|
Post by Mike(Yankees GM) on Dec 6, 2016 15:48:22 GMT -6
I don't have a problem with it but it is a completely distinct league with its own intangibles and structure. And even if it were so similar as to say it's apples to apples, one cycle of testing isn't suffice to say it should be done universal. I do prefer the 2 (or 3) bid system myself but if the operators in the league say it's too much work to strategize where everyone else is positioned to bid accordingly when this is supposed to be just a hobby, I'm not gonna fight it. I just use this as a way to familiarize myself with aspects of the game I had not done so before since this is what I want to do after school.
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Yankees GM) on Dec 6, 2016 15:51:19 GMT -6
Let's face it guys, the truth behind everything is this: - Bid limit: Low salary cap and below market deals.
- No bid limit: True market value.
That's not truly accurate as many players have received contracts on par or higher to what was given to the highest paid players when the league started and everyone had 120M to spend. Josh Donaldson last year went for more than Mike Trout and you can expect he's gonna receive a similar contract this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2016 15:52:53 GMT -6
If we want to make this league realistic as possible, I think we have to either: - Eliminate the bid limit.
- Increase the bid limit to at least 5 bids per GM.
Talking about making it realistic, how many players/agents do you think will listen to 10 offers from the same club? - Yes, there would be a counter-offer from the agent, but still. Let's face it guys, the truth behind everything is this:
Bid limit: Low salary cap and below market deals.
No bid limit: True market value.
Don't necessarily agree with that either. As I mentioned before, once you bid late, or enter a bidding-war with other GM's, you crank up the price in order to scare them/others off.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 15:58:49 GMT -6
I don't have a problem with it but it is a completely distinct league with its own intangibles and structure. And even if it were so similar as to say it's apples to apples, one cycle of testing isn't suffice to say it should be done universal. I do prefer the 2 (or 3) bid system myself but if the operators in the league say it's too much work to strategize where everyone else is positioned to bid accordingly when this is supposed to be just a hobby, I'm not gonna fight it. I just use this as a way to familiarize myself with aspects of the game I had not done so before since this is what I want to do after school. I don't really want to talk too much about my NBA league here, but I did bring it up, so this is on me. The reason I mentioned it was simply because we use the same style of bidding, which is what this entire discussion boils down to. No one is saying that the issue is "too much work" and that's just getting away from the basis of my point. You make it seem like the league would go to hell and would no longer be fun if teams could place unlimited bids. There's been a lot of dancing around this issue and bringing up other things to direct attention away from the main point, which is the simple fact that no one has explained why there should be an advantage to bidding on players.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 16:02:32 GMT -6
If we want to make this league realistic as possible, I think we have to either: - Eliminate the bid limit.
- Increase the bid limit to at least 5 bids per GM.
Talking about making it realistic, how many players/agents do you think will listen to 10 offers from the same club? - Yes, there would be a counter-offer from the agent, but still. Let's face it guys, the truth behind everything is this:
Bid limit: Low salary cap and below market deals.
No bid limit: True market value.
Don't necessarily agree with that either. As I mentioned before, once you bid late, or enter a bidding-war with other GM's, you crank up the price in order to scare them/others off. It's true that the two-bid system will produce some true market value deals like the Donaldson signing that you referenced but there will also be cases where people will be pushed out, even though they may have been willing to bid higher for a player. This has already happened. My point remains: Why should there be any advantage whatsoever with the bidding process?
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Yankees GM) on Dec 6, 2016 16:05:07 GMT -6
It's actually spot on to your point. If you have 30M to spend on 2 spots and other teams only have 15M to spend on 6 spots, why would a bid of 2M scare anyone away? So I don't feel pity for a team with more cap when they chose not to spend the money. As for teams that had less to spend, I don't feel sorry cause you probably had your hopes on a player that would probably hinder your team's ability to provide support elsewhere. I've lost plenty of players that in hindsight would've prevented me from getting other talent that helped me more than that one player would have.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 16:21:24 GMT -6
It's actually spot on to your point. If you have 30M to spend on 2 spots and other teams only have 15M to spend on 6 spots, why would a bid of 2M scare anyone away? So I don't feel pity for a team with more cap when they chose not to spend the money. As for teams that had less to spend, I don't feel sorry cause you probably had your hopes on a player that would probably hinder your team's ability to provide support elsewhere. I've lost plenty of players that in hindsight would've prevented me from getting other talent that helped me more than that one player would have. To be honest, I'm not sure what you're referencing. My point is about two-bid limit and not about teams choosing to not spend their cap space or have less to work with. The arguments for keeping the two-bid limit still don't explain why there should be an advantage. We're up to: 1) I hate unlimited bidding because there could be a lot of bids 2) Well, everyone had a chance to be the last team 3) Cause I like it This is still about what's best for the league and I can't see how giving the last team to bid an advantage is the best approach to a core aspect of how the league functions.
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Yankees GM) on Dec 6, 2016 16:24:21 GMT -6
It is very valid point and you're dancing around it cause it doesn't suit your agenda. Instead of taking blame for your loss, you'd rather blame the system. If you were going to give yourself a guilty conscience for winning a bid, then why even bother bidding if that means more to you than winning?
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 16:33:12 GMT -6
It is very valid point and you're dancing around it cause it doesn't suit your agenda. Instead of taking blame for your loss, you'd rather blame the system. If you were going to give yourself a guilty conscience for winning a bid, then why even bother bidding if that means more to you than winning? LOL! What loss are you talking about? I didn't lose anyone. I can live with posting a last-minute bid on a player. I already have and sent a courteous letter to the manager because he was bummed out about losing a player and getting pushed out. I'm not dancing around anything to do with this discussion to fit my "agenda" of "bringing down the system" because I don't like it. I've laid out my case thoroughly and still haven't received a logical reason for why there should be an advantage to bidding on players. I'll keep an eye out for one though...
|
|
|
Post by Tom(Angels GM) on Dec 6, 2016 17:28:41 GMT -6
I'm sorry, i totally disagree with unlimited bids equal market value. If player X is being bid on and the bids are $10m, $ 10.25m, ect based on everyone bidding in $250k increments and someone bids $ 14M the market value would be in the $10m range not the $14M bid. Unlimited bidding can over inflate market value. This was my point earlier when some managers up bid players it sometimes increases the players price above his value what the market is willing to pay.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 6, 2016 17:41:20 GMT -6
The advantages could be many. Although they would have been made by choice every team has advantages by the amount of money they have or how many roster spots they have. I haven't decided one way or another with the bid limit I'm leaning towards unlimited bids, but I do also think it may be beneficial to look at some of the rules regarding drafted players being counted toward your cap if they are in the minors.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 6, 2016 17:43:58 GMT -6
If you wanna establish a true market value there honestly should be two caps one for major league and one for minor league systems. That way you have absolutely no restriction on major league rosters say for major league players.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 18:02:55 GMT -6
I'm sorry, i totally disagree with unlimited bids equal market value. If player X is being bid on and the bids are $10m, $ 10.25m, ect based on everyone bidding in $250k increments and someone bids $ 14M the market value would be in the $10m range not the $14M bid. Unlimited bidding can over inflate market value. This was my point earlier when some managers up bid players it sometimes increases the players price above his value what the market is willing to pay. Market value has a simple and straightforward definition: "The amount for which something can be sold on a given market." However, one can impact "market value" by placing restrictions on a person's ability to bid freely -- a two-bid system. These are simple economic principles of a free market. I agree that the possibility exists for teams to actually exceed what they would pay in an unlimited bidding setting but this still doesn't address the crux of my argument, which continues to be: Why should there be any advantage to placing bids on players?
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 18:06:16 GMT -6
The advantages could be many. Although they would have been made by choice every team has advantages by the amount of money they have or how many roster spots they have. I haven't decided one way or another with the bid limit I'm leaning towards unlimited bids, but I do also think it may be beneficial to look at some of the rules regarding drafted players being counted toward your cap if they are in the minors. No question preemptive planning plays a huge role in what a team can and can't do during the offseason but we're talking strictly about the system of how teams place bids on players and the simple fact that there's a distinct advantage to being the last team to place a bid. Makes no sense to me why there should any advantage in one of the main ways teams acquire players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2016 18:22:27 GMT -6
I think you both got a bit off track.
Nate, to me it seems like you're trying to make a joke of the arguments for maintaining the two-bid rule, instead of counter the arguments. You've said that you believe there is to be a great advantage of being the last bidder, and then, as far as I recall, that's about all you've said.
The same rules applies for all of us. When there is a limit, you (should) change your bidding strategy accordingly. If you get caught off guard, if you "waste" your bids too early, then it's on you (the bidder). If you really want a guy, then hold off until later, or increase the bid to a level, where other GM's won't follow, and "show" the player that you want him.
Joe said that a no-limit would be more realistic. As I mentioned then, and feel I need to say again, an agent do not want to hear 10 offers from the same club. It is a guess, but I would guess that the agent would tell the club to either stop low-balling and give his client a real offer or b) to simply piss off. - When negotiating your own salary, wouldn't it be quite strange, if your potential employer kept increasing your salary with say $100 a month, until you finally said yes to an offer?
As it has been mentioned, Donaldson got a bigger contract than Trout had, others have gotten big contracts as well, so it's not like the current system is broken - at all. This upcoming FA, we will most likely see some big contracts, just as we will see some players go for a lesser contract. This years pool is full of players who produce, and though some of them might had gotten a bit more if there wasn't a limit, others would probably had gotten less, because the offers would simply had been increased 250k, instead of being yanked up to secure the player.
That turned out to be quite a long one, hope it makes sense. It's 1 a.m. in Denmark now, so I'm off to bed. I have an idea, we'll continue this in the morning haha.
|
|
|
Post by Tom(Angels GM) on Dec 6, 2016 18:55:05 GMT -6
The 2 bid system is a real system used by MLB. Every team has 2 official offer sheets that they can officially submit to a free agent. The only difference between Hot Stove and MLB is that in real baseball GM'S can negotiate with the players agent via phone and we can't but an official offer sheet must be sent, excepted and signed by the free agent and if you send one and another team offers a better contract that constitutes one of your offer sheets. I honestly don't care if it's 2 or 5 or unlimited bids if we can eliminate the $250k increments and maybe make it $ 500K.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 19:21:11 GMT -6
I think you both got a bit off track. Nate, to me it seems like you're trying to make a joke of the arguments for maintaining the two-bid rule, instead of counter the arguments. You've said that you believe there is to be a great advantage of being the last bidder, and then, as far as I recall, that's about all you've said. The same rules applies for all of us. When there is a limit, you (should) change your bidding strategy accordingly. If you get caught off guard, if you "waste" your bids too early, then it's on you (the bidder). If you really want a guy, then hold off until later, or increase the bid to a level, where other GM's won't follow, and "show" the player that you want him. Joe said that a no-limit would be more realistic. As I mentioned then, and feel I need to say again, an agent do not want to hear 10 offers from the same club. It is a guess, but I would guess that the agent would tell the club to either stop low-balling and give his client a real offer or b) to simply piss off. - When negotiating your own salary, wouldn't it be quite strange, if your potential employer kept increasing your salary with say $100 a month, until you finally said yes to an offer? As it has been mentioned, Donaldson got a bigger contract than Trout had, others have gotten big contracts as well, so it's not like the current system is broken - at all. This upcoming FA, we will most likely see some big contracts, just as we will see some players go for a lesser contract. This years pool is full of players who produce, and though some of them might had gotten a bit more if there wasn't a limit, others would probably had gotten less, because the offers would simply had been increased 250k, instead of being yanked up to secure the player. That turned out to be quite a long one, hope it makes sense. It's 1 a.m. in Denmark now, so I'm off to bed. I have an idea, we'll continue this in the morning haha. Well, I don't think that's accurate at all. I've addressed every point brought up in reference to the proposal to go to unlimited bidding and you can find all of them in this thread, as I've quoted and addressed all of the comments directly. Every comment in reference to my point that there's a distinct advantage being last in the bidding process has either brought up something else other than my main concern such as market value, too many bids are annoying, I like the current system and everyone has a chance to be the final bidder. However, none say why there should be an advantage in the first place. I've been very clear that this is the crux of my argument and that it makes no sense to have any advantages when it comes to how we add free agents to our rosters. Continuing on; I have changed my strategy and even included an example (Matt Carpenter) as how I'd operate within the current two-bid system. I've already done everything you suggested in terms of how to get your guy and explained as much previously in this thread. Many aspects of this league could be considered "unrealistic" so you could cherry pick examples of what is and isn't realistic for months. I don't particular care if the system is "realistic" because you wouldn't receive incremental offers in your normal job. We're operating within a certain set of restraints to begin with, so there is always going to be strange aspects of the league functions. The goal should be to have the best system in place when it comes to how major functions are executed and I think it goes without saying that a bidding advantage doesn't fall into this category. In reference to Josh Donaldson getting a bigger offer than Trout and Tom's point that the possibility exists that some could overpay for a player with the two-bid system, the same can be said of the inverse. It's just as plausible that managers were blown out because they thought they were getting their guy but would have made another bid had they been able to, so this is really just a moot point. I feel confident that I've stated my case for moving to an unlimited bid system and why this would benefit the league, so I don't really want to keep spinning my wheels when it appears the consensus prefers to keep the two-bid system.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 19:27:36 GMT -6
The 2 bid system is a real system used by MLB. Every team has 2 official offer sheets that they can officially submit to a free agent. The only difference between Hot Stove and MLB is that in real baseball GM'S can negotiate with the players agent via phone and we can't but an official offer sheet must be sent, excepted and signed by the free agent and if you send one and another team offers a better contract that constitutes one of your offer sheets. I honestly don't care if it's 2 or 5 or unlimited bids if we can eliminate the $250k increments and maybe make it $ 500K. I haven't been able to find anything that outlines a two-bid system for the MLB, so if you have a link, I'd love to take a look at it. As you said, teams are going to toss numerous offers back and forth with a player before extending them an official offer. This is what we're essentially simlulating, which is the negotiation process for free agents. If you think the Marlins just made Staton two offers before signing him to a $300M contract, you're out of your mind. There was plenty of back and forth in a record-setting contract. You're referencing "official offer sheets" but we're simulating the negotiating process and the offer sheets. That's an important distinction. If there's middle ground that I could get behind it would be an unlimited system with a set increment in terms of the next bid such as $500K as you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 6, 2016 19:30:48 GMT -6
If there is a two bid limit for rfas in baseball I wouldn't be opposed to upping the limit to 3 in rfa and establishing unlimited when bidding on unrestricted free agents.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 6, 2016 19:34:45 GMT -6
I'd also like to establish a non arbitrary number based compensation draft pick scale. I think that if we use the actually qualifying offer that the MLB uses it would be better as that number for loss of a draft pick will not pulled out of thin air.
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Yankees GM) on Dec 6, 2016 19:35:57 GMT -6
I'd remove the draft pick loss since that's what MLB just did.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 19:39:40 GMT -6
I'd remove the draft pick loss since that's what MLB just did. But this is what I argued for last year ... sigh Amazing that the league made changes to comp picks a year after it was a hot topic in HS and we implemented a new system.
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Yankees GM) on Dec 6, 2016 19:45:57 GMT -6
Nate you can jump off your high horse now and go to bed. You didn't even know the CBA was up after the year and that that issue would be a focal point. Not only that, but it looks like I had saw only preliminary agreements that were later changed as I see info it was still kept.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 6, 2016 19:48:00 GMT -6
MLB didn't remove the draft pick loss they lessened it.
|
|
|
Post by Keith(Brewers GM) on Dec 6, 2016 19:52:06 GMT -6
Market value is what someone would go for in an auction. It doesn't matter if I think that amount is too high or too low or if someone else has an opinion that is the exact opposite. Market value is what the players actually go for. I think several of you have this confused with perceived value, projected value, or calculated value. I just wanted to clarify so arguments don't get too off-track or confusing.
I think many or maybe all of us have bid twice on a player at one point or another and then wished they had another bid. This alone proves that market value is affected by the two-bid system. The salary would have been higher in that scenario and in every other scenario in which someone else would have placed a 3rd bid, but couldn't.
That's why Nate and a few others have said that the two-bid system affects market value.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the two-bid system in our offseason FA. It is completely fair for everyone. Optimal strategy would be to wait 23 hrs 59 mins on every single guy you want before bidding. You could argue that a big opening bid might work or other scenarios but they wouldn't be optimal as you may get the player cheaper simply by waiting. You could say that there is no advantage during offseason FA and not be wrong, but personally I'd rather be bidding than waiting 23 hours to place a bid.
With in-season FA there is definitely an advantage to bidding last. After you nominate your player you are left with 1 bid while everyone else has two left. This makes the "never nominate anyone and just wait for guys to be posted" strategy optimal. Nothing wrong with that strategy as I admittedly do it myself but I do not think opening bidders should be at such a disadvantage, therefore I would strongly suggest at the very least we make the opening bid not count. This doesn't apply to offseason FA as guys are just mass posted with no opening bid.
In summary I think both options are fun but I think unlimited is the way to go as I believe that market value dictating player's salaries is the most important part of FA.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 19:52:32 GMT -6
Nate you can jump off your high horse now and go to bed. You didn't even know the CBA was up after the year and that that issue would be a focal point. Not only that, but it looks like I had saw only preliminary agreements that were later changed as I see info it was still kept. Mike, sorry... sheesh. I was supporting your suggestion. Sorry if that didn't come through with how I laid out that response. I just mentioned that it was funny that the MLB agreed to make changes to the comp pick system a year after it was a major topic in the league. I know that they didn't get rid of comp picks and just made small changes.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 6, 2016 19:57:21 GMT -6
Is there no middle ground that the people who support the two bid system and the unlimited bid system could reach to appease each other?
|
|
|
Post by Tom(Angels GM) on Dec 6, 2016 20:01:32 GMT -6
I'm sure there is a middle ground, we just need to start throwing some ideas out there.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 20:05:48 GMT -6
I'd support Tom's suggestion of unlimited bids with $500K increments as a middle-ground proposal.
If we keep the two-bid system, it sounds like we can all agree that the opening shouldn't count.
Overall, I'd prefer to not have a cap on the bids to disincentive people from waiting to the last minute like Keith mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 6, 2016 20:05:50 GMT -6
I'd say keep the limit for a certain part of free agency and unlimited ufa bids.
|
|