|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Apr 29, 2018 23:40:02 GMT -5
In considering all of the aforementioned thoughts on the matter, I think it would be beneficial to keep the facts, as it pertains to the Rules and fantasy, in the forefront in light to any proposed "fixes". First, the Rule which governs provides "24 hours". What we are attempting to correct is in no way a violation of this Rule. Second, because of the above Rule, "Sniping" as it is being expressed - as an attempt to "limit" its application - does not actually exist. Now I may be wrong, but believe that the time frame (24 hours) was meant to cover the league internationally...or in other words, to account for the differing time zones throughout the world. In addition, we must also account for real life...not everyone's schedule will always fall within this time frame of submitting a bid. With the above facts in mind, the only real facts supporting a modification revolve around questions of either hurt feelings or ethics. Since fantasy UFA does not (and in many ways can not) emulate RL, we created a "bidding process". It's an artificial way of creating fun through competition. A more realistic way would be to have GM's place one blind bid and be done with it - however, this isn't a desirable method. Therefore our current process remains the favorite. So here's how I see it...If the Rule was to be manipulated - those it was meant to accommodate may suffer. In other words, penalising a GM because of his or her failure to bid within the confines (timeline) of the Rule, i.e., RL issues. With this understanding, the identifying a bid by being a "snipe" would be difficult to determine. If it is 23 hours otc when I recognize a player I want to bid on because I've just been able to get on...or if I was priced out of another similar player, I don't see the harm. If, as Redskins suggested, we could create a time table, it may (or may not) work for the majority. As usual, a very thoughtful perspective. You are right, that 'sniping' of itself is not really the problem here, though the end result of a late bid at a minimum increase can be terribly frustrating for many GM's. As I said earlier, sniping or last minute bids of themselves is not the problem per-say. But as I see it, a bidding system that is terribly imperfect, that I am not sure can be improved upon. That being said, I am more than willing to tackle a few ideas in order to try and improve this flawed system if possible. What bothers me most about this system, is that the system itself is ripe for abuses, particularly that late bids permits some GM's to get completely blocked out of free agency altogether, without the ability of taking their resources to other players who may be coming off the board. It is also ripe for abuse, because it allows for some GM's to create a market value for players, that they themselves predetermine what they declare the closing price of that player to be. We have seen this in other leagues, where certain GM's who have self determined preconceived notions of player values. They will head to the very first page of the current free agents on the board, and bump them up at a minimum price because they have declared that the price on record is not of their own personal market value. That to me is the equivalent of price fixing, a complete distortion of market values as other commodities are coming off the board, thus leaving little options for GM's involved in the bidding process of the players being bumped up. Now, having said all that, there may be a better way of handling free agency, without risking the free market principles and protecting the purity of the game itself. I proposed this a couple years ago, and the league rejected it, but possibly limiting the number of free agents that the league can bid on at any given moment. If we were to limit free agency bidding to say a max of 15 players at a time, the free market principles would still be honored in all its purity, but even more so it would force GM's how and when to allocate their money throughout a longer process, while many assets stay on the board to give GM's the ability to pivot when the bidding process is not going to their favor. Also, this will allow league managers the ability to more closely monitor salary cap fluctuations, so the abuse by members who take a buck shot approach to bidding, are not possibly going over the cap. We try our best here as league managers to keep track of who is and who isnt over the cap concerning outstanding bids, but lets be honest, we cannot keep track of 32 teams all at once when we reach 5 pages of free agents. The way NFL free agency is structured, players dont visit and entertain all 32 teams, to listen to low ball offers of teams flailing away at a desperate attempt that a player may sneak by in hopes that the clock runs out. But more realistically, they entertain a handful of offers, and from there a decision is made. Limiting the number of free agents that can be bid on by franchises in this league would force GM's to make a choice, spend all your money early on, or wait for the player you want. Either way, we get both fair market value in an unaltered manner, and still give teams an option to pivot while not being blocked out of the market by rival GM's who may strategize just to run out the clock.
This is another way to approach free agency, without having to alter the clock, or put maximum bid amounts after a certain amount of time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 3:15:57 GMT -5
You've also got to remember timezones. for example a number of us are GMT timezone (UK).
If someone places a bid at 6pm EST, that is 11pm GMT and I'm most likely in bed asleep. I then wake up go to work etc by the time I'm home and get chance to look on here it could be 7pm GMT, therefore it's been 17 hours since the bid was placed, but the first opportunity I've had to look, is that classed as sniping or just simply when people get time to look?
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Apr 30, 2018 6:07:13 GMT -5
Sniping is really final hour. I won't bid up after 20 personally but I realise that's a personal thing.
Franks idea of a staggered FA is a good idea and works well elsewhere in general. Won't stop sniping but may make GM's think a little more and it extends the FA period from the usual 3 day frenetic rush to a one to two week FA period ...Adding up the current players bid upon is a chore though I've lost count of the times I've mis counted and started a 16th thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 6:32:45 GMT -5
Im also in the UK and have no real problem with the time difference..during the day at work i check in on my break and make any necessary moves...if we changed to a 12 hour clock then im pretty sure that if i Pmed a TAB member they could bid on my behalf if it came to that for both the day and night
or we just do some for of bind bidding
i agree with frank, we could also make it positions at a time. Another league im in splits the positions and there are set dates for each position. we could do QB for 2/3 days then RB for a further 2/3 days ect
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Apr 30, 2018 9:28:16 GMT -5
I actually really like the idea of splitting up free agency by position. I am not sure how this will affect sniping but I can see two benefits right off the bat. First, it helps the offseason by prolonging free agency a little. I think it will keep people active and entertained for a longer period in the offseason and it will eliminate some dead time between free agency and the draft. Secondly, I like the fact that people with a lot of money are really going to have to decide how to spend their money. It will force GM’s to really think about where to allocate their funds. Overall I like it and think it could really be a positive change.
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Apr 30, 2018 9:29:23 GMT -5
You can be fairly sure if I'm sniped I won't be rebidding on sniped player. I'm not waiting another 24 hours at that point
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Apr 30, 2018 11:24:59 GMT -5
You've also got to remember timezones. for example a number of us are GMT timezone (UK). If someone places a bid at 6pm EST, that is 11pm GMT and I'm most likely in bed asleep. I then wake up go to work etc by the time I'm home and get chance to look on here it could be 7pm GMT, therefore it's been 17 hours since the bid was placed, but the first opportunity I've had to look, is that classed as sniping or just simply when people get time to look? I do not think this could be considered "sniping" at all. This is one of the points I was making for validation of last minute bids within the allowable time frame. Same would work visa-versa. Throw in any type of real life issues to deal with and a bid after 23 hours should be perfectly valid without being penalised. Re-iterating my second point - such bids should be deemed valid when another player the GM was bidding for has been "priced-out" of the market for that particular player (for whatever reason). GM's normally have an idea of the players and/or the positions they are targeting in FA. So if WR happens to be that position, being ranked accordingly, bids still on the board within the GM's price range become targets. Thus the real problem presented is one of separating the wheat from the tare (weeds). In attempting to solve a perceived problem, real and valid reasons for the Rule exists. By plucking out the tare (bids placed at the last minute merely because of individual perceived values as Frank mentions), the wheat (valid last minute bids) would also be unnecessarily be un-rooted and destroyed. In sowing and reaping - the tare is often left to grow side-by-side with the wheat...
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Apr 30, 2018 11:48:44 GMT -5
@ Frank,
The idea of limiting FA bidding to a max # of players appears to have its benefits, as you've clearly out-lined. Personally, I am always for any type of improved process, whether for efficiency or overall improvement purposes.
However it raises to question points addressing any potential limitations this would place on any GM. For instance, I entered FA this year with the main goal of securing a LB, TE and PK. Since I knew I would face major competition in the TE department, securing a depth piece at DE became my secondary goal, followed by a depth piece at CB. So the question becomes, how would such a process effect my ability to secure second and third options? Is it possible I could be priced out of every position and/or should have spent the funds on a position that has already expired?
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Apr 30, 2018 12:39:43 GMT -5
@ Frank, The idea of limiting FA bidding to a max # of players appears to have its benefits, as you've clearly out-lined. Personally, I am always for any type of improved process, whether for efficiency or overall improvement purposes. However it raises to question points addressing any potential limitations this would place on any GM. For instance, I entered FA this year with the main goal of securing a LB, TE and PK. Since I knew I would face major competition in the TE department, securing a depth piece at DE became my secondary goal, followed by a depth piece at CB. So the question becomes, how would such a process effect my ability to secure second and third options? Is it possible I could be priced out of every position and/or should have spent the funds on a position that has already expired? Another great point. My idea was not to segregate FA by position, but rather more randomly regardless of positions. I too fear that a TE only period for FA may inflate prices for that position, or any other position that may be on the clock at any given time. The way I think it would have benefited you is in two ways: First because the urgency of free agency plays a primary role every year, money most likely will come off the board fast, leaving less money for FA in the middle and late stages. It just depends on which players go on the board in the early stages, and which players come later. This will force GM's to think about how they will spend their money, go in hard now, and they will have less later on. Sit around and wait, and maybe I dont get the player I want. Either way, it reduces the ability of a strategized bump, because a GM can address that position in the later stages, and the bumping GM could be stuck with a contract that he may or may not want, but as a result will have less money to manipulate the market in those middle and late stages of FA. Secondly, the asset class remains fluid. What I mean by that is that whether you address the specific needs of your team are met or not, there will still be opportunity to collect assets in FA as more and more money comes off the board. What is just as important to me when I am in the midst of free agency is that I keep par with the rest of the league in collecting assets that can be used later on, whether its for depth or collateral for trade. Like I mentioned earlier, the problem with the sniping method, and why its so devastating is because there can be a collaborative effort to purposely punish any particular GM for what ever bias or motivation fellow GM's may have. But in this case, a GM being targeted has the opportunity to walk away, and still have at his disposal other opportunities later on in FA.
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Apr 30, 2018 20:21:00 GMT -5
Honestly, Im not going to pretend that its the perfect answer. Its an attempt to try and address an imperfect free agent system. When I presented it a couple years back, league members rejected this idea, and I thought that after another free agency period this year where I heard quite a few complaints, that Id present it again as an option. I will put it to a vote, and let league members decide.
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on May 1, 2018 12:39:20 GMT -5
Honestly, Im not going to pretend that its the perfect answer. Its an attempt to try and address an imperfect free agent system. When I presented it a couple years back, league members rejected this idea, and I thought that after another free agency period this year where I heard quite a few complaints, that Id present it again as an option. I will put it to a vote, and let league members decide. Personally I like the idea for a number or reasons, all of which are unrelated to "Sniping". I believe attempts to cure the ills related to the concept of "sniping" is much more complicated to address, due to the strategic nature employed by the GM. Thus I am having trouble with relating it to reducing the amount of incidences. None the less, it presents an opportunity to manage bids more efficiently, which is always good.
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on May 1, 2018 14:30:56 GMT -5
It helps with sniping a little in that you're not missing out on a lot of other targets while you wait for another 24 hours plus...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 14:34:04 GMT -5
i like it and think that no harm can come from doing it in this way. Do we actually need to take it to a league vote or can we just have a TAB vote on it instead?
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 1, 2018 14:45:37 GMT -5
Good idea frank
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on May 8, 2018 18:40:33 GMT -5
i like it and think that no harm can come from doing it in this way. Do we actually need to take it to a league vote or can we just have a TAB vote on it instead? I think your right Laura, and while I like to take votes on 90% of rule propositions, I think this is one where league administration will have to take the lead on in an effort to better the free agency process. Or at least try to better free agency... LOL.
|
|