2014 RULES: Bid Scores

[tkienast]

I've been playing with this a little bit. My original offer scored a 44.28 with 3 year contract at $16,605,000 and no guaranteed money. My counter scored a 39.71 with $13,200,000 and $1,200,000 guaranteed. It said my counter offer was successful even though the score was lower. Does that mean if the bidding war would end there, then the counter offer would win?

I was entering those figures and not getting the same thing. Might be that it hadn't loaded a new answer yet from a previous bid comparison or maybe I was entering your described info in wrong.

The only times a lower score would be successful should be cases where there is no signing bonus on either offer, where it just goes by straight 5% raise in unguaranteed salary+RB required as previously for a successful counter-offer. I did that so people could just raise a minimum contract bid with no SB by just adding years to totally unguaranteed contract.

The bid/counter process wouldn't change with this. In previous free agency periods here, someone puts in a first bid. Teams can put in a counter so long as it involved a 5% raise in salary, etc. and some other requirements we had. Then that's the highest bid and will be signed if nobody puts in a higher bid for 24 hours. This won't change any of that related to still needing to be top bid for 24 hours, this just allows teams to put in a wider variety of bids to try to counter using a bid score calculation to determine if the counter is valid or not.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the new method we are testing now. Does the bid score have to be 5% higher or 5 pts higher (however it is being read). In doing this are we going to be allowed to lower the annual salary but increase the signing bonus? I thought so but after reading the discussion I'm not as sure.

[Goodell]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the new method we are testing now. Does the bid score have to be 5% higher or 5 pts higher (however it is being read). In doing this are we going to be allowed to lower the annual salary but increase the signing bonus? I thought so but after reading the discussion I'm not as sure.

Yes.

Bids WITH signing bonus and bids WITHOUT signing bonus are treated a little differently in this evaluation to get the best results overall.

If none of the bids have any signing bonus involved, a team just has to increase salary+RB by 5% as before. I couldn't get completely unguaranteed contracts to work with the same formula because someone could just pop in extra years and blow up their bid score to win despite being nearly identical values with completely unguaranteed money on both offers. Wouldn't want a minimum contract bid to be countered just by adding one more year on totally unguaranteed contract and have a higher bid score (since the total goes up and neither have guaranteed money). Felt like that would create lots of meaningless counters that shouldn't be allowed to be valid. So if neither bid or counter offer have any guaranteed money at all, and it's all completely unguaranteed money, we'll force a 5% raise of unguaranteed money to be value. Got to that by trying several different types of counters and seeing what should/shouldn't be allowed and trying to get the overall system to only accept reasonable counter increases.

If at least one of the bids has signing bonus, though, it's all bid score determining if a counter is valid or not being 5% higher bid score.

I want people to know how that works and discuss improvements to it, but once it's going if you don't care how it works behind the scenes, for many GMs it'll just be a calculator tool test they can check if their offer is going to be valid or not and the more they want to know about why or why not, I'm happy to share as noted with formula above here.

[Ben C.]

I love this. I think this is the best addition to the game since we added restructuring.

[RyanM]

I love this. I think this is the best addition to the game since we added restructuring.

Second that motion.

[larry linke]

I think we all agree the bidding process is being changed because of a few GM's who bid $1,000 as a signing bonus or counter a bid by adding $50 to the $1,000 bid. Instead of going all crazy, all we need to do is post a rule that if you are going to counter a bid, whether it is a signing bonus or a roster bonus, it must be 5% of a total previous bid. If a guy has a pending offer of $500 K with no signing bonus, it would cost a GM $25 K as a signing bonus or a roster bonus to top the bid.

Is someone chooses to top a bid of $500 K salary and a $25 K signing bonus, it would cost them 5 % of $525 K ($26,250)

Larry
Minnesota AFFL

[Royce R]

I don't agree larry. I've been asking for this change for over 3 years.

Not because of low bids but because of high bids. People don't want to risk sb so they put a 14 million salary just to be cut a year later with no penalty.

When we all know players would rather have sb and not get cut but the old system wouldn't allow that.

[Strategist]

I don't agree larry. I've been asking for this change for over 3 years.

Not because of low bids but because of high bids. People don't want to risk sb so they put a 14 million salary just to be cut a year later with no penalty.

When we all know players would rather have sb and not get cut but the old system wouldn't allow that.

I agree with Royce. This solves a lot more than just the people that were betting 1000$ at a time.

[Goodell]

Seems to be strong support for this and it has been integrated into free agency. As free agency goes along, if you notice things that could be adjusted to improve the bid score comparison in the future, feel free to post here or let me know.

[Nathan S.]

Curious about Orakpo in the AFFL.

Noticed he went from a contract with 6 years, 3 million a year, and 54 million SB to a counter offer with 7 years, 2 million a year, and 63 million SB. Unless my math skills have diminished, isn't that the exact same amount?

I thought we made it so you had to increase the actual offer per year, no?

[Goodell]

Curious about Orakpo in the AFFL.

Noticed he went from a contract with 6 years, 3 million a year, and 54 million SB to a counter offer with 7 years, 2 million a year, and 63 million SB. Unless my math skills have diminished, isn't that the exact same amount?

I thought we made it so you had to increase the actual offer per year, no?

Everything is based upon the bid scores now to where very different types of bids can be compared against each other. There's a bid score checker below the bid entry field to check bids against each other and see if a counter is valid.

In our off-season discussions across a couple threads about bid scores, there were some examples where a cap/year might be equal or even lower on a counter where the counter was still preferred by the system (representing the player preference) if much more guaranteed money to the player in total despite the cap/yr.

There wasn't a lot of discussion about the bid scores while testing, but I'm assuming there will be more ahead with more people using it and perhaps tweaks ahead.

The 7 year bid in the example does score score higher on the bid score value with the 9M more the player will get guaranteed no matter what with the counter with much higher guaranteed figure. The bid score is saying a player will want that extra 9M versus taking something with 9M less guaranteed to him. The cap/yr is a big factor in that formula (in fact I multiply it 5 times to try to make it have significance in the formula) but the total amount especially guaranteed was also a huge factor as well in the bid score formula as it was presented and approved -- and also as possibly to be tweaked as needed/supported ahead in future off-seasons.