Another Summer League - chat thread

[kimkrichbaum2]

I want to echo some of the things DHowser just said. In this sophisticated atmosphere of owners who have all been through an auction before the team with 4 players for 61 mil would get their @ss kicked! Also, if you put up those 10% above bids you mentioned, I bet you get all 4 players anyway, so you are already free to try that strategy with the current system.

However I do think %10 is a little low.

I agree with Gorshar that the current system is not necessarily broken. but I do think it is not elegant, and it could be improved. To me the best system would be one where the inducements for putting up a player you want, and the inducements to not put up a player you want were about even. I think a system where the proposing owner could beat a bid by 15 or 20% would be balanced for the early parts of the auctions. later on, say the last 100 players, I think having to beat the top bid by 40 or 50% might be better.
So I think my proposal would be that the proposing owner could beat the high bid, if they did so by at least 20% through the 250th player proposed, after that, the amount would go up to 40%.

I don't think we "need"this change, but I think it would be exciting and lead to most interesting bidding possible.

[gorshar]

I agree that 62 mil on four players is probably not going to win a championship. However, one of the reasons I really like auctions is that everybody has a fair chance at every player. I think this fairness is somewhat removed if the nominating owner can trump everybody.

I understand the desire to want to nominate players you want and have a chance to get them, but it's my feeling that this proposal tilts the balance too far in the other direction.

And as I've said, the simple way around the present system is don't nominate somebody you really want. Every player worth having eventually ends up on the block anyway. And if they don't and you hold off until the end of the auction your chances of getting that player are significantly increased especially if you planned and budgeted for the eventual appearance of said player.

[MIKEARCHAMBAULT]

I think I'll have to agree with gorshar on this one. Even if we put a 50% premium on the nominating owner, in my mind, it would be in the middle of the draft when things would get screwy. I don't mind at all someone paying 20M for Ruth or Gibson; it is the middle of the draft that makes or breaks a team, and there would be an abundance of good deals available to the nominator.

[DHowser]

Gorshar, you say that you like auctions because everyone has a fair chance at every player. I don't believe that this is true as I don't think the nominator has a fair chance at all. Anyhow, I guess this is a dead issue anyway. I just thought it would be nice to spice things up a bit.

[gorshar]

[quote:3dc031a3f8]I don't believe that this is true as I don't think the nominator has a fair chance at all.[/quote:3dc031a3f8]
You're right they don't. But this is easily avoided by not nominating somebody you really want. But giving the nominator an unfair advantage tilts it too far the other way.

Present system - nominator has little chance of getting the player they want, eleven managers have a fair and even chance. Good for eleven people, bad for one. But easily avoided by not nominating players you really want.

New idea - nominator has absolute control over taking the player they nominate. Eleven managers are virtually helpless. Good for one person, bad for eleven.

Which is more fair? Good for eleven and bad for one or good for one and bad for eleven?

[quote:3dc031a3f8]Anyhow, I guess this is a dead issue anyway.[/quote:3dc031a3f8]
Not at all. There are eight other managers who haven't voiced opinions. My opinion carries no more or less weight than anybody else's.

[gorshar]

Further to this...

When I first proposed the sealed format we're using now, the issue of the nominator being disadvantaged was something I anticipated. If you recall, my original proposal specifically stated that the nominator does not bid at all but to minimize garbage nominations, would have to take any unbid player at the auction minimum. Quite a few other managers suggested why not let the manager open with a bid and I saw no reason to disagree and this is where we are now.

My point is that I am aware of this flaw but I don't see that turning the tables to disadvantage eleven people for the benefit of one is an improvement.

The open bid auction of course alleviates this problem and is indeed the purist of auctions... but it also takes about six months to complete instead of the two months or so the sealed bid auctions take.

I think what would really help is a program to run open bid auctions as many more players could be on the block at once as ideally the list of players, their highest bid, and the time left to expiration would all be prominently listed saving the trouble of having to wade back through all the posts.

[JOSEPHKENDALL]

[quote:f51b59ca35="gorshar"]
The open bid auction of course alleviates this problem and is indeed the purist of auctions... but it also takes about six months to complete instead of the two months or so the sealed bid auctions take.

I think what would really help is a program to run open bid auctions as many more players could be on the block at once as ideally the list of players, their highest bid, and the time left to expiration would all be prominently listed saving the trouble of having to wade back through all the posts.[/quote:f51b59ca35]

Would everyone be agreeable to having a program that runs the auction and either :

1 - Have a sealed bid format where everyone bids secretly and the program reveals the bids once everyone has bid within a certain amount of time?

2 - Have a true auction format where you can outbid each other again and again within a certain amount of time until someone wins?

If we can come to an agreement on how you would like the program to work, I will be happy to create the program and host it on the internet for us to use. Please weigh in with your thoughts.

[gorshar]

I think it's a fantastic idea to have a program. Would there be a way to make it available to the entire community?

And I suppose the program can receive the bids and award the players in a sealed auction which would than negate the issue we're debating now.

[DOHowser1]

My preference would be:

1 - Have a sealed bid format where everyone bids secretly and the program reveals the bids once everyone has bid within a certain amount of time?

The only change I would like to see from the last auction: first five players on the block, open to proposing manager, not the 5 most expensive players: Buck, Ruth, Gibson, Maddux and Buck Jr.

[MIKEARCHAMBAULT]

I've tried both types of auctions, and I prefer this type of sealed bid. It would be fantastic if a program could be developed to allow a nomination, with the bid sealed, with the 24 hour clock in effect. Barring that, our current system works. Eleven people have a reasonable chance to buy the early players, and the nominator has the challenge of picking a player he does not want, yet inducing his opponents to overspend.

Also, I can go either way on the initial offering. As it is now, a volunteer to nominate essentially passes on the player. If we should happen to come across someone everyone wants to bid on, I'll volunteer to nominate the player. I never have a pure favorite, especially with this talent pool. If we decide to mix up the initial offering, we can simply use the lottery or a random drawing to determine who makes the first selections.