|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Feb 25, 2018 13:01:58 GMT -5
Can I recommend we change FA to a onetime blind bidding starting in 2019. The current process is darn near torturous.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Feb 25, 2018 15:25:24 GMT -5
Blind bidding is how we roll in season. Pre season free agency is on the board buddy. Whether you like it, or you don't like it, learn to live with it because it's the best thing going today. Wooooooooo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 16:14:20 GMT -5
I love the current format as well. Nothing like it around!!!
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Feb 25, 2018 23:58:25 GMT -5
Yeah it's unique no doubt. Just not up to my preference of pace. But I'll slug it out the lethargic way lol
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Feb 26, 2018 0:27:42 GMT -5
What is your preference of pace? These DD leagues have always been open bidding on the board like this during Restricted and Unrestricted FA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 1:08:30 GMT -5
I sent out an email, but some people prefer the board...
UFA reform-
Player A will have a contract is a 1 year deal that is 20% over current value, with a minimum salary of $15M
Player A may be franchised as many times as the owner wishes
Example 1… Player A makes less than $15M…he will be 1year $15M
Example 2
Player A makes over $15M…he will be 1year %20 over current number
RFA Reform- is multi multifaceted and intertwined.
1. Expanding RFA to 4 from 2.
2. Eliminating the restructuring of deals upon conclusion of bidding 3. Initial Contract offers a. Owners will be required to make more in-depth offers to players. Using years and AAS. As well as being held firm to those offers. Thus no more restructuring of deals upon matching if that’s the course of action that the owner wishes to take.
4. Compensatory Rounds…picks that will be rewarded to owners who lose players based on initial offers. a. Compensatory Round A i. After the 2nd round and before the parent franchise picks ii. Any player whose initial offer is over $20M AAS b. Compensatory Round B i. After the parent franchise picks and before the 3rd round ii. Any player whose initial offer is $12M to $19.99M c. Compensatory Round C i. After the 4th before the 5th round ii. Any players whose initial offer is $5M to $11.99M d. Compensatory Round D i. After the 9th before the 10th round ii. Any players whose initial offer is less than $4.99M
5. RFA Bidding process a. Contract offers for players must be i. Equal or greater than in years offered. 1. If the next offer is an increase in years, all following offers must be equal or greater in ii. Continued use of increasing AAS
6. Following the 12hr no bid period, the original owner a. can choose to match, and must stick to the term of the winning bid b. or reject bid and take the draft pick, based on the owners initial offer.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Feb 26, 2018 9:35:01 GMT -5
What is your preference of pace? These DD leagues have always been open bidding on the board like this during Restricted and Unrestricted FA. RFA is fine because there's not many players. But UFA drags out too long, and when someone outbids by 100K AAS it makes me realllllyyyyy drag out. But like I said I'll gripe now but I'll go with the flow so no need to beat a dead horse lol
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Feb 28, 2018 12:19:47 GMT -5
The .1 stuff is so petty and tortuous. It should be changed to a 10% raise or +1 year.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Reds (Sam) on Feb 28, 2018 13:01:52 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I agree. 10% Seems more realistic than the current $25K and shouldn't alter anyone's strategy. The .1 stuff is so petty and tortuous. It should be changed to a 10% raise or +1 year.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Mar 1, 2018 7:59:01 GMT -5
$0.1M is $100,000. Our minimum raise is $0.025M ($25,000).
If you have a $600K offer then it's totally fine to raise to $625K. Nobody bats an eye over that. So if someone raises $100K to $700K that's petty? I don't think so. I think you're making a generalization that taking a $3.6M offer to $3.7M is petty and disagree. In that instance you could legally raise $3.6M to $3.625 but nobody really ever does that.
Maybe it's a change in our bidding/raising rules based on AAS?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Mar 1, 2018 9:03:24 GMT -5
$0.1M is $100,000. Our minimum raise is $0.025M ($25,000). If you have a $600K offer then it's totally fine to raise to $625K. Nobody bats an eye over that. So if someone raises $100K to $700K that's petty? I don't think so. I think you're making a generalization that taking a $3.6M offer to $3.7M is petty and disagree. In that instance you could legally raise $3.6M to $3.625 but nobody really ever does that. Maybe it's a change in our bidding/raising rules based on AAS? The 25k one is petty, the 600k to 700k one is fine, I wouldn't call it petty. I'm talking about the raises that are less than 5%. It's super annoying to have to check in constantly on offers because someone decided to raise you by 1 to 2%. If everyone in the league followed this tactic we'd be bidding until july.
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Rays (Dylan) on Mar 23, 2022 10:09:34 GMT -5
Can I recommend we change FA to a onetime blind bidding starting in 2019. The current process is darn near torturous. Any thoughts on tabling this for 2023? Lol. Or using Couch Managers, seems like it would be easier to manage then all the typing.
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Nationals (Brendan) on Mar 23, 2022 11:26:14 GMT -5
I kind of like how we currently operate. I am in another league with a blind bidding system, and it is a ton of work for the commissioners with little change in outcome for the teams. None of these systems are easy, but this more closely mirrors real life free agency to me. When the league is a little more mature, these massive deals will normalize.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Mar 25, 2022 9:30:46 GMT -5
Yeah blind bidding with the number of players out there would be horrific, you'd have to set up priority lists etc. Using an auction site would be my preference but it would require some serious setup work each year and we might have to adjust our auction rules to the site's.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Mar 25, 2022 9:34:50 GMT -5
A simple change that would make it a bit less annoying would be to only have to state the AAV and the years. Since they are the only important factors.
So each post would just be :
4.5m 1y
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Brewers (Josh) on Mar 25, 2022 12:57:42 GMT -5
I’m new to this process and there is a mountain of learning and confusion for me, however I decided to join and take this on. The process, as drawn out as it is, should ultimately be easiest for the commissioner(s) who manage their own teams as well as the process for the entire league. Also considering some commish other leagues as well. I think we need to be mindful that other processes may be easier for us, but it may not necessarily be a process that meets the logistics for them. And from what I can tell with Brent, he seems like a nice enough guy that will always listen to your thoughts or concerns and I would imagine that if it’s a logical request, he would likely explore it.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Mar 25, 2022 21:21:02 GMT -5
Hi all, it’s been said before but blind bids en masse is a major no because of conditionals. However people are right that the process takes too long. So if it stays in this format I like having bigger minimum raises (10% or 1m later on). Us all coordinating an auction could be hard as there are 15 of us and we really would want everyone there.
Another option is a rota where each day 5 mangers get to nominate a player and we run blind bids on up to 5 players every 24h? Could be fun and definitely will mean less refreshing proboards.
|
|