free agents

Cubby37 · Post by **Cubby37** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:20 pm

seems almost comical posting this now, but the truth is I tried to pick up John Lannan this last sunday. I had Schumaker qued 1, and someone out bid me. I had Lannan qued second. Since I didn't think anyone else was going to pick him up I bid $1. My 3rd que, Jesse Litsch, I thought other people would try to get, so I bid $30. T ended up getting Litsch and no one picked up Lannan. Why didn't it give me my second choice? I checked it a bunch, I am sure I had them in the correct order.

Hard Heads · Post by **Hard Heads** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:23 pm

Pretty sure it won't allow you bid less on your #2 choice then you would've on your third choice. At least if I remember right that is how it worked in the past. Maybe a long time vet would be able to answer for sure.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:37 pm

It always will take your higher priced bid before a lower priced bid.

Cubby37 · Post by **Cubby37** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:41 pm

Thanks guys....Good to know. In a perfect world however, I think you should be able to try a low bid on one player and if you don't get him pay more to make sure you get the second. Oh well, I can adjust.

Top Dawg · Post by **Top Dawg** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:52 pm

Originally posted by Cubby37:

Thanks guys....Good to know. In a perfect world however, I think you should be able to try a low bid on one player and if you don't get him pay more to make sure you get the second. Oh well, I can adjust. I COMPLETELY AGREE!

Seems to me you should be able to ask for players in any order, regardless of price. Maybe someday soon this too shall come to pass.

Pete

mrhambone · Post by **mrhambone** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:44 am

Agreed! One of the most frustrating things I've found in this league. I thought you could get around this by making Waiver claim 1 a one dollar bid and than Wavier claim 2 a larger bid. But if your dropping the same guy in both waiver claims it ignores the fact that you want everyone on wavier claim 1 before going to Waiver claim 2 and searches for the highest bid in both. This limits what you can do FA wise. Somehow stats and the NFBC need to find a way to get around this.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:52 am

Agree as well. The player should be the priority, not the amount of money bid. Too bad this wasn't brought up before STATS overhauled the free agency bid pages.

Any chance of putting this on STATS plate, Greg?

Raiders · Post by **Raiders** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:43 am

I also agree. As an example two weeks ago, i had one player I could drop and needed a starting pitcher. The two pitchers I focused on were Kuo and Greg Smith. I would have preferred getting Smith for about 20. But I bid much higher for Kuo as I knew he would go higher. I got Kuo which is OK. If I wanted Smith, then I basically couldn't bid on Kuo. Again, as I needed one of them, I was in a bind.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:11 am

i know what u guys are talking about, but i don't see it happening.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:30 am

which owners would get Kuo, Lannon, and smith under your system? bids are listed in order

Owner A

Kuo 120

Lannon 120

Smith 120

Owner B

Kuo 110

Smith 150

Lannon 150

Owner C

Kuo 130

Lannon 40

Smith 40

Owner D

Smith 1

Kuo 2

Lannon 2

Owner E

Lannon 1

Kuo 2

Smith 2

BigHurt · Post by **BigHurt** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:20 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

which owners would get Kuo, Lannon, and smith under your system? bids are listed in order

Owner A

Kuo 120

Lannon 120

Smith 120

Owner B

Kuo 110

Smith 150

Lannon 150

Owner C

Kuo 130

Lannon 40

Smith 40

Owner D

Smith 1

Kuo 2

Lannon 2

Owner E

Lannon 1

Kuo 2

Smith 2 C - Kuo

B - Smith

A - Lannan

How else could it go?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:25 am

Owner D had smith ranked higher than owner B. Isn't that what the folks on this thread want or am I misremembering?

Raiders · Post by **Raiders** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:38 am

Look at this example. What I want to do is:

1. Smith --20

(a)--conditional--Kuo 80

If the next highest bid in my league for Smith is 15, then I get Smith. If the highest bid in my league for Smith is 25, then I don't get Smith and my conditional bid for Kuo comes into play. I order the player I want regardless of dollar value bid.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:57 am

Originally posted by Raiders:

Look at this example. What I want to do is:

1. Smith --20

(a)--conditional--Kuo 80

If the next highest bid in my league for Smith is 15, then I get Smith. If the highest bid in my league for Smith is 25, then I don't get Smith and my conditional bid for Kuo comes into play. I order the player I want regardless of dollar value bid. I understand completely what u are saying. Please use the same logic and tell me what owners are awarded which players in my example above.

Raiders · Post by **Raiders** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:09 am

In your example, C got Kuo at 130. A and B did not get Kuo so their first conditional bids came into play; B got Smith at 150; A got Lannan at 120. Any conditional bid that comes into play is counted. B and C's conditional bids that came into play were higher for Lannan and Smith than D or E.

Revising my example:

Player A: 1.Smith 20

a. Kuo 80

Player B: 1.Kuo 40

It may not work because the computer would have to decide which player to look at first--but is it possible that Player A gets Smith and Player B gets Kuo.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:17 am

Originally posted by Raiders:

In your example, C got Kuo at 130. A and B did not get Kuo so their first conditional bids came into play; B got Smith at 150; A got Lannan at 120. Any conditional bid that comes into play is counted. B and C's conditional bids that came into play were higher for Lannan and Smith than D or E.

Revising my example:

Player A: 1.Smith 20

a. Kuo 80

Player B: 1.Kuo 40

It may not work because the computer would have to decide which player to look at first--but is it possible that Player A gets Smith and Player B gets Kuo. Correct. The computer needs to know how to proceed and does so based on dollar amount. There is no other way to do it.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:17 am

You're overthinking this, Mark. Priority on an individual list doesen't override a bigger bid by another team.

Lets say you'd like to have Lannan for a buck, more than Washburn at 120. Lannan is first priority, followed by Washburn at 120. Nobody else bids on Lannan, he is yours. The Washburn bid could be a runnerup bid that is actually higher than the winning bid.

The answer to your question would be c,b,a.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:24 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Raiders:

In your example, C got Kuo at 130. A and B did not get Kuo so their first conditional bids came into play; B got Smith at 150; A got Lannan at 120. Any conditional bid that comes into play is counted. B and C's conditional bids that came into play were higher for Lannan and Smith than D or E.

Revising my example:

Player A: 1.Smith 20

a. Kuo 80

Player B: 1.Kuo 40

It may not work because the computer would have to decide which player to look at first--but is it possible that Player A gets Smith and Player B gets Kuo. Correct. The computer needs to know how to proceed and does so based on dollar amount. There is no other way to do it. [/QUOTE]That would make priority irrelevant if it's dollar value priority over-ride.

Dan gets it.

~Lance

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:24 am

I wish this would be fixed.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:29 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

You're overthinking this, Mark. Priority on an individual list doesen't override a bigger bid by another team.

Lets say you'd like to have Lannan for a buck, more than Washburn at 120. Lannan is first priority, followed by Washburn at 120. Nobody else bids on Lannan, he is yours. The Washburn bid could be a runnerup bid that is actually higher than the winning bid.

The answer to your question would be c,b,a. if a computer program is NOT to consider dollar amount, but rather who is first on your list, how does it know which owner's bid to process first, then second, etc...

[ April 24, 2008, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:35 am

It will consider the dollar amount. A personal priority list would just take precedence over the amount of money bid.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:41 am

I don't see that it can.

While it makes sense that it should, in the long run, it makes the system several times more complex than it already is. And that is never good for the masses. The average owner is not as sophisticated as most here.

High dollar bids are 100% transparent when the reports are run, and not 100% if based on a priority list.

It could be done, but it would be very difficult to program, and again, much more complex with all the variables that would be added into it.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:42 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

It will consider the dollar amount. A personal priority list would just take precedence over the amount of money bid. dan - please tell me how the bids would be processed (in what order) in this example using the system you guys are pushing for...

Owner A

1. Lannan $50

a. Washburn $120

b. Kuo $5

Owner B

1. Washburn $130

a. Lannan $1

b. Kuo $5

Owner C

1. Kuo $6

a. Lannan $1

b. Washburn $120

Owner D

1. Kuo $5

a. Washburn $200

b. Lannan $100

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:46 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Dan gets it.

~Lance feel free to chime in on my last example

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:47 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

It will consider the dollar amount. A personal priority list would just take precedence over the amount of money bid. Multiple tie bids would be very hard to program.