FA Bidding

[JRWorcester]

not a fan of the FA tool...

[Vertigo]

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.

[mike]

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.

[Vertigo]

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

[AndyP]

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

[AndyP]

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.

[rockybull]

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.

[GoIrish]

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.

[Peter]

mike i can't get over "prince-able"

[Geaux Blue]

^