• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
FA Bidding
#11
not a fan of the FA tool...
Chc

GM 2023-8/2063, 2086-
7 x division champ
1 pennant
TBR

8/2070-11/2070

NYM


2071-2079
2 x wild card game appearance

SFG

2080-2085
#12
I'll try to dig up the original excel file that came from outahere and get the formula but all i've found so far is the html file that I had created and linked you to.

The html is a bit difficult to decipher.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1103...20Tool.xls

Found it on my old league's forum.
Division Champions:
League Champions:
World Series Champions:
#13
You have to ask yourself what is the exact point of bringing in this tool. You say you want more realistic contracts which is nice in prince-able. Yes I do agree a player would be dumb to take an offer of 3 years x 5.1 vs 1 x 15. I have a retort for you though. In the example of Connor on my team who I ended up getting for 2 years x 5.5mil, if jch really wanted him why didn't just go 1 year x 11mil? It's one mil more than his bid. In the end 99% of these guys end up getting the best deal anyway because people can only stretch out the deal so far before it has diminishing returns on doing so and by that time someone like me has raised the price on the player a good amount even if in the end I don't end up getting him. If the tool were brought in there would be a lot less opportunity to raise the price on the player because I'd need to pay way more to do so. So in the end you may very well get the reverse happening and having guys make far less money than they would have with our current system.
#14
(01-20-2015, 06:43 PM)mike Wrote: You have to ask yourself what is the exact point of bringing in this tool. You say you want more realistic contracts which is nice in prince-able. Yes I do agree a player would be dumb to take an offer of 3 years x 5.1 vs 1 x 15. I have a retort for you though. In the example of Connor on my team who I ended up getting for 2 years x 5.5mil, if jch really wanted him why didn't just go 1 year x 11mil? It's one mil more than his bid. In the end 99% of these guys end up getting the best deal anyway because people can only stretch out the deal so far before it has diminishing returns on doing so and by that time someone like me has raised the price on the player a good amount even if in the end I don't end up getting him. If the tool were brought in there would be a lot less opportunity to raise the price on the player because I'd need to pay way more to do so. So in the end you may very well get the reverse happening and having guys make far less money than they would have with our current system.

I don't care if it stays the same but ... um ... what? no
Division Champions:
League Champions:
World Series Champions:
#15
So here is what I see in that tool:

It compares the total value and posts that in the lower right portion of the result. So let's say we have that first scenario 2/5.5 vs. 1/10. It would compare 11 to 10 and post the number 1 in the lower right.

The top number divides the per year amount in the shorter offer by 2 and then multiplies it by the difference in years of the two offers.

In this case: (10/2)+(2-1) or a result of 5. 5>1, meaning the shorter offer is better.

So in this case
World Champion 2018, 2021, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2037, 2039
AL Champion 12 times
FCM Best Record-Holder - 121-41 2028
Overall Record: 3530-1978 .641%
#16
As for my personal opinion, the number of times it's a significant issue for the tool to solve is almost non-existent. The trade-off is an annoyance for every negotiation.

I'm just not a fan of that trade-off.
World Champion 2018, 2021, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2037, 2039
AL Champion 12 times
FCM Best Record-Holder - 121-41 2028
Overall Record: 3530-1978 .641%
#17
(01-20-2015, 08:01 PM)AndyP Wrote: As for my personal opinion, the number of times it's a significant issue for the tool to solve is almost non-existent. The trade-off is an annoyance for every negotiation.

I'm just not a fan of that trade-off.

i respect that. we at least got a thread going, talked it out and it won't happen. it was at least good discussions about this.
#18
(01-20-2015, 08:01 PM)AndyP Wrote: As for my personal opinion, the number of times it's a significant issue for the tool to solve is almost non-existent. The trade-off is an annoyance for every negotiation.

I'm just not a fan of that trade-off.

I agree with this, I think it is a good idea but I don't think this is a huge issue that we need to poke the bear.

Cubs GM 2010-2021
2017 & 2019 World Champions
LAA GM 2022-2035
2028, 2029, 2032 and 2034 World Champions
#19
mike i can't get over "prince-able"
World Champs: 2071, 2106, 2108
#20
^
Pit
2104-2106

237-249 record






Det
2047-2103

5,268-3,807 record

43 Playoff Appearances
27 Division Titles
19 Pennants
6 World Championships  

Houston Astros
2035-2046

1133-811 record

9 Playoff Appearances
5 Division Titles
1 Pennant


« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Users browsing this thread: 10 Guest(s)



Forum Jump: