|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 27, 2018 20:30:45 GMT -5
Okay guys, Im thinking of incorporating a limited amount of free agents that can be on at one time. In another league I used to be they limited free agency to a max of 15 at a time, I was actually thinking somewhere along the line of 20-25 players at a time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Dec 28, 2018 2:01:34 GMT -5
Will this help with sniping ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Dec 28, 2018 2:02:05 GMT -5
I’m worried that this will affect contracts for players
As the earlier players that are on the board will cost much more then players posted near the end
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 28, 2018 10:22:15 GMT -5
Will this help with sniping ? It will help a little, because GM's will be forced to have to make a decision as to when to spend their money, but it wont eliminate it.
As I stated above, sniping to me is not the real issue, but rather how sniping can be used to form blockades against GM's. Too often I have seen and experienced battles between GM's who within the midst of free agency where players are coming off the board, and those battle often times lead to certain GM's losing out on hope of attaining quality players. Ive also known leagues where certain division rivals have formed blockades against each other, to undermine competitive advantage, again all the while options are coming off the board. I think our current system has been ripe with these types of abuses.
You are right that some prices will skyrocket early, they will moderate in the middle, and toward the end of free agency there will be some good bargains. I have no problem with this as I put this on GM responsibility, and how they choose to make decisions is their prerogative. This is exactly why we play the game, to see who makes the wisest decisions.
This will also prolong free agency as well, and quite honestly it will benefit those GM's that are most engaged in the league. Which again I have no problem with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Dec 28, 2018 11:50:07 GMT -5
Its been suggested to me by one league GM that passing a rule concerning sniping is not necessary, that all we need to do is put out the word that we need to conduct free agency in a more gentlemanly manner. Thoughts? I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion that a rule concerning "sniping" is not necessary. In truth, the very term is only a made-up construct which does not in-fact exist. Is it frustrating to have a bid stand for 23 plus hrs and then have a GM come in and place a bid? Absolutely. However the 24-hr rule a GM has to place a bid, is imo, both fair and necessary. We live in a global world with members participating from many parts of the world. In addition, we cannot escape RL, which could prohibit a GM from making what others believe is a "timely" bid...whatever that means. I also agree that the proposal to limit the amount of players that could be bid on at one time "could" potentially limit what many call sniping, as GM's would have less players to scroll through before deciding to place a bid. Albeit I do not see it as a cure to wounded egos just because someone is playing within the mandated guidelines of bidding.
Thus the only problem I've personally noticed with FA is the responsibility of the individual GM keeping an accurate personal accounting of available cap, and how the cap relates to them placing bids. This in turn creates a problem for management to monitor bids placed by all GM's. I would be for the proposal for this reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Dec 28, 2018 12:02:27 GMT -5
Sniping is a concern
It harms teams availability to improve a roster because that team has lots of money tied up
but it I guess that’s a difference of opinion which is great too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 28, 2018 12:14:17 GMT -5
Its been suggested to me by one league GM that passing a rule concerning sniping is not necessary, that all we need to do is put out the word that we need to conduct free agency in a more gentlemanly manner. Thoughts? I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion that a rule concerning "sniping" is not necessary. In truth, the very term is only a made-up construct which does not in-fact exist. Is it frustrating to have a bid stand for 23 plus hrs and then have a GM come in and place a bid? Absolutely. However the 24-hr rule a GM has to place a bid, is imo, both fair and necessary. We live in a global world with members participating from many parts of the world. In addition, we cannot escape RL, which could prohibit a GM from making what others believe is a "timely" bid...whatever that means. I also agree that the proposal to limit the amount of players that could be bid on at one time "could" potentially limit what many call sniping, as GM's would have less players to scroll through before deciding to place a bid. Albeit I do not see it as a cure to wounded egos just because someone is playing within the mandated guidelines of bidding.
Thus the only problem I've personally noticed with FA is the responsibility of the individual GM keeping an accurate personal accounting of available cap, and how the cap relates to them placing bids. This in turn creates a problem for management to monitor bids placed by all GM's. I would be for the proposal for this reason.
Darryl, thank you for bringing up the accurate account factor, as I forgot to mention that in my last post, but which was part of my original proposition in regards to limiting the number of free agents allowed to be bid on at one time. From personal experience, I do not have the time to check everyone balance sheet when we have 4 and 5 pages of free agents listed, and often times I can only check when an individual GM reaches out to me as a concern that he or she has noticed. This is another way that not only prices are distorted, but the ability of responsible GM's to get the short end of the stick. |
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 28, 2018 12:16:59 GMT -5
Sniping is a concern It harms teams availing to improve a roster because that team has lots of money tied up but it I guess that’s a difference of opinion which is great too. I agree with you there whole hardheartedly, and the choices are either put a clock after a certain amount of time like your proposition in Destiny which I like, but to save me work as a LM I want to try the more limited approach to free agency as it also helps with book keeping and making sure teams are not over the cap as Darryl mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Dec 28, 2018 12:33:47 GMT -5
The sniping rule I created in destiny, was not a rule I thought would pass to be honest...but it’s leading by a large margin
People obviously are seeing that this is an issue that is poking its ugly head more and more recently
Many different ways to deal with it like you said Frank
And really I don’t think their is a bad option...the mere fact that it’s being discussed will help the situation
|
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Dec 28, 2018 13:34:55 GMT -5
Instead of a 23 hour snipe Now would be 11 hr snipe....what’s the difference ? 12 hours less wasted time |
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Dec 28, 2018 13:47:44 GMT -5
Instead of a 23 hour snipe Now would be 11 hr snipe....what’s the difference ? 12 hours less wasted time Doesn’t change from the point that within those 11 hours...players have come off the board that could of helped a team |
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Dec 28, 2018 15:02:30 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. 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.
As Giants stated above, I agree that it's a difference of opinion. However I just can't seem to grasp the theory of how the concept of "sniping" harms another GM's ability to improve its team roster. So why is the "Sniper" getting the blame as the problem? This notion indicates to me that the GM choosing to place a bid, while having the responsibility of effectively managing their own resources so that they could improve their rosters through FA, seek to shift the blame.
Even though I'm not personally a fan of last minute bids, we cannot deny that this is a very competitive league.
Thus if a GM can take advantage of an opponents inability to bid on certain players, by keeping their money tied-up (blocking them out of FA), I can see the benefits of executing that strategy. In other words, any potential harm, if any, imo is not by the "Sniper" - the GM that has placed a bid near the expiration of the time clock. In fact the "Sniper" did nothing to tie up the the money. All the "Sniper" basically did was allow the GM to tie his/her own money up.
We say nothing of the harm caused teams that are unable to acquire a player because they've been frozen out because of lack of cap. It's the same concept...no harm no foul...it's in the game!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Dec 28, 2018 15:30:01 GMT -5
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.
As Giants stated above, I agree that it's a difference of opinion. However I just can't seem to grasp the theory of how the concept of "sniping" harms another GM's ability to improve its team roster. So why is the "Sniper" getting the blame as the problem? This notion indicates to me that the GM choosing to place a bid, while having the responsibility of effectively managing their own resources so that they could improve their rosters through FA, seek to shift the blame.
Even though I'm not personally a fan of last minute bids, we cannot deny that this is a very competitive league.
Thus if a GM can take advantage of an opponents inability to bid on certain players, by keeping their money tied-up (blocking them out of FA), I can see the benefits of executing that strategy. In other words, any potential harm, if any, imo is not by the "Sniper" - the GM that has placed a bid near the expiration of the time clock. In fact the "Sniper" did nothing to tie up the the money. All the "Sniper" basically did was allow the GM to tie his/her own money up.
We say nothing of the harm caused teams that are unable to acquire a player because they've been frozen out because of lack of cap. It's the same concept...no harm no foul...it's in the game!
Sniper harms a team imo because they come around the 23hkur mark and raise .1...and that entire time that team that just got snipped just had X amount of dollars tied up |
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Dec 28, 2018 15:34:25 GMT -5
And maybe that’s where we have differing opinion.
I see the strategy not in tying up someone’s cap but creating cap room to sign free agents
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 28, 2018 17:19:50 GMT -5
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.
As Giants stated above, I agree that it's a difference of opinion. However I just can't seem to grasp the theory of how the concept of "sniping" harms another GM's ability to improve its team roster. So why is the "Sniper" getting the blame as the problem? This notion indicates to me that the GM choosing to place a bid, while having the responsibility of effectively managing their own resources so that they could improve their rosters through FA, seek to shift the blame.
Even though I'm not personally a fan of last minute bids, we cannot deny that this is a very competitive league.
Thus if a GM can take advantage of an opponents inability to bid on certain players, by keeping their money tied-up (blocking them out of FA), I can see the benefits of executing that strategy. In other words, any potential harm, if any, imo is not by the "Sniper" - the GM that has placed a bid near the expiration of the time clock. In fact the "Sniper" did nothing to tie up the the money. All the "Sniper" basically did was allow the GM to tie his/her own money up.
We say nothing of the harm caused teams that are unable to acquire a player because they've been frozen out because of lack of cap. It's the same concept...no harm no foul...it's in the game!
I actually see both sides of the argument. Blockades can be part of a strategy, on the other end some see blockades as immoral of sorts.
Admittedly my bias comes from from being the victim of a blockade a few years back in one league, and my organization in that league has never really recovered.
On one hand it was a painful lesson, on the other it forced me to reconsider the draft aspect of these leagues, as nobody has a right to blockade you out of that aspect of the game.
This game we play is always going to be a puzzle, and what I dont want to do is prescribe a cure that's worse that the illness.
|
|
