decisions?   Yeah, I see the problem.
11/17/2010 6:23 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
No, it's the fact that you're required to make a choice that shouldn't have to be made.  It's like choosing award winners at the all-star break and hoping the guys you pick end up actually being the most deserving come season's end.
11/17/2010 10:36 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Yes, you should have to make it.   This isn't real-time negotiating.   You can't make an offer and have him accept/decline.   It's in a nice, tidy 4 hour window.   I've already explained how I'd abuse the hell out of the system you propose.   I wouldn't be the only one. 
11/17/2010 10:59 AM
jtrinsey
Posts: 237 (0)
All Star
1 4 2 30
Rookie
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with the current system. It rewards knowledge of the game. If you have 10M to spend on free agents, you need to know league history, other owners, who has what cap space, and decide whether your first choice guy is going to go for more than 10M and if you should even bother. There is a legitimate skill to this process, so why change it to diminish the effect of that skill?
11/17/2010 11:08 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/17/2010 10:59:00 AM (view original):
Yes, you should have to make it.   This isn't real-time negotiating.   You can't make an offer and have him accept/decline.   It's in a nice, tidy 4 hour window.   I've already explained how I'd abuse the hell out of the system you propose.   I wouldn't be the only one. 
And I've explained how that abuse can be neutralized with checks and balances.
11/17/2010 12:59 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Except it really can't.    I just played a game with an IFA I didn't really want but I wanted someone to pay more than his value.    Because I know the timetable on IFA signings, I knew I could do it.  So I bid an amount I figured would get me the #1 bid.    Then I started bidding down until I wasn't high bid.   So I cranked it back up to the amount just under what was once my highest acceptable bid and I was high bid again.   Soon enough I was outbid.  At this point I quit bidding because I'd adjusted his signing price to an amount I found acceptable. 

Let me do this with every FA.  Salaries will be out of control because owners want players and they will overpay to get them.
11/17/2010 1:56 PM
timf
Posts: 185 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 103
Prospect

I don't see how making multiple offers and driving up the FA salaries is 'artificially' inflating it. That is how the process works in MLB and it should here too. You should not be restricted by how many offers you can make as long as you haven't spent the money yet.
Would it really be that hard for a message to come to your inbox stating: 'You have multiple players ready to sign with your team but you have to make a decision who it is going to be. Please click here to sign the contracts before the next cycle begins. The other offers will be withdrawn upon signings.' Would it really be that hard to implement this? I mean this is as close to reality as we could probably get and it's not perfect but it's better than the way it works now because it is more realistic.
And of course this would only happen in those situations where multiple players accepted your offers during the same cycle and in doing so it would put you over your payroll budget. The players who had their offers withdrawn could then be signed by the team with the next highest offer still able to afford them. This also mimics MLB because the guys who wait too long sometimes end up having to play for less then they thought because there are fewer teams that can afford them than there was at the start of the FA signing process.

11/17/2010 2:00 PM
timf
Posts: 185 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 103
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/17/2010 1:56:00 PM (view original):
Except it really can't.    I just played a game with an IFA I didn't really want but I wanted someone to pay more than his value.    Because I know the timetable on IFA signings, I knew I could do it.  So I bid an amount I figured would get me the #1 bid.    Then I started bidding down until I wasn't high bid.   So I cranked it back up to the amount just under what was once my highest acceptable bid and I was high bid again.   Soon enough I was outbid.  At this point I quit bidding because I'd adjusted his signing price to an amount I found acceptable. 

Let me do this with every FA.  Salaries will be out of control because owners want players and they will overpay to get them.
How are salaries going to be out of control? We still have a limited budget and max contracts. If someone wants to drive up FA contracts good for them.
The devs could write something in that would prevent guys from knowing exactly when a FA or IFA would sign to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. It would make it harder to game the system like this example illustrates can happen. They probably already should have written something in based on this example and I hope in the future they explore the idea of making the signing times more random or better yet, for IFA's maybe the higher INTL scouting budget should be able to see the guys sooner than the lower budget teams so guys like Mike don't know when the signing is going to happen.
11/17/2010 2:13 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
Free Agent Bidding 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.