2014 RULES: Free Agency Changes

[Ben C.]

If we're going to do free agency someday, we'll have to arrive at some thoughts on possible options that aren't overly complicated to build into the system while re-writing scripts and isn't overwhelming to our GMs trying to figure out their bids. We started with something basic to get going and want to take it up a notch to overcome some loopholes exploited but aren't looking for rocket science too complex for anyone to know what bids beat other bids either.

Trying to come up with a couple different options to look at and throw some examples into to see what might work best.

OPTION A: Total value matters. Guaranteed total matters more. Cap hit per year also matters. With percentage of guaranteed multiplier.

Total contract value
+ Guaranteed $ (Signing Bonus so that gets counted twice as also in total above)
+ Cap hit per year
x Guaranteed percent multiplier (1+ percent guaranteed)

Examples:

Bid 1: 5yr $5m/yr with 5m SB -- 6m/yr cap value (5/30 = 16.7% guaranteed)
Bid 2: 5yr $2m/yr with 20m SB -- 6m/yr cap value (20/30 = 66.7% guaranteed)
Bid 3: 2yr $1m/yr with 12m SB -- 7m/yr cap value (12/14 = 85.7% guaranteed)

Bid Comparison by model above:
Bid 1: 30 + 5 + 6 = 41 * 1.167 = 47.8 score
Bid 2: 30 + 20 + 6 = 56 * 1.667 = 93.4 score
Bid 3: 14 + 12 + 7 = 33 * 1.857 = 61.3 score

So bid 2 would have the highest value in this model with the most guaranteed money. Not the highest cap hit per year, but highest total guaranteed and higher overall value than shorter bid with higher hit per year. The shorter bid would successfully counter the first longer bid as a raise despite lower overall total because it has more guarantees. The #2 bid would counter all and have highest score because of it's mix of both strong overall total value plus strong guarantees.

Some might think Bid 3 should be the highest value since highest cap hit per year. This would be a case where Bid 3 with higher hit/year would be successfully countered by a bid with a lower hit/year in Bid 2 (but higher overall guaranteed values where player gets the most guaranteed for sure with Bid 2 even and that would be preferred for him even if less cap/yr for team than Bid 3). Definitely room for discussion on what should be more valuable than the other or what variable should be emphasized more.

I tried a couple different variations looking for that mix of variables, and certainly would love to hear other variations on that or even different takes entirely as we look for a new way to do this that isn't overwhelmingly complex but gets better results. Tried to keep it straight forward, but maybe even something like this gets too involved and makes counter bidding too complicated (although we could try to add some tools to help come up with valid bids).

A requirement for a counter offer in this case might be having to have a higher bid score by x%.

Other ideas on a good calculation to use? Thanks for your thoughts.

I like this, but it may require a calculator or way to estimate how your bid compares. It looks like the math would be a bit more complicated than the way we do it now.

[Goodell]

I like this, but it may require a calculator or way to estimate how your bid compares. It looks like the math would be a bit more complicated than the way we do it now.

Yeah, that's my worry. I agree with many that bid comparisons should be more sophisticated than it is now and treat certain variables differently, but then it is something a little more complex.

I'm going to try to check into maybe a little bid calculator tool that sits right on the submit bid page where someone would first play with their bid numbers and see if it'll be a valid raise or not. That might make it where GMs don't have to worry about figuring the formula complexities so much.

But that would be only if many think we should move to a more comprehensive bid evaluation formula and if some helpful tools were fairly easy to incorporate also.

The other option, outside of great suggestions to come hopefully otherwise, would be keeping things mostly as they were but not allowing the 1000K bonus on a huge deal otherwise being enough to counter and requiring an x% increase in cap hit/year or something.

[RebelFan]

"The other option, outside of great suggestions to come hopefully otherwise, would be keeping things mostly as they were but not allowing the 1000K bonus on a huge deal otherwise being enough to counter and requiring an x% increase in cap hit/year or something."

I think the 1000$ bonuses were the only problem with FA, and not that big of a problem even. If someone is nickel and diming you on the bids, put some real money in there and eventually the small bidders will move on.

The other option, well, it just makes my head hurt.

[csteder37]

I would say the things we should change are anonymity and the percent by which you raise a salary. The anonymous lets people increase the bid slightly and know one knows who to call them out on it. If the team on team combat in bidding is a problem then people should just take note as to who does it and maybe say something to them. I think the first bidder advantages is a good idea. The second team should increase the salary by 10-20% especially if the first bidder is the players former team. A player would need to actually be enticed to pass on his first offer especially if it is his hometown team.

[sportznut]

I really have no idea what the hell people are talking about when they say making it public allows you to call someone out, and the nickel and dime bids will stop.

Really? This is FREE AGENCY. Its a free for all. I've been here since day one, and last year was the first year the bids were anonymous, yet every year before guys still nickel and dimed, and used the same tactics as last year.

The difference? On top of the shit people are bitching about, you also had GMs purposely running up the price with no real intention of signing players, only b/c they knew exactly who was bidding on those players.

I have no problem paying market prices. What baffles me is that some people actually want to go back to a system that consistently paid lesser players like franchise guys.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this is the one I just don't get how it has any support whatsoever UNLESS you're that guy who wants to run up the bids on all your rivals.

Kinda hard to hold people accountable in a sim world with fake money, and most of it non guaranteed at that. We have to have some regulations so people aren't paying through the roof for a C+ guy they happened to discover on their own.

[Royce R]

I do minimum bidding all the time. And its not just 1000 SB increase. its actually smaller than that because you just have to increase the 1000 by 5% after its there. So if you can counter a 1000 SB or RB with 1050. I have no problem with it.

I would guess that when real nfl teams get to bidding wars over players its not quite like we have to do it. Its prolly both are sitting at a 5 million contract and fighting over % guaranteed.
Ive asked for a way to implement something along those lines many times.

Bidding is 5 year 20 million total. 5% guaranteed. counter bid is 5 yr 20 mil 10% guar

seems better than having to bid 5% more on huge contracts.

My problem is the first bidder bids 10mil salary per year. I might be willing to pay that but SB more % of it. Cant, your now stuck with at least 10 mil salary. When we all know the player would rather have 5 mil salary and the rest in SB.

[Royce R]

I want to vote for keep anon bidding, but don't see it?

[charlie813brown]

The last minute thing is a decent idea, but don't forget, one of your league members lives in China. My last minute bids happen because I JUST WOKE UP. FA is killer for me as it is, especially the draft, but rules shouldnt be in place to penalize timing.

[sportznut]

The last minute thing is a decent idea, but don't forget, one of your league members lives in China. My last minute bids happen because I JUST WOKE UP. FA is killer for me as it is, especially the draft, but rules shouldnt be in place to penalize timing.

What brought you to China, cb?

[Goodell]

I want to vote for keep anon bidding, but don't see it?

I just wanted to see if a strong reaction there. It has some support, but judging by the comments mostly that has to do with the other issues of people wanting to see who the bleep was who put in a small counter against them.

Based upon the conversation I think it makes most sense to just increase the counter offer requirements at least a little and close some of the loop holes where we can.

About changing the format of a contract, shifting your counter offer to much more SB instead, etc. the only way I can see something like that working is supporting a different point system or formula as I posted earlier in this thread that makes the bid comparisons more sophisticated and can compare two very different types of offers and judge which is a higher bid to our sim players. Hasn't been a lot of support, or suggested variations on that, etc. so outside of finding a much better evaluation method that gets a lot of support we'll probably keep the counter bid proccess similar to now but just ensure that raises raise the overall values and that adding a small bonus is only a valid counter on a small bid but not on a $10M contract, etc.