Free Agent Bidding

[Manila Folders]

The purpose of this change is to focus our bidding by taking the number of years into account.  This could streamline our bidding by getting the serious bidders a leg up and reducing the number of 1 year deals for the top guys.  Adds some realism.  Perhaps a danger is a general increase in expensive long term deals.  $20M/5 year deal for an older or marginal guy could burden a franchse for years.  We have not seen this kind of Free Agent contract yet. 

Make the years and dollar values add up to points and the highest point value wins the auction after 24 hours (years + salary = x).   Examples:

1 year @ .300K = 1.3 points (1 + .3 = 1.3)

4 years @ 4.0 million = 8.0 points

3 years @ 10.8 million = 13.8 points

If someone is outbid they can then bid again with a higher point value.  We can still have our requirements that anything over 10 million requires at least two years.    Our minimum starting bid stays 300K. 

[Manila Folders]

I have been thinking about the number of multiyear deals handed out to minimum or near minimum guys.  It's a good bet on upside at minimal risk.  I've done it.  The suggested bidding rules (years plus salary) will likely accellerate this much more which may not be such a good thing. 

Amend the rules to state that FA multi year contracts would follow the following rule:

.3 - 1.9 - one year max
2.0 - 2.9 - 2 year max
3.0 - 3.9 - 3 year max
4.0 - 4.9 - 4 year max
5.0+ - 5 Year max   

It would be simple to remember and also add some realism as no Free Agent would sign a 5 year minimum deal.  Thoughts?

[Columbus Wild]

Please give us your thoughts on this change.  We would like a discussion before we put it to a vote.

Norm, Jim and I have been talking this over for a few months now.

[Hasan4978]

The first part I'd be for, the bidding point system looks similar to my other dynasty league.  I suppose then owners would only have to declare an option (or not) after bidding was over as opposed to declaring both that and the years.
 
I don't know if I'd do the second part, at least not to that extent.  Maybe for now just do a max of three years on contracts under $1 million, a max of four years on contracts from $1-5 million, and five years on more expensive deals, plus options.

[Jason]

I like the idea. My old dynasty had a points system and I think it's the best way to do it because a player is going to take a 2 yr deal over a 1 yr deal at the same salary.

I would be for this move.

[Jax Pratts]

I am not in favor of either rule change. I think that owners who give out more years to get multiple free agents and find that the salaries are sunk costs, as some inevitably are, will be more inclined to quit the league.

On the other change, we have a salary cap and contending in the league often is a function of locking up surplus value for multiple years. We are convinced that we now have a solid group of owners who are all going to be active. I think we should go through a season of free agency with those owners under the current rules and see where we are at that point.

[Columbus Wild]

The last off season free agency went very well and there is only 1 additional new owner since then.   The reason for the discussion is to guage interest in streamline the bidding process see if we want to make it more realistic.  I see your point on the example of an owner making bad contract decisions but that can also happen in the current system.

Good discussion so far everyone!

[Shrewsbury Big Flies]

Overall I agree with Jax, let's see what happens with this group of owners one more year.   If there does need to be a change, I'm not sure the point system as proposed is beneficial at all salary levels.  I'm trying to integrate the two conversations going on here, the point system and the length of contracts for minimum players, from the perspective of an owner with a major rebuild needed.

As proposed, Owner A bids 4 yrs at .3 on a young player, trying to lock him up.
Owner B sees the potential and bids 2 yrs at 2 million (maybe because he inherited a team with a lot of contracts that has him scratching his head so he is conservative with lengths of contracts right now- see Shae Simmons eating up .3 through 2021).

In the point system, Owner A wins with a 4.3 > 4.0, but in reality, which contract does a real player accept, Owner A with a total of 1.2 million over 4 years or Owner B with 4 million over 2 years?
I think for the examples already given supporting this we can find as many examples like this where it might not work exactly.

If contracts are capped for lower contracts, I would advocate for 3 years.  If an owner identifies a middle reliever who may get saves next year, I think the owner should reap the benefits of that move for a little bit (thinking of A Bummer and L Jackson on my team).  If I'm right, I get a couple years of cheap saves, if I'm wrong, they're eating up some salary cap. 
Another option would be to give them a y2y based on where they'd be at their current salary, so a mid year FA pickup for .6 would get a y2y2 contract.  (I'd round up, so I'd give a .5 contract a y2y2 for example)

Good conversation.

[Boulder Ball Busters]

One of my leagues did this..simple, allows for 1 year deals still at high one year cost, rewards multi-year bids too.

salary x years = total dollar of bid.  Highest total dollar wins

Example.....first bid is 1 year at $10m for a $10m bid.  Second bid is for 2 years at $6m bid for total of $12m.  Legal and newest high bid.

Worked well.  What we dont want is to have multi-year dead deals after first or second year where the owner feels helplessly tied to salary and quits league.  New owner is burdened and so doesnt join league.

So in one league, we allowed buy-outs.  Cant remember formula but essentially % of one year to buy out guy and count against your cap for that current year only and guy is off your team.  This also helps with retired guys with contracts still and ones who died

[Columbus Wild]

BBB:  I think the point system we're proposing is similar to your dollar example. But it does take the total value of the proposal into consideration instead of placing a premier on the number of years. **I edited this part of my response for anyone who read it before the edit.  I said something inaccurate that needed to be corrected**

Shrewsbury:  The biggest reason for bringing up contract length max years was for your exact example.  Is a 4 year $300K contact worth more than a 2 year $2.0 million dollar contract?  In reality, no and a player would take option b and play for the second contract. 

I'll come clean and say this particular suggestion came from me.  The free agent bidding process I have felt needed some changes for years.  We had some complaints a few years ago about the amount of 1 year deals being assigned so I have been contemplating a solution for a while.  The problem is any fix to one problem, creates new issues.  Which is why I wanted to have a discussion to ensure everyone gets their thoughts on paper and can help think of things I and others hadn't thought of.

[Glenside Pride]

If I am following each FA bid would be 2 parts.  The first would be the salary being offered and the second would the inclusion of a declaration of years.  I think this makes sense but would actually say that it should be the years time the salary for a contract value.  That way the winning bid would be the highest contract value.  If two owners are willing to offer the same contract value then the tie breaker would be the number of years (less year would be the winner).

Example

Team A offers $5mil for 3 years ($15 mil contract value)
Team B offers $7.5 mill for 2 years ($15 mil contract value)

Player would sign with Team B as they get the same contract value but could go for another contract after 2 years.  This seems pretty simple to follow and should allow teams with the contract space to quickly differentiate themselves if they wish. 

Along those lines, I would also abolish the rule about only being able to raise the bid a certain amount.  As long as each bid has a higher contract value then the last then owners should be able to bid whatever they wish at whatever time in the bidding process.

[Cincinnati Tsunami]

I am for this change. It would create some risk for owning a player. Right now there is no risk to signing free agents. There is also no incentive to give players longer term deals since there will always be a  large crop of players available on one year deals the next season. At the same time, there is  a large incentive for giving players short term deals by earning draft pick compensation. This change would make free agency similar to our original draft when we were forced to keep a certain amount of players on long term contacts. I remember when we started a lot of owners ending up with bad long term contracts. Those bad contracts are part of real baseball. Working around the free agent landmines should be part of being a successful owner.

[Jax Pratts]

I have played in a lot of leagues in my time and currently play in quite a few. The biggest problem most of them find themselves in is this type pf tinkering with one aspect without considering how it might impact other parts. It especially concerns me when there is talk of 'realism'. We have an inherently different system than MLB in that we have a salary cap. We can't possibly expect or desire our free agency to mimic MLB as a result.

There have been concerns expressed about the number of one-year deals for good players. That's a feature, not a bug. New owners coming in can see that there will be useful players available right away to help them get right into some degree of competitiveness. Some owners who have done a good job with their drafts don't feel a need to commit long term, knowing they have young and cheap players on the immediate horizon. As for streamlining the free agent process, I have not noticed that it has been too long or cumbersome. I'm not sure why we continue to look to fix things that are not really broken.

On the limits on contract length based on free agent cost, I have to disagree with that quite strongly. This is something that should be taken care of with the normal competition. Either lots of owners recognize a player's value and will bid up the price or they don't and the owner who does should reap the benefit of his research and/or intuition for as long as he can.

As much as we want to think otherwise, we're not a particularly active league. There are too many free agents, especially during the season, who go for salaries well below what they should. We don't make nearly as many trades here as I see in most of my other leagues. We have owners who don't really do basic roster maintenance during the season and we have some who stop participating in drafts halfway through or so. There is nothing wrong with any of this. This is not a paid league and to do all of the things we need to do on a very active basis would take a lot of time. That has given us, though, a stark difference between the haves and the have nots in the league. That's fine too. Everyone should have a right to do as they want here, within certain parameters. I don't see how the rules we have either help or hurt anyone so it seems that we should just leave well enough alone so that everyone can enjoy the league in their own way and not have still more stifling rules dictated to us. I understand we will likely vote on these rules and if a majority are in favor of change that's certainly fine and I'll play by whatever rules we have. It just seems a waste to spend time making changes when we don't spend time using the rules that we already have. In the end, I'm just in favor of rules that allow owners to run their teams as they wish so long as they are not hurting the league overall.

[Manila Folders]

If I am following each FA bid would be 2 parts.  The first would be the salary being offered and the second would the inclusion of a declaration of years.  I think this makes sense but would actually say that it should be the years time the salary for a contract value.  That way the winning bid would be the highest contract value.  If two owners are willing to offer the same contract value then the tie breaker would be the number of years (less year would be the winner).

Example

Team A offers $5mil for 3 years ($15 mil contract value)
Team B offers $7.5 mill for 2 years ($15 mil contract value)

Player would sign with Team B as they get the same contract value but could go for another contract after 2 years.  This seems pretty simple to follow and should allow teams with the contract space to quickly differentiate themselves if they wish. 

Along those lines, I would also abolish the rule about only being able to raise the bid a certain amount.  As long as each bid has a higher contract value then the last then owners should be able to bid whatever they wish at whatever time in the bidding process.

I like the points system better than overall value.  In most cases it does not make a difference but a 1 year deal at $8M (9 points) is more player friendly than a 2 year deal at $5M (7 points).

[Manila Folders]

I have played in a lot of leagues in my time and currently play in quite a few. The biggest problem most of them find themselves in is this type pf tinkering with one aspect without considering how it might impact other parts. It especially concerns me when there is talk of 'realism'. We have an inherently different system than MLB in that we have a salary cap. We can't possibly expect or desire our free agency to mimic MLB as a result.

There have been concerns expressed about the number of one-year deals for good players. That's a feature, not a bug. New owners coming in can see that there will be useful players available right away to help them get right into some degree of competitiveness. Some owners who have done a good job with their drafts don't feel a need to commit long term, knowing they have young and cheap players on the immediate horizon. As for streamlining the free agent process, I have not noticed that it has been too long or cumbersome. I'm not sure why we continue to look to fix things that are not really broken.

On the limits on contract length based on free agent cost, I have to disagree with that quite strongly. This is something that should be taken care of with the normal competition. Either lots of owners recognize a player's value and will bid up the price or they don't and the owner who does should reap the benefit of his research and/or intuition for as long as he can.

As much as we want to think otherwise, we're not a particularly active league. There are too many free agents, especially during the season, who go for salaries well below what they should. We don't make nearly as many trades here as I see in most of my other leagues. We have owners who don't really do basic roster maintenance during the season and we have some who stop participating in drafts halfway through or so. There is nothing wrong with any of this. This is not a paid league and to do all of the things we need to do on a very active basis would take a lot of time. That has given us, though, a stark difference between the haves and the have nots in the league. That's fine too. Everyone should have a right to do as they want here, within certain parameters. I don't see how the rules we have either help or hurt anyone so it seems that we should just leave well enough alone so that everyone can enjoy the league in their own way and not have still more stifling rules dictated to us. I understand we will likely vote on these rules and if a majority are in favor of change that's certainly fine and I'll play by whatever rules we have. It just seems a waste to spend time making changes when we don't spend time using the rules that we already have. In the end, I'm just in favor of rules that allow owners to run their teams as they wish so long as they are not hurting the league overall.

I agree with a lot of this.  Certainly "realism" is not the highest priority.  But all esle being equal, it's has value.  In at least one case, the lack of realism in PTB is part of a problem.

The motivation of the rule changes is to incentivize teams to participate in fielding competitive lineups through free agent bidding.  this accomplishes two positive changes.  There are plenty of examples of teams playing 10 or more guys on their active roster who are injured or in the minors.  This is a relatively recent trend.  Incertivising competition will reduce the gap between the halves and the have nots and it will provide more interesting weekly action.  Too many weekly results are 8-2, 9-1, and 10-0.  That is a disincentive to being an engaged owner which the league needs to thrive.  And the number of non competitive teams are trending in the wrong direction.  As one of the admins, I want to try to fix this before it gets worse which it will.  All the admins want to improve things through incentives rather than restrictions because we all agree with Jax's central point that owners should be free to build their teams in any way that does not hurt the rest of us. 

The current rules give the top pick in both drafts to the worst teams.  That is a powerful disincentive to compete. This is a case where realism would improve our league as the MLB Amatuer Draft caps and International budget caps place a lot of emphasis on value in talent acquisition.  No MLB team takes the best player available for all of their picks and international signings. We can increase the incentive to compete and get closer to real MLB drafts with a few tweaks and without getting overly complicated or reinventing the rules.

PTB is set up in a way that allows an owner to remain engaged who cannot spent hours every week working on their rosters to have a chance to compete.  So yeah, overall we are not as active as cash leagues, but we have owners who can set up their teams in free agency and trades, participate in only half of each draft, and still have a cheering interest with a few minutes of maintenance every weekend.  The most active owners have an advantage but it is not close to insurmountable.

There are a lot of good ideas out there.  We most likely won't use them all but for now, keep them coming.

[Utah Sandlot]

I am in favor in keeping it the way it is

[Manila Folders]

I am in favor in keeping it the way it is

Thanks! Your vote will be heard in the coming weeks.