UFA "value" idea

[Slava]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

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.




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

I just think that if I gauge a fair offer at say $4M for a player and someone looks and pays $5M then thats up to them. Could they offer $4.01? Sure, but we'd catch on pretty quickly if one GM was always $.01 ahead of other offers.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just think that if I gauge a fair offer at say $4M for a player and someone looks and pays $5M then thats up to them. Could they offer $4.01? Sure, but we'd catch on pretty quickly if one GM was always $.01 ahead of other offers.

A fair point

If I was cheating I'd work extra hard to not make it obvious though


Again, this is coming from a game design perspective. Some concepts may not apply here!

[JiriHrdina]

As far as sneaking a peek as the primary guy with access I've always submitted my bids moments after the batch opens so there is no risk of funny business. But as commissioners there are multiple ways to cheat. Either you trust or you don't but I don't see what fun it would be to cheat in this game. And frankly my teams performance the last few years is strong evidence I'm not getting any edge ;-)

Moreover for the most part commissioners have not done well in free agency the last few years.

[Swayze11]

Getting back on topic, why should a team with more cap not have an advantage over a team with very little cap?

[JiriHrdina]

I didn't say they shouldn't. Indeed they should but how much? Should they simple have a better opportunity or closer to a guarantee to get their pick? I say the former

[flambers]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

As far as sneaking a peek as the primary guy with access I've always submitted my bids moments after the batch opens so there is no risk of funny business. But as commissioners there are multiple ways to cheat. Either you trust or you don't but I don't see what fun it would be to cheat in this game. And frankly my teams performance the last few years is strong evidence I'm not getting any edge ;-)

Moreover for the most part commissioners have not done well in free agency the last few years.

Strongely agree!

To clarify the UFA results were accessed by myself and I have no active team....

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

As far as sneaking a peek as the primary guy with access I've always submitted my bids moments after the batch opens so there is no risk of funny business. But as commissioners there are multiple ways to cheat. Either you trust or you don't but I don't see what fun it would be to cheat in this game. And frankly my teams performance the last few years is strong evidence I'm not getting any edge ;-)

Moreover for the most part commissioners have not done well in free agency the last few years.

Yeah, in a closed system that is the best way to do it!

Transparency could be a non-issue, I just wanted to discuss it anyway. All food for thought, right?

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

Getting back on topic, why should a team with more cap not have an advantage over a team with very little cap?

Here's the thing, I do think that the team with the most cap has the advantage, a huge advantage actually

The problem is there's a believe that there's no strategy and only luck evolved. So your believe blinds your opinion. Luck and random to me is if you pull a team out of a hat and awarded to the said team. Putting together a game plan on which players to target and how to allocate you cap is not random unless your put zero effort into it.

Just because you have a large Cap doesn't mean that should equal success in landing UFA's... to me at least, others may feel that the large cap should ensure they can buy their way out of everything

The problem is not the cap size but rather buying or not buying into the strategy idea, (playing from a different angle).

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Luck and random to me is if you pull a team out of a hat and awarded to the said team.

I think the randomness/luck comes from not having a clue on who to bid on and having to put all your eggs in one basket to even have a shot.


Example:

There are 3 players that you know you can afford in our UFA process
Player X, Y, Z. All other players are going for 3M+.

You know Team A, B and C are also bidding. Players X, Y and Z are essentially the same and each could fit into the rosters of teams A, B and C equally

You know that Team A is bidding 1.99M and Teams B and C are bidding 2.01M. Each team is bidding on a different player out of X,Y,Z

You have 2M to spend.

You essentially have perfect information, except who each team is bidding on. Note that this will never happen in the CPHL... we have next to zero information when bidding.


Even with near perfect information, you have no way to determine who to bid on. You have a 1/3 chance of winning a player. That's random/chance/luck.




While my example is very specific, similar versions of this scenario play out all the time in the current UFA process.

No information, no feedback = blindly stabbing at UFA. How do you know if you should bid x.x1 or x.x2 or x.x3+M? Is it fair if you were willing to spend 7M on a player and get outbid by .01M that you can't spend that 7M on a player that ended up getting a bid of 1.5M?


Over bidding on a player in our current process is fine. Missing out on a player because you thought you had to focus in on a player when the next player down the list was stolen for the league minimum? Not fine.

I realize that a lot of these gripes come with the rule that we can only bid the cap space we have. I think that's a good rule, don't get me wrong here... but that restriction adds a lot of guessing to the process.

[CMPunk]

Maybe I missed it scanning through the thread, but why not do the players in batches with a minimum bid? Do all top end players in the first batch with a minimum bid of $4 million. If a player doesn't get claimed, move him to the group with the $3 million minimum and so on. Then you get to the end and have an open bid on whoever is left.

But then what do I know, I haven't been in the league for years.

[Hanna Sniper]

dsavillian, sorry for not quoting your example, but I am referring to it, but I don't want to appear I'm picking it apart.

The difference I see is that you don't respect the advantages of the opposite view point. So the flaws that you see in it only happen if you believe in the comparable example as the correct way. You want control over the knowledge of where current bids are being pushed so you can allocate more funds are move onto a second option. I've always looked at the 2nd Batch being exactly that, adjusting and moving on to another player

What you see as flaws really stems from that The current system will never makes sense if you require it fit into a different structure (round peg square hole) I'm not saying one way is correct and the other wrong but What I am saying what you view as important (knowledge of the highest bid) and is the reason why I personally enjoy the opposite. For that reason either side will never serve the others sides importance.

If you take both example you use the best light for your side and only focus on why it's not like your example by belittling it "No information, no feedback = blindly stabbing at UFA"

[Hanna Sniper]

what I really should do is write out what I do currently enjoy about the current system and we could use that as an example

[dsavillian]

Doug, you are right in that I chose my words poorly when saying that "No information and no feedback = blindly stabbing"


I should have said that a system with no information and no feedback is more luck/chance dependent than a system more information/feedback.


I concede the point that there is some strategy to the current system, but I disagree that the strategy outweighs the luck. I think the strategy is very thin. I would say that the skill:luck ratio is probably 1:4 right now.

While I don't think that randomness should be eliminated entirely, I think that it should be lessened. I would rather see a GM succeed or fail based on their decisions and strategy more often than random chance. This applies to all aspects of the league, not just UFA

I think the amount of strategy can be increased by a few things, not just knowing what the current high bid is.
- smaller UFA groups
- minimum bids based on a player's OV
- 250k increments when submitting offers
- releasing information on the number of offers sent to each player 24h before the closing of the bidding.

[Hanna Sniper]

this isn't a detail of our current system, just a personal things I enjoy

With the current system you have to come up with a plan, how much cap and what players you wish to target, there is no forgiveness if you misread the market you’ll quickly have to lick you wounds and readjust and come up with a different plan for the next batch

Joey McDonald 73OV
he was my UFA asking for 4M to retain his rights, I don’t think a backup goalie is worth a 4m Cap hit so I put him up on the trade block. I received ZERO offers on him, which confirmed my opinion that he wasn’t worth the 4M cap hit. So I released him to FA and will make a bid on him with what I hope will land him 2.8M. I understand it would be cool to control his bidding process so that I guarantee I can match any offer to him but I truly enjoy the idea that if I undercut his worth… I LOOSE him, there’ is no second chances. I love this scenario

One year I need goalies, I really set my goal on landing a goaltender from the current batch. Knowing that I had no control what others may offer and me not wanting to overpay for a backup I mad fair offers on multiple goalies. Don’t you know, I won a huge chuck of them. see photo below. Personally I also loved this, it messed me up and forced me to adjust, I way overloaded with low end goalies. I don’t see this as a negative thing but a fun aspect to the game



I’m cheap
I DO NOT like overpaying for players period. There is not one RFA contract that I signed that I wanted to retain that player for that price. This actually makes the league not fun for me, I am the Harry Sinden on the CPHL, that will never change. I love the idea that I can go into this UFA and land a player at a lower price if I can not follow the hive mind and target the right players. I let McDonald walk because I didn’t think he was worth 4m but our systems states that he is exactly worth 4M. I like that I can target a quality player through UFA that other teams might look past because they assume he will get ridicules bids and get him at a cap hit I think is fair… rather then getting the players nobody want.

It’s In and Out
GM’s can’t see what you are doing and where you are making your move, they can’t use their willingness to pay anything to eventually outbid you. It’s not an action where a team can sit on the outside and bid one dollar higher till everyone else quits. There is so many players in a Batch, way more then any team has funds for. So you really have to select the players you wish to target and come in at you highest price, no haggling. For someone that can’t stand haggling this is a huge satisfaction. What I love is that you need a 2nd line LW’er, in this batch there is X amount of LW’ers. If you undercut your guy you don’t get a second option at the next guy available. The whole lot of them are gone by the time you find out, now you must trade for him or lower your standards and chise the next group of LW’ers. The huge risk factor of being left without a chair is very fun for myself

Strategy
I love trying to work out each batch, which players to target and go high for… which to lowball and play the lottery with. How much of my cap to save for later batches. Coming with alternate gameplans when I crap out. It’s a lot of work, make your choices and you hand in your test and see what grade you get back. No haggling, one shot and on to the next one

[Swayze11]

So in my suggestion. Joey Mac would be asking for 500k. You offered 2.3 million more then what he was asking for. My suggestion does not eliminate the idea of if you want someone, you can pay for them. It is simply a starting point.

[Hanna Sniper]

The lowest possiable bid is 500k, so it is in every suggestion.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

The lowest possiable bid is 500k, so it is in every suggestion.

correct, lets take a look at someone else on the higher end:

Robidas - 75 OVR - Would be asking for at least 4 million.

4 million is still an absolute steal. 4 million for him in the NHL is realistic. It just eliminates people putting in no effort and spreading their cap evenly over all of the players and hoping nobody bids on 1 of them.

[dsavillian]

Funny that most of what you like is opposite of what I like

I like haggling, outwitting other GMs and hate lotteries!

[Hanna Sniper]

I Don't see the point of the floor, other then we don't want another GM to get a great deal. Most ALL our players in our league are overpaid, a few deals here are there is a good thing. I fail to see what having a floor serves other then bitterness towards a team that played that angle and won

Why have a floor on one player to prevent him for going for a deal but not have a cap on Ramo to prevent someone paying 9.99M.

What we are saying is overpaying is good and underpaying is bad and setting up rules to enforce it. I'm cheap so it's obvious why one way appeal to me but the handcuffs that are placed on myself are by my own doing and not the leagues.

The only thing something like this effects is the bargain players. I fail to see why they are such an issue when everyone has the chance to offer that player a fair deal and all passed on it

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Funny that most of what you like is opposite of what I like

I like haggling, outwitting other GMs and hate lotteries!

Guilty as changed, most GM's know that if they want a successful deal with me haggling is not the way to go about it.

That's my fault, not the other GM' Honestly I try but I do not like to haggle and haggling causing me to shut down. I would say 99% deals shut down because the deal opens on the structure of haggling. I've been trying to correct that, I see it as a personal fault but very hard to do it