UFA "value" idea

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

The thing I hate about the idea being brought up is the idea a team can go down a list of players till eventually they land a player

Player A past my price range, move on to next
Player B past my price range, move on to next
Player C past my price range, move on to next
Player D past my price range, move on to next
Player E past my price range, move on to next
Player F past my price range, move on to next
GM finally lands Player G

I am not sure what suggestion you are referring to but my suggestion does not allow this. It is still a blind bidding system, there is just a minimum a player will take.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Only read the very first post and I don't agree with this at all.

The cost to re-sign RFAs and UFAs is already high enough and you want to increase more salaries? Pretty soon the league will have no money left.

Steals are not unrealistic, look at a guy like Grabovski recently, $3 mill for him is a steal playing behind Backstrom. They happen in the NHL.

A BIG NO from me. Leave it as is.

This won't increase salaries at all. Wait for the results of batch 1 and we will see what happens.

Grabovski is a very poor example. He got bought out - GMs can use this to their advantage: "You are getting 2 mill from Toronto, so we will give you 3 mill. This will give you an annual salary of 5 mill". We don't have these intangibles.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Not entirely true. Most of the quality free agents sign on the first day. So just like in the CPHL teams prioritize who they most want to sign

But in the NHL I wouldn't be restricted to only offering deals to players up to my available cap. I could offer my money to anyone until I had a deal signed.

In the CPHL, I have to gamble on who to throw my money at.


Smaller UFA groups would alleviate this I think.

[Swayze11]

Again, this suggestion I am making by no means increases anything. -2 million based on RFA status is an absolute steal. It is just put in place so GMs can get a sense as to what the player is worth and what they are asking for.

[dsavillian]

(sorry, this is the game designer in me talking now)

One idea I was kicking around last night was a reverse auction system.

Players start off asking for a set dollar amount based on a grid. This is the minimum offer a team can make. If no offers come in over a set period (say 24 hours), the asking price goes down by a set amount (250 or 500k) and a new minimum is set.


eg: Day 1 - Daniel Sedin's minimum asking price is 7.5M. No one wants to pay him that much, so no offers come in. Day 2 rolls around and the asking price drops to 7M. 2 teams decide to bid, both submit offers over 7M (7.2M and 7.1M). The higher bid wins the contract.


This does offer up that safety net that Doug was talking about and I'm not sure if I like that... but it is an idea to think about. Reverse auctions are rather entertaining in other games.

[Da_Chief]

-2 mill is just a starting point. Wheres the starting point right now is 0.5 mill.

Why not just use the 0.5 mill is as your starting point? Why is that a big deal? Why does your starting point have to be at a higher number?

I'm sure there will be some stupid contracts handed out but it will be even higher if your minimum of RFA-2mill is implemented.

After the first batch do a study; take the amount of money spent on these UFAs vs your system of RFA - 2mill starting point (no one is signing for that minimum so give them a ~50% raise). Make sense?

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Why not just use the 0.5 mill is as your starting point? Why is that a big deal? Why does your starting point have to be at a higher number?

0.5 mil to start is more of a crapshoot than a higher starting amount.


Actually, I'd like to see contracts required to be in 250k increments. Eliminate the Jeopardy style bidding of x.x1 and x.x2 just to try to sneak out a contract.



The current system is like Roulette... spread your chips around however you like and hope your number comes up. Anything to make it less random would be better, I think.

[Da_Chief]

Somebody said they'd be willing to create a website for UFAs.

IF thats on the table, you could have multiple players being bid on for a week and the bid winner takes him, the minimum stays at 0.5 mill.

Then you can see which player you can afford.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Somebody said they'd be willing to create a website for UFAs.

IF thats on the table, you could have multiple players being bid on for a week and the bid winner takes him, the minimum stays at 0.5 mill.

Then you can see which player you can afford.

That's kind of what I was thinking, yeah.

Either smaller UFA batches that are automatically opened/closed so that you aren't left hanging for a long time to see if you win a player

or an auction system that drives the value of a player to what the market will bear.


Either way, a website would be needed. Wouldn't be hard to do, but not worth the effort if there's no chance at improving/changing the system

The discussion has been good so far. Doug has brought up a couple of good points that I hadn't considered before (the safety net for one). I just thought that after a lot of people expressed dissatisfaction with the randomness of the SIM that eliminating randomness in other parts of the game would be welcome!

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

-2 mill is just a starting point. Wheres the starting point right now is 0.5 mill.

Why not just use the 0.5 mill is as your starting point? Why is that a big deal? Why does your starting point have to be at a higher number?

I'm sure there will be some stupid contracts handed out but it will be even higher if your minimum of RFA-2mill is implemented.

After the first batch do a study; take the amount of money spent on these UFAs vs your system of RFA - 2mill starting point (no one is signing for that minimum so give them a ~50% raise). Make sense?

It is a big deal because it sets the value of a player as the exact same. It doesn't matter if the player is 99 OVR or 50 OVR.

With this system in place. Lets say I have 2 mill in cap.

Player A - Wants 4 mill
Player B - Wants 3 mill
Player C - Wants 2 mill
Player D - Wants 1 mill

Realistically you can offer C and D and have a good chance, so you can target them. With the current system in place, you could do 500k between the 4 and hope nobody bids on B. This is a lottery. If nobody bid on B, and I get him for 500k, its not realistic. Player B isn't going to just take the only offer they get.

[JiriHrdina]

But why do we care if the player maxes out in terms of market value? Their interests are of no consequence.

[Swayze11]

nvm

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

But why do we care if the player maxes out in terms of market value? Their interests are of no consequence.

I can think of a handful of reasons off the top of my head:

- Closer to NHL UFA bidding
- Increases competition between GMs - Right now UFA season is not interactive in the slightest.
- Puts GMs in charge of their own destinies and eliminates guessing - It wouldn't eliminate strategy at all, it would just shift (and increase it) to the strategies used in an auction. It would eliminate randomness and guessing.
- Creates a stable, predictable market for UFAs - The number of pre UFA deals would likely increase since teams would have a better idea of what kind of money was going to get thrown around before entering UFA season.
- an open market would reduce the potential for any shenanigans. I'm not suggesting that there are any shady dealings going on now... but in a closed system like this there is potential for that.



I now throw the question back to you:

Why do we want a system where the market is not driven by demand?

[JiriHrdina]

Because I think it gives team with the most cap too much of an advantage. They enjoy an advantage now as is for free agents

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Because I think it gives team with the most cap too much of an advantage. They enjoy an advantage now as is for free agents

But... isn't that the point of freeing up cap space for UFA season? Why shouldn't they have an advantage?

It's not like there's a huge difference in the amount of total cap teams have (not counting cheese since that doesn't really count) - teams don't have poor owners that have a mandate that they spend the minimum each season.




Any replies to my other points?


What about a bidding system that is more transparent? Are there reasons for/against that?

[JiriHrdina]

Ok that's a different issue. Are you concerned about transparency and if so why? We can post all the offers from all the teams if you want though I fail to see why that's necessary. Ill reply to the other points when I have more time but overall you are looking for different things out from the ufa system.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Are you concerned about transparency and if so why?

Only that a closed system has more potential for abuse than an open system

I'm not suggesting that any commish, past or present, would do that - but the potential is there in a closed bid system with one or two people in charge.


I'm just throwing out all sorts of ideas since we are on the topic of UFA changes.



Posting all bids from all teams for each player would be valuable data in assessing if/where the UFA system is currently broken.


And take your time to reply, it's not like we have to get this discussion wrapped up today. We have 12 months to the next UFA season

[TurdFerguson]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

But... isn't that the point of freeing up cap space for UFA season? Why shouldn't they have an advantage?

It's not like there's a huge difference in the amount of total cap teams have (not counting cheese since that doesn't really count) - teams don't have poor owners that have a mandate that they spend the minimum each season.

That is exactly my point. There is nothing unfair about teams having more cap then others. They have cap because they don't have as many players, or have managed contracts better. Everyone has the same starting point. If you don't have the same money as someone else it because you chose not to in one way or another.

I would flip that around and say that teams with minimal cap (suggesting a more complete roster) that win players that other teams would have paid more for, and perhaps "need" more based on a thinner roster is more detrimental to the game.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Any replies to my other points?

- Closer to NHL UFA bidding
Untrue.... regardless there will be bids close and bids far off. Way too hard to measure which is closer in the end and I'm sure each year will have different results

- Increases competition between GMs - Right now UFA season is not interactive in the slightest.
I think this is extremely fun, This is the best period of the CPHL just above the draft and then trade deadline. So it comes down to individual preference

- Puts GMs in charge of their own destinies and eliminates guessing - It wouldn't eliminate strategy at all, it would just shift (and increase it) to the strategies used in an auction. It would eliminate randomness and guessing.
same thing, eliminates one of type of guessing and adds another, one strategy for another. I think what your asking is for more control in your controll

- Creates a stable, predictable market for UFAs - The number of pre UFA deals would likely increase since teams would have a better idea of what kind of money was going to get thrown around before entering UFA season.
I don't see this as important factor

- an open market would reduce the potential for any shenanigans. I'm not suggesting that there are any shady dealings going on now... but in a closed system like this there is potential for that.
The truth is, once a Batch results are listed, if a team offered more and didn't get the player.... believe me it will be posted 13seconds afterwards and the error corrected. I hear what you're saying but one a GM posted what they did offer it is easily confirmed. With so many bids it is easily overlooked and just as easily corrected. From someone that did do the UFa site for a few years, believe me putting in the wrong total is very easy to screw up and was always corrected thanks to the GM's speaking up

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Untrue.... regardless there will be bids close and bids far off. Way too hard to measure which is closer in the end and I'm sure each year will have different results

Well, it's closer to NHL UFA bidding in that I would get constant feedback on what the offers on the table are. In the NHL, I'd hear from an agent saying that "Team X offered us more, can you raise your offer?" In the CPHL, we get no feedback until the end of the process.

The truth is, once a Batch results are listed, if a team offered more and didn't get the player.... believe me it will be posted 13seconds afterwards and the error corrected. I hear what you're saying but one a GM posted what they did offer it is easily confirmed. With so many bids it is easily overlooked and just as easily corrected. From someone that did do the UFa site for a few years, believe me putting in the wrong total is very easy to screw up and was always corrected thanks to the GM's speaking up

I'd be more worried about someone with access to the bids sneaking a peek before submitting their own bids.

Not that I'm suggesting that it does happen - I'd be worried that it *could* happen.



And you are right... I am suggesting more control in our control over our bids. I think it's personal preference if you prefer more randomness vs more control (playing roulette vs playing blackjack for example) - but I don't think you can deny that the current process has a higher level of chance than some of the proposed systems.

I can't fault you if you prefer roulette to blackjack