2014 RULES: Free Agency Changes

What free agency changes if any would you like to see?

No changes.
5
5%
Slightly increase counter-offer raise requirements.
25
25%
Greatly increase counter-offer raise requirements.
14
14%
More first bidder advantages.
18
18%
Limit last minute bids.
12
12%
Reduce bids after peak free agency over (5 bids/day in March/April, 3 bids/day otherwise).
12
12%
Go back to knowing bidders (not anonymous)
16
16%
 
Total votes: 102

sportznut
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:09 pm

Re: 2014 RULES: Free Agency Changes

Post by sportznut »

Knighty Knight wrote:
charlie813brown wrote: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.
And I live in Africa so I'm the last person on the globe to bid since we start in the east coast.

I'm also in favor of implementing the new bid system the commish came up with and improving it as we go. Or developing it over the next year for implementation next off season.
You guys are living the charmed life.
AFFL- Raiders
MLBSA- Tigers
WLSB- Marlins
sportznut
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:09 pm

Re: 2014 RULES: Free Agency Changes

Post by sportznut »

RebelFan wrote:Why not make it to where the 2nd bid can't decrease the total value of the contract, but can reduce salary & add to SB?
ie -
Bid 1 - $10M / year salary - $0 SB over 5 years
Bid 2 - $5.5 M / year salary - $25M SB over 5 years (5.5 instead of 5 so the yearly total still increases)
Bid 3 - $3.7 M / year salary - $35M SB over 5 years

As long as the overall money doesn't decrease, and the guaranteed amount doesn't decrease, I don't see a problem with this setup.
That seems simple enough to me. Or is simplicity something we are trying to avoid?
I'm all for it. I've never liked the way the salaries, or counters were set up. This would resolve that issue.
AFFL- Raiders
MLBSA- Tigers
WLSB- Marlins
Goodell
Posts: 3856
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:44 am
Contact:

Re: 2014 RULES: Free Agency Changes

Post by Goodell »

RebelFan wrote:Why not make it to where the 2nd bid can't decrease the total value of the contract, but can reduce salary & add to SB?
One of the problems I would see in free agency would be teams putting in a HIGHER bid that actually is a lot LESS cost to them against the cap/year.

That was something I was thinking about when thinking on a ratings method. For the most part, reducing your cap hit per year shouldn't be an increased bid raise. When teams are trying as hard as they can competitively to fit as much players into a cap year as they can, putting in a bid that's less against the cap than the current high bid arguably shouldn't be a valid counter most of the time. I think there is a threshold where an entirely differently structured deal might be slightly less cap hit per year but still be deemed a better bid, like in my previous examples, but it was definitely something I wanted to fix in cases where teams would "raise" a bid by just increasing the amount of years and bonus slightly to where it was actually costing them less per year but still a valid counter. That's just a similar type bid with cost spread out more and shouldn't really be considered enough of a raise to me. It's something I've been wanting to address in these adjustments this off-season.

Have to look at that more, not sure if it's the situation I thought needed to be fixed in your proposal, but wouldn't just want lots of counter bids that looked like someone jacking up the years and signing bonus slightly to where most of our winning counter bids were mostly reductions in cap value per year.
Official Statement from the Commissioner's Office
charlie813brown
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: 2014 RULES: Free Agency Changes

Post by charlie813brown »

Goodell wrote:
RebelFan wrote:Why not make it to where the 2nd bid can't decrease the total value of the contract, but can reduce salary & add to SB?
One of the problems I would see in free agency would be teams putting in a HIGHER bid that actually is a lot LESS cost to them against the cap/year.

That was something I was thinking about when thinking on a ratings method. For the most part, reducing your cap hit per year shouldn't be an increased bid raise. When teams are trying as hard as they can competitively to fit as much players into a cap year as they can, putting in a bid that's less against the cap than the current high bid arguably shouldn't be a valid counter most of the time. I think there is a threshold where an entirely differently structured deal might be slightly less cap hit per year but still be deemed a better bid, like in my previous examples, but it was definitely something I wanted to fix in cases where teams would "raise" a bid by just increasing the amount of years and bonus slightly to where it was actually costing them less per year but still a valid counter. That's just a similar type bid with cost spread out more and shouldn't really be considered enough of a raise to me. It's something I've been wanting to address in these adjustments this off-season.

Have to look at that more, not sure if it's the situation I thought needed to be fixed in your proposal, but wouldn't just want lots of counter bids that looked like someone jacking up the years and signing bonus slightly to where most of our winning counter bids were mostly reductions in cap value per year.

What about a simple code that if you want to bid to change the base to lower it won't allow you to change the number of years from the previous bid?
Cory H
GM of Baltimore Ravens CFFL (Total - 43-53)
2008 - 5-11
2009 - 9-7
2010 - 10-6 (AFC Wild Card)
2011 - 10-6
2012 - 1-15 (Rebuilding year)
2013 - 8-8
lucky7jc
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: 2014 RULES: Free Agency Changes

Post by lucky7jc »

Just set a standard raise requirement but based on financial row. If it's a salary bump then set it to be say a minimum bump by (e.g. 15-25%) and if it's on the signing bonus a different bump (e.g. 10-20% and roster bonus (10-20%). This would allow you to set the valuation more accurately for given player. I love the idea of the different rankings Troy is talking about, but what if you get an equal value with two different bids? I say you can solve this by setting a guaranteed pay % based on number of years signed (e.g 1yr - 100%, 2yr - 90%, 3yr 80%, 4 yr - 70%, 5 yr 60% or whatever we want here.)

Bid 1: 25 Million for 5 years with 5 Million signing bonus and 1 Million roster bonus
Given value is 7 million per year, but 35 million total with 60% guarantee = 21 Million

Bid 2: 21 Million for 3 years with 3 million signing bonus and 2.3 million roster bonus
Given value is 8 million per year, but 26.3 million total @ 80% guarantee = 21 Million

What then chooses which deal to take? I'm not saying this is 100% realistic, but there will be that guy that will up one number just enough to get a better valuation. But I 100% think this would work.
AFFL Champion - 2019
AFC Champion - 2019
tkienast
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: Near Myrtle Beach, SC
Contact:

Re: 2014 RULES: Free Agency Changes

Post by tkienast »

lucky7jc wrote:Just set a standard raise requirement but based on financial row. If it's a salary bump then set it to be say a minimum bump by (e.g. 15-25%) and if it's on the signing bonus a different bump (e.g. 10-20% and roster bonus (10-20%). This would allow you to set the valuation more accurately for given player. I love the idea of the different rankings Troy is talking about, but what if you get an equal value with two different bids? I say you can solve this by setting a guaranteed pay % based on number of years signed (e.g 1yr - 100%, 2yr - 90%, 3yr 80%, 4 yr - 70%, 5 yr 60% or whatever we want here.)

Bid 1: 25 Million for 5 years with 5 Million signing bonus and 1 Million roster bonus
Given value is 7 million per year, but 35 million total with 60% guarantee = 21 Million

Bid 2: 21 Million for 3 years with 3 million signing bonus and 2.3 million roster bonus
Given value is 8 million per year, but 26.3 million total @ 80% guarantee = 21 Million

What then chooses which deal to take? I'm not saying this is 100% realistic, but there will be that guy that will up one number just enough to get a better valuation. But I 100% think this would work.
If it is an equal value than whoever places the bid first gets it. The second person would have to increase their bid again.
PIT GM CFFL 08-14
SB Chp -10,14
AFC N Chp - 08-10,13,14
WC - 11
08-11: 11-5, 15-1, 14-2, 10-6
12-14: 9-7, 12-4, 12-4
09: lost AFC Ch NE 23-20
10: won SB 24-7 vs NO
11: lost AFC Ch NE 21-20
14: won SB 32-20 vs DAL
Record: 83-29 (12-4 playoff) 2 SB Titles
lucky7jc
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: 2014 RULES: Free Agency Changes

Post by lucky7jc »

tkienast wrote:
lucky7jc wrote:Just set a standard raise requirement but based on financial row. If it's a salary bump then set it to be say a minimum bump by (e.g. 15-25%) and if it's on the signing bonus a different bump (e.g. 10-20% and roster bonus (10-20%). This would allow you to set the valuation more accurately for given player. I love the idea of the different rankings Troy is talking about, but what if you get an equal value with two different bids? I say you can solve this by setting a guaranteed pay % based on number of years signed (e.g 1yr - 100%, 2yr - 90%, 3yr 80%, 4 yr - 70%, 5 yr 60% or whatever we want here.)

Bid 1: 25 Million for 5 years with 5 Million signing bonus and 1 Million roster bonus
Given value is 7 million per year, but 35 million total with 60% guarantee = 21 Million

Bid 2: 21 Million for 3 years with 3 million signing bonus and 2.3 million roster bonus
Given value is 8 million per year, but 26.3 million total @ 80% guarantee = 21 Million

What then chooses which deal to take? I'm not saying this is 100% realistic, but there will be that guy that will up one number just enough to get a better valuation. But I 100% think this would work.
If it is an equal value than whoever places the bid first gets it. The second person would have to increase their bid again.
Yes, all concurring bids that followed would need to be risen based on the percent that we set per standard raise. I think it would promote a more balanced system for all GMs and would rid some of the 'phantom/troublesome' bids that some don't like. It also promotes better salary cap management requirements for each GM. Might be hard to instantly offer another 10% for a player you were just kind of interested in. It could also play a different card for some GMs if they are willing to bump up the amounts that causes their competition to spend more of their cap space, leaving less for other players. Very, very sneaky sir; may I touch your feet?
AFFL Champion - 2019
AFC Champion - 2019
Goodell
Posts: 3856
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:44 am
Contact:

Re: 2014 RULES: Free Agency Changes

Post by Goodell »

Moving to a bid score calculation will be a pretty big change to free agency bids. We'll monitor that and look at improvements next year.
Official Statement from the Commissioner's Office
lucky7jc
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: 2014 RULES: Free Agency Changes

Post by lucky7jc »

Is there any way we can put a calculation tool that allows to see what a bid would do to our total budget as we place bids in FA? It's a bit of a challenge to keep up with multiple bids/counters and knowing where that bid amount would leave me if winning bid is placed. Just a simple risk/reward/budget tool.
AFFL Champion - 2019
AFC Champion - 2019
JonC
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:10 pm

Re: 2014 RULES: Free Agency Changes

Post by JonC »

lucky7jc wrote:Is there any way we can put a calculation tool that allows to see what a bid would do to our total budget as we place bids in FA? It's a bit of a challenge to keep up with multiple bids/counters and knowing where that bid amount would leave me if winning bid is placed. Just a simple risk/reward/budget tool.
No clue if this is possible on the site, but I just use an excel spreadsheet. It's pretty quick and painless and does the math for me.
DFFL Steelers GM: '13-'22
Regular Season Record: 77-85 (.475)
Division Championships: ’13, ’14, ’19
AFC WC Team: ’20

AFFL Bills GM: '20-?
Regular Season Record: 20-30 (.400)

BRFL Chargers GM: '21-?
Regular Season Record: 17-17 (.500)
AFC WC Team: '22
Post Reply