|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Apr 12, 2022 17:51:30 GMT -5
So, the figuring out the bidding system is proving to be more challenging than I had anticipated. After this update, I'm going to spend a couple weeks working on it before posting another update. Do not worry though, I have people in place to help out if I become preoccupied.
This is a 2 part announcement. I will announce the current committee and some opportunities for others to help out. First, though I got some news for y'all.
After we complete free agency, Ian will be returning a GM-only role. He will help us transition to the new committee. This is just another situation where life changes need to take priority to league changes. I know that everyone has appreciated how much passion and effort Ian put into his committee role. I know that Google sheet rosters wouldn't have happened as smoothly without his help as they were making my brain explode. I look forward to battling him on the digital diamond.
In addition, Rich has made the decision to step down from the committee as well. As I always have, I will still use Rich as a sounding board for league issues. He has been with Joe and I since the beginning, but now is time to spend less time on the league overall and more time on his team.
Part 1 - New Committee As I stated previously, I will be returning to the commissioner role. I am the point of contact if you have issues you want to address and are not comfortable posting them on the message board. I am in favor of full transparency, so please post all league issues in the open for us to address. I trust you all know the situations that aren't appropriate for the message board.
I have made the decision to bring Connor and Hoppy on as committee members. This league has been pretty much coasting for a long time because we've had such a consistent core of GMs that liked many (not all) of the things this league does. Connor and Hoppy bring a different approach that I feel will be useful in leadership and the technical advancement of the league.
Joining us for 2022 will be Joe returning as our Sim Guru. That's only 4 though after free agency. Which leads me to part 2.
Part 2 - Committee Opening Once we start simming our regular season, I am going to be looking for 1 or 2 GMs to join us as "interns" or "assistants" or "trainees." I don't know the right word for it. I do know that the role in 2022 would be to learn about all aspects of the committee and to find a more permanent role heading into the off-season and then into the future. If you are interested, you can email me with any relevant skills you feel you have. You can just sell me on your desire to help. If you have leadership experience from other sim leagues, that is also something I value. Mostly, I just want to have a collection of voices with the best interests of the league and the competitive balance of the league in the front of their minds.
After the playoffs have completed, Joe will return to a "consigliere" role. This role will still be included in league discussions, but he will only vote when an issue with another committee member has been brought up. He will also serve as a back up for any committee position in case someone is absent because real life is important too.
Edit - Travis will continue to be our off-season warrior (which I have deemed an official title) to make sure the rest of us all get a little break while we get ready for the hot stove. He has been in the role for a longtime and I truly can't imagine anyone else doing it better. No, this is not sufficient sucking up, but it's all I have time for today.
That's all I got for today. Next update will happen when I have news, or next Tuesday. I am going to spend the rest of the week making progress on the bidding system. If you have free agency questions before we start back up next Monday, please start a thread in the Free Agency section of the message board (or you can email the committee). We will work on updating the current website homepage with the current committee info, but you can find Connor, Hoppy, Joe, Ian, and my contact info on the rosters.
Thanks again to everyone who took time to read my long-winded update. I try to edit myself, but I seem incapable.
Knife-Hugs to you all!
PS - I didn't mention Travis because I didn't write this and then proof-read it. Travis will remain in his current role because he is awesome sauce. I'm going to go flog myself in the "not fun" way because of this omission. If Travis doesn't forgive me, please no one implicate him if I wind up dead in a ditch.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals on Apr 12, 2022 18:53:33 GMT -5
Why cant we just do forum bidding such as we do now with the top 10? We know who the free agents are with the master list. Same rules, 24 hours with no bids get awarded the player. Just set a schedule weekly for players that are up for bid.
It's not exactly silent auction style, but less headaches for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals on Apr 12, 2022 18:55:08 GMT -5
Also, thanks for putting in the effort.
This league is a great salary cap system league, and the draft schedules are different.
I'm also willing to help out any way possible.
Even as a fluffer, if needed.
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Apr 12, 2022 21:55:47 GMT -5
Why cant we just do forum bidding such as we do now with the top 10? We know who the free agents are with the master list. Same rules, 24 hours with no bids get awarded the player. Just set a schedule weekly for players that are up for bid. It's not exactly silent auction style, but less headaches for sure. I would be into open bidding for all players. It would have to get rid of the minimum bids per day, but I think I'd be okay with that. I'd need to listen to more counterarguments though to really make up my mind haha
|
|
|
Post by Nationals on Apr 12, 2022 22:03:49 GMT -5
Why cant we just do forum bidding such as we do now with the top 10? We know who the free agents are with the master list. Same rules, 24 hours with no bids get awarded the player. Just set a schedule weekly for players that are up for bid. It's not exactly silent auction style, but less headaches for sure. I would be into open bidding for all players. It would have to get rid of the minimum bids per day, but I think I'd be okay with that. I'd need to listen to more counterarguments though to really make up my mind haha I do it in another league this way, and it's been quite easy to keep it organized. It doesn't allow "deals" that we would normally see in the silent bidding, which takes away some fun. But easier. With everyone having less time these days, it makes it ideal.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Apr 13, 2022 10:36:15 GMT -5
I would be into open bidding for all players. It would have to get rid of the minimum bids per day, but I think I'd be okay with that. I'd need to listen to more counterarguments though to really make up my mind haha I do it in another league this way, and it's been quite easy to keep it organized. It doesn't allow "deals" that we would normally see in the silent bidding, which takes away some fun. But easier. With everyone having less time these days, it makes it ideal. I'd be interested in talking to you about the process in that league. Shoot me an email when you get a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals on Apr 13, 2022 11:11:33 GMT -5
I do it in another league this way, and it's been quite easy to keep it organized. It doesn't allow "deals" that we would normally see in the silent bidding, which takes away some fun. But easier. With everyone having less time these days, it makes it ideal. I'd be interested in talking to you about the process in that league. Shoot me an email when you get a chance. Sent you an email
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Apr 13, 2022 12:25:25 GMT -5
Part of what I like about this league is the silent bidding. In real life, nobody knows when or how substantially a team is talking to a FA. it makes for tough choices and strategies for how to get your FA work done. And, contrary to some opinions, sneaky signings and "deals" do happen in real life baseball. Lastly, in some respects, it rewards GM's that do their homework and have a plan. Please don't take that away.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Apr 13, 2022 13:48:36 GMT -5
I'm also torn on it. I want to improve the blind bidding system and make it easier for the committee, but I also just love the strategy involved with having "X" bids per day. Since those 2 things can work together, I guess the real question is how to handle tiers or if tiered free agency is a thing of the past.
Maybe the compromise is that we increase the number of daily bids by 1 or 2 per day along side with having a 3 day bidding period instead of 2. Allowing the top 3 bids for a player to move into the final bidding war. Strategy still very much a real thing, but it gives GMs a more realistic opportunity to make bids on all the players they are targeting. Maybe the number of bids is correct, but we need to add the 3rd day and therefore the 3rd GM into the bidding war.
What I have discovered so far is that the format of submitted bids will need to be dictated by a form. Those form results then could be run through a small program that spits out results. Those results can be posted daily or more preferable just update to a webpage. I'm not sure how far I'll get before next year's free agency.
All said, I do agree with Mark that the strategy in allocating your limited daily bids has always been one of my favorite things about our off-season. And though, I do enjoy open bidding because of how different it is from our blind bidding. I think real time blind bidding is the real answer to all tiers of our free agency. I think the thing I enjoy most about open bidding is being able to check at any point and see if a player received a new offer. Not knowing who was submitting the offer AND being able to check at any time to see new top bids might be icing on the free agency cake for me.
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Apr 13, 2022 22:52:20 GMT -5
I like blind bidding....but I think in real life, agents try their damndest to drum up as much interest across as many teams as possible, so open bidding actually seems more realistic. My vote would be that as long as teams have funds to make each bid, they should be allowed to bid. That doesn't let a team bid on every top FA at once (so this acts as a cap on the number of bids), but also lets players get as good of a deal as they find.
Again, this isn't fully thought through so reading other people's opinions can sway me
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Apr 16, 2022 7:28:30 GMT -5
The idea that I think we've talked about would be one where teams could see the high bid, but not the team who made it. Sorta like eBay. Then after 24 hours of no bids we can unlock it to see who the winner was.
I think the reveal could be fun, especially for the bigger free agents. Shoot, we could even wait until the end of Tier 1 and announce all the winners at once. Imagine the fun of finding out some team signed like 3 of them??
I think that since we've gone to open forum bids, especially in the early days, contracts got artificially bloated due to teams not wanting to back off publicly. If no one knows you're bidding, it's easier to stop.
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Apr 16, 2022 20:43:27 GMT -5
The idea that I think we've talked about would be one where teams could see the high bid, but not the team who made it. Sorta like eBay. Then after 24 hours of no bids we can unlock it to see who the winner was. I think the reveal could be fun, especially for the bigger free agents. Shoot, we could even wait until the end of Tier 1 and announce all the winners at once. Imagine the fun of finding out some team signed like 3 of them?? I think that since we've gone to open forum bids, especially in the early days, contracts got artificially bloated due to teams not wanting to back off publicly. If no one knows you're bidding, it's easier to stop. Could be fun! I'm really down with whatever THE PEOPLE want
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Apr 17, 2022 19:44:49 GMT -5
Part of what I like about this league is the silent bidding. In real life, nobody knows when or how substantially a team is talking to a FA. it makes for tough choices and strategies for how to get your FA work done. And, contrary to some opinions, sneaky signings and "deals" do happen in real life baseball. Lastly, in some respects, it rewards GM's that do their homework and have a plan. Please don't take that away. +1000% I'm cool with the open bidding for the elite players, but really want to see our current format remain in place for Tier 2. If that becomes open bidding, it takes almost all of the strategy out of your Day 1 bids, who to counter, who to let go, etc. Please keep T2 the way it is. It's great.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Apr 17, 2022 21:42:19 GMT -5
Part of what I like about this league is the silent bidding. In real life, nobody knows when or how substantially a team is talking to a FA. it makes for tough choices and strategies for how to get your FA work done. And, contrary to some opinions, sneaky signings and "deals" do happen in real life baseball. Lastly, in some respects, it rewards GM's that do their homework and have a plan. Please don't take that away. +1000% I'm cool with the open bidding for the elite players, but really want to see our current format remain in place for Tier 2. If that becomes open bidding, it takes almost all of the strategy out of your Day 1 bids, who to counter, who to let go, etc. Please keep T2 the way it is. It's great. The only thing I want to do is improve the efficiency of Tier 2 by making the daily comparisons automatic using a program and/or spreadsheet references. For next year, the goal is to have a form page that each invitee can reply to 3 times during a 24 hour day. Then the results of top bids will be posted, but without the team leading the bidding. The team that has the high bid will know it, and if your bid doesn't match the top bid then you know you're not winning. Once I have that working, it should be really easy to populate that information of a webpage or a Google Sheet that people can check in real time. Some of the interesting things about the system, a GM could conceivably use all 3 bids in a day to counter on a single player. We are not married to a final bidding war being between just 2 GMs as we could write rules to allow a 3 person bidding war. We could also incorporate open bidding into the bidding wars giving us a taste of both options. The intrigue and strategy of blind bidding and limited bidding plus the spectacle of open bidding. Once I get the blind bidding part done, we'll start polls and formal league discussion about how to use it.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Apr 18, 2022 11:20:57 GMT -5
Ah. Okay. Yes, that would be neat.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Apr 18, 2022 17:03:22 GMT -5
If we are able to get a blind bidding form, where we have some sort of page or part of a page for each player, and all that can be seen is the current high bid, I would love to see the shackles of a 3 bid per day max removed. I think it limits the amount a team can improve in a given year if you limit the number of good players they can bid on. If we remove the work we do by hand, then the only reason to continue the 3 bid per day limit is "because that's how we've always done it" or some phantom idea of strategy, when really it's handcuffing owners in ways that doesn't mirror real life.
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Apr 18, 2022 17:11:56 GMT -5
Part of what I like about this league is the silent bidding. In real life, nobody knows when or how substantially a team is talking to a FA. it makes for tough choices and strategies for how to get your FA work done. And, contrary to some opinions, sneaky signings and "deals" do happen in real life baseball. Lastly, in some respects, it rewards GM's that do their homework and have a plan. Please don't take that away. +1000% I'm cool with the open bidding for the elite players, but really want to see our current format remain in place for Tier 2. If that becomes open bidding, it takes almost all of the strategy out of your Day 1 bids, who to counter, who to let go, etc. Please keep T2 the way it is. It's great. Limited bidding sucks, lol. I'm liking what I'm hearing about the plans for next year. If it works I think it should be opened up to no limits on # of bids per day.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Apr 18, 2022 17:43:09 GMT -5
If we are able to get a blind bidding form, where we have some sort of page or part of a page for each player, and all that can be seen is the current high bid, I would love to see the shackles of a 3 bid per day max removed. I think it limits the amount a team can improve in a given year if you limit the number of good players they can bid on. If we remove the work we do by hand, then the only reason to continue the 3 bid per day limit is "because that's how we've always done it" or some phantom idea of strategy, when really it's handcuffing owners in ways that doesn't mirror real life. It's not at all a "phantom idea" of strategy. That's one of the more ridiculous things I've read on the board this offseason (and I receive e-mail notifications every time that Hoppy posts, so...). Knowing you have a finite amount of bids is supreme strategy. Frankly, it DOES mimic real life, because real MLB teams don't have the resources to negotiate with dozens of free agents either.Lastly, I think "limiting the amount a team can improve in a given year" is basically nonsense. Frankly, free agency has shown to help put teams on the verge of contention over the top. It does NOT single-handedly improve a poor team into the ranks of contention all at once. If anything, that's a recipe for a GM making a ton of FA signings on a poor team, then being saddled with bad contracts, before he bolts the following offseason. JIm
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Apr 18, 2022 20:14:16 GMT -5
I'm in favor of discussing increasing the bid limit, but not eliminating it. This might be influenced by the logistics of the system I want to use. It is much easier to setup a form in Google without worrying about limits. I also think limits mirror real-life, but that 3 per day might be too low. What I'm saying is that I don't think we should let GMs chase ALL the players each day. So maybe allocating 10 bids per day is correct and maybe 5 is correct and maybe unlimited is correct.
My preference for limited bidding is not dictated by "the way we've always done it." I just enjoy mapping out my game plan and making the adjustments based on the Day 1 priorities of other GMs. I like playing games and this is a game I get to play against approximately 29 other people, many of which are wise to my shenanigans after all these years. Also, I think limited bidding is an equalizer for cap pressed teams that allow them to take early risks while teams flush with money focus on more expensive talent.
Definitely open to an increase in bids. Still listening to reasoning behind unlimited bidding. The ideal scenario is that whatever I come up with will support any system that makes the most people happy and engaged. Not everyone happy, just as many as we reasonably can.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Apr 18, 2022 20:42:17 GMT -5
The whole idea of someone coming in and signing a bunch of guys and leaving is strange. I may be wrong, but in the 20 year history of the league, I don't think we've ever once had that happen. But it's the boogeyman in the room that has scared us from allowing certain things. It gets brought up when people contest a trade, or complain about free agent signings. I remember everyone being scared that David was going to leave when he went all-in a few years back and traded all his picks to get pieces for a WS run. They thought he'd quit win or lose and leave the team in shambles. He didn't. Instead he won a title and we have a good owner.
I say unlimited amount of daily bids and unlimited amount of teams in on the bidding. If we're going to have a form, why limit it to just two or three teams bidding? Open it up so the player gets their max value. MLB teams negotiate with more than three free agents at any given time, why shouldn't we?
Sean, just because you enjoy the team-building aspect of the strategy of it shouldn't limit everyone else. Many of us want to build teams to win, not strategize how to try to sneak free agents through.
And yes, limiting bids does limit your ability to improve in a certain year. If you want ten quality T2 players, and you win the high bid on three, but the other seven are also bid on, you are missing out on at least four and maybe more. Why? Some archaic rule that says only three bids a day that was only put in place because we needed to control the number of bids 19 years ago when Tracy handled free agency so it was manageable? So you're stuck going with backup plans and worse options.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Apr 18, 2022 21:07:31 GMT -5
Joe, I've basically seen you almost single-handedly dismantle the CE system to only a CE+1, which no other league has.
I'm not interested in seeing you do the same thing to Tier 2.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Apr 18, 2022 21:24:39 GMT -5
And just because you think FA and team building should be an unfettered Libertarian wonderland doesn't mean that's the only way to win.
I'll say this; if we had a flat salary cap league and everyone had equal resources, then I would agree that unlimited bidding works. Because our system still creates a snowball effect with revenue distribution, I think there needs to be a limit. I don't think 3 is the correct number, but there needs to be a limit to ensure talent distribution. I know regulation is unpopular. It's also necessary. We have 19 years of free agent data and behavioral patterns to know that there needs to be a system that protects the opportunity for teams to sign players in a way that doesn't further drive higher revenue teams ahead of lower revenue teams. I've been middle of the pack financially and had a lot of fun, so this isn't just about how I use the league to have fun. It's a real task to beat teams when Brian can literally take a BPA approach to free agency. Because of the resources that were given to him by the league rules. Why do I want to give that guy more bids? He shouldn't have more bids!
So yeah, maybe that's a thing we can talk about in all of this. Is it time to make the salary cap the equalizer and do away with a lot of our other rules that were designed to prevent massive imbalance in resources?
|
|
|
Post by Arizona on Apr 19, 2022 6:39:36 GMT -5
Joe, I've basically seen you almost single-handedly dismantle the CE system to only a CE+1, which no other league has. I'm not interested in seeing you do the same thing to Tier 2. JIm Jim, for the record, I was (mostly) driving that train. Not Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Apr 19, 2022 7:22:55 GMT -5
Joe, I've basically seen you almost single-handedly dismantle the CE system to only a CE+1, which no other league has. I'm not interested in seeing you do the same thing to Tier 2. JIm Jim, for the record, I was (mostly) driving that train. Not Joe. The CE system, in the way I had developed it, was broken. I didn't see the faults in it when I created it, but when the Trout and Stanton CEs came out, it showed me where the error was. I would still be in favor of either doing away with it completely and going to a "6 years and you're done". Or maybe using Connor's statistics to create some sort of model where we do something like you can CE a 4th year guy for 3 years past his 6th, a 5th year guy for 2 years past his 6th, and a 6th year guy for only 1 extra year. But then having NTC through their 6th year as a way of tying you to the player longer. So you can't immediately dump them after. And of course the earlier you CE someone, the cheaper it is, but you can't get out of the contract easy either.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Apr 19, 2022 9:03:19 GMT -5
Or maybe using Connor's statistics to create some sort of model where we do something like you can CE a 4th year guy for 3 years past his 6th, a 5th year guy for 2 years past his 6th, and a 6th year guy for only 1 extra year. But then having NTC through their 6th year as a way of tying you to the player longer. So you can't immediately dump them after. And of course the earlier you CE someone, the cheaper it is, but you can't get out of the contract easy either. This would at least be an improvement over our current system. I'm just surprised that it's Joe of all people that's a pure open-market capitalist when it comes to free agency in this league. If anything, the last few years in real life MLB have shown that teams are locking up their elite young talent early on to prevent them from hitting the open market. I think there's a good compromise to be had somewhere there in-between. I would love to see us at least get back to a CE+2 or +3, with some solid NTC language to "protect the player" and add some strategy to the league, as Joe suggested.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Apr 19, 2022 9:21:46 GMT -5
I'm pro-worker so I want to see the players get paid. Yes, I know this is fictional, but I think by artificially suppressing salaries, we keep more money out in the market which hinders smaller market teams from being able to compete with the big boys. Idk... sorta damned if you do and damned if you dont.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Apr 19, 2022 9:41:22 GMT -5
I'm pro-worker so I want to see the players get paid.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Apr 19, 2022 9:43:35 GMT -5
I'm pro-worker so I want to see the players get paid. Yes, I know this is fictional, but I think by artificially suppressing salaries, we keep more money out in the market which hinders smaller market teams from being able to compete with the big boys. Idk... sorta damned if you do and damned if you dont. This is the exact tug of war that makes me want to figure out the logistics of moving to a flat cap system. Keep an out for that discussion to be on the message board after FA completes.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Apr 19, 2022 10:02:41 GMT -5
But Joe is oversimplifying things by equating the *only* value to be bottom line top dollar value. In MLB especially for young players, locking in a guaranteed, multi-year contract also brings the huge value of security. A player can gamble to just go year-to-year in arbitration until they hit FA, but if they get seriously injured or have a down season or two during that 3-4-year window, they can forfeit millions.
Frankly, Gregory Polanco is the perfect counter-example of a player who locked in early, had his actual value be far, far less than his perceived value, and made millions signing a long-term deal.
Were this the NFL where a player can be cut at any time and forfeit everything outside of his signing bonus, I think that argument would have more merit. But due to the guaranteed nature of MLB contracts, you simply can't ignore the security afforded to players by locking in early, nor ignore the risk teams are taking on by committing to those players.
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Apr 19, 2022 10:12:37 GMT -5
But Joe is oversimplifying things by equating the *only* value to be bottom line top dollar value. In MLB especially for young players, locking in a guaranteed, multi-year contract also brings the huge value of security. A player can gamble to just go year-to-year in arbitration until they hit FA, but if they get seriously injured or have a down season or two during that 3-4-year window, they can forfeit millions. Frankly, Gregory Polanco is the perfect counter-example of a player who locked in early, had his actual value be far, far less than his perceived value, and made millions signing a long-term deal. Were this the NFL where a player can be cut at any time and forfeit everything outside of his signing bonus, I think that argument would have more merit. But due to the guaranteed nature of MLB contracts, you simply can't ignore the security afforded to players by locking in early, nor ignore the risk teams are taking on by committing to those players. Jim, we can't simulate a player's desire for security. It's literally a personal decision for each individual player and there are no unbiased metrics we can use to simulate it. I don't really have a problem with reworking the CE system, but it's just another thing that contradicts the idea of "why are contracts so long" that you talk about in other topics. We should only realistically expected to create and maintain systems that work on tangible figures. You shouldn't be able to enforce your idea of a fair contract on a young player just because you want to keep them longer. I have been on your side of a lot of these things we have been talking about the last couple weeks, but it feels like you just want to play with your toys while paying a discount for them. I don't agree with that. Present me a system that realistically simulates which players will choose to take less money for security, and I'll happily look into it.
|
|