free agents

[Gordon Gekko]

KISS

[JohnZ]

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by UFS:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Maybe making "priority" be a freaking priority for the programming to even consider?



Explain to the masses???



I'm missing all of the confusion here.



~Lance Lance, every week, in every league, there will be at least one owner with a Washburn listed as his FIRST priority that does not get him. That will be very confusing and on top of everything, just plain wrong.



And Liquid made a nice post, all valid and such, but there is HUGE skill in learning not to overpay by $150.



You can easily bid $2 on all those $1 players until you get someone. [/QUOTE]You're not getting it, John. [/QUOTE]I understand 100% what you want. Always have.



You have not answered 100% of he questions posed by GG and myself.



Maybe because you can't?



As KJ just nicely pointed it out, is very hard to program, and as I pointed out, the finals results are NOT transparent. In a contest of this size, results that are not transparent pose a huge problem IMO.



As much as this is a valid issue with you guys now, doing it the other way will results in multiple more issues, questions, and concerns.

[Mudster]

Being able to prioritize a higher priced player below a lower priced player should be allowed



i.e. 1.Kuo 80

a.Lannon 1

b.Washburn 100



With this being said, the only way the computer could fairly distribute the free agents would be to act off of the highest bids in order. Here's an example using the above bid.



The largest bid of the league is Kuo at 85, so Kuo goes to that guy. The above bid now has Lannon as it's top priority. Lannon is the league's second highest at 50. Washburn now moves up and is the highest current bid and you get Washburn for 100.



Let's say after Kuo, Washburn(not Lannon) was the league's highest bid at 50. The 50 bid would get Washburn as Lannon was your higher priority in your rankings. Washburn would then be pulled from your conditionals. Lannon is then the highest at 25. You lose out on all three bids because you take the risk with your ordering. That's the chance you take, and the computer follows a simple order.



The only thing I would suggest with something like this is that all free agent aquisitions are listed in the order that the computer hands them out in so you can validate that you, in fact, were not screwed by the system but by yourself.



[ April 24, 2008, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Mudster ]

[JohnZ]

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

They're overthinking this, Lance.

All it is, is making a list of who you want first by name rather than bid. In GG's example, Team B was the only team to list Washburn first and you say he goes to Team D.



So Team B wants Washburn more than any other team, because he listed him first as first priority, but gets hosed because another team doesn't make a large enough bid to get Kuo?



Why do the bids where two owners want the same player as first priority (Kuo), get processed before the only owner with Washburn as first priority?



Answer me this and I will bow to thee.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I give. If some of the top players in the NFBC are not picking up the basics of this system, there is no way newbies will understand it.

Again, simply put, if I want Lannan for a buck more than I want Washburn for $120, I should be able to make Lannon my priority.

Lets go with a shorter example:



Player A wants Washburn for $50



Player B wants Lannan for $1 and puts in a conditional bid for Washburn for $120



The result is that player b gets Lannan for $1 and player A gets Washburn for $50. Everybody is happy. And yes, the runnerup bid exceeds the winning bid.



Now if player A had put a bid for Lannan for $5 and it wasn't a conditional bid, he would get Lannan and player B would get Washburn since his higher priority player is gone.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I think it would be a nice addition. I'm like KJ, it isn't a huge matter. Just trying to explain it is taxing enough but if it were in place I think it would make for a better and fairer FAAB system. I digress.

[Liquidhippo]

I know!



Let's have live FAAB auction bidding once per week!

[Gordon Gekko]

Dan - it looks easy in your limited example. imagine 15 owners bidding, with 3 separate bid trees each, and 12+ conditional bids for each tree. Gets confusing real fast.



I still would like to know how it would work in my limited example. I guess that one is even too complicated to explain?

[bjoak]

So Team B wants Washburn more than any other team, because he listed him first as first priority, but gets hosed because another team doesn't make a large enough bid to get Kuo? Well, you're asking a loaded question, but, yes, if he doesn't get Kuo, he gets the guy he wanted second most, provided he bid more than anyone else.



Also, you're ignoring the obvious: this happens now! I bid $150 on Humphrey Homer and $100 on Ernie Error as a conditional. Someone else bids $90 on Ernie Error with no conditional bid. A third party bids $200 on Humphrey Homer. I win Ernie Error. It happens all the time.



Why do the bids where two owners want the same player as first priority (Kuo), get processed before the only owner with Washburn as first priority?1. Lance already explained this thoroughly.



2. As far as I can tell the system already does this as per my previous example. And no one complains.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Oh , what the Hell, I'm a glutton for punishment. Here is the answer and explanation to Mark's example.



Owner C-gets Kuo because he bid the most and had him as his top priority, Kuo is gone to C and removed off everybody's list



Owner D- gets Washburn, Kuo is gone and he was the next in line on his list and had the highest bid.



Owner A- gets Lannan. Although owner D had a higher bid, he already used his dropped player or conditional on Washburn. Lannan goes to owner A



Owner B- gets nobody. Because like in our system now he simply didn't bid enough to beat anybody else



I hope this helps.

[Gordon Gekko]

Could someone who understands this "new system" please go through it step by step for the limited example I put out there?????? It shouldn't take someone who "get's it" more than 5 minutes to explain it to john and I. No disrespect, I'm trying to see what you are saying, BUT NO ONE IS EXPLAINING IT CLEARLY!! Thanks in advance.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

Could someone who understands this "new system" please go through it step by step for the limited example I put out there?????? It shouldn't take someone who "get's it" more than 5 minutes to explain it to john and I. No disrespect, I'm trying to see what you are saying, BUT NO ONE IS EXPLAINING IT CLEARLY!! Thanks in advance. Done

[Mudster]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bjoak:

[QB] [QUOTE]



whoops...that is exactly what you said



[ April 24, 2008, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Mudster ]

[bjoak]

Originally posted by Mudster:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bjoak:

[QB] [QUOTE]



Also, you're ignoring the obvious: this happens now! I bid $150 on Humphrey Homer and $100 on Ernie Error as a conditional. Someone else bids $90 on Ernie Error with no conditional bid. A third party bids $200 on Humphrey Homer. I win Ernie Error. It happens all the time.



With what I attempted to explain, the 150 bid on humphry homer would be deleted from the 200 bid and the 100 bid on ernie error would become his primary bid, thus winning out over the 90 bid. Right. That is what happens now. I'd be happy to hear an explanation on how the new system would differ. Secondary bids can win over primary bids now. It is in the programming.



GG could redo his example with all descending bids and whine that he doesn't understand how the system figures it all out but it is the same exact thing that already happens.

[Gordon Gekko]

Originally posted by bjoak:



GG could redo his example with all descending bids and whine that he doesn't understand how the system figures it all out but it is the same exact thing that already happens. Whine? If you think I'm whining here, you need to read the liriano thread.



I'm trying too see where the new system is different than the current system.



Dan - I'll take a look at your methodology and put it through the grinder later and see what comes out. Thanks for posting!

[JohnZ]

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:So Team B wants Washburn more than any other team, because he listed him first as first priority, but gets hosed because another team doesn't make a large enough bid to get Kuo? Well, you're asking a loaded question, but, yes, if he doesn't get Kuo, he gets the guy he wanted second most, provided he bid more than anyone else.



Also, you're ignoring the obvious: this happens now! I bid $150 on Humphrey Homer and $100 on Ernie Error as a conditional. Someone else bids $90 on Ernie Error with no conditional bid. A third party bids $200 on Humphrey Homer. I win Ernie Error. It happens all the time.



Why do the bids where two owners want the same player as first priority (Kuo), get processed before the only owner with Washburn as first priority?1. Lance already explained this thoroughly.



2. As far as I can tell the system already does this as per my previous example. And no one complains. [/QUOTE]Brian and Dan, you missed my point completely. But this stuff is confusing.



Brian - 1)It's not loaded because it would happen all the time.



I have no prob with your first reply, but it's not what I was talking about.



On your second reply, currently, Kuo would not go first, Washburn would go first. So the winner of Kuo would not have a chance on Washburn at all in the current system. It doesn't check by name, it checks by $$, just like you pointed out.





I quoted Dan because he said it was based on NAME, not $$ amount, yet the only team that Washburn's first on doesn't get him. Where is the answer to this one?



Again if ONE guy lists Washburn first, why doesn't he get him? Why is he subject to having tied player(s) with lesser bids processed first?



How is that fair or right?



That's a far worse problem than the initial problem of this thread.



--------------------------------------



And here's another one.......



Add ONE more owner to GG's list that wants Washburn first priority for $1 and he has ten more $1 conditionals.



Does that now mean the two that have Washburn bids get to break their tie in the same manner the two Kuo owners do?



Under what I've seen, then Washburn goes to the $150 owner then.



Yes!!, I want a system where my best shot at getting my #1 priority is based on another owner also listing the same guy first at a lower amount.



So now we have created a system where the winning bids are more determined more determined...



Not always by the highest dollar amount

Not always by the being the highest priority



But by a system that results in different outcomes if two or more owners want the same player #1 or only one does.



Can someone explain how this would be written in the rules?

[DOUGHBOYS]

John, you're still not grasping the idea. Go back to how I explained Gekko's example.

The priority list is personal, it's not vs. another team. Because someone lists a player first doesen't give him a right to have that player unless the winning bid is behind it.



Before answering, go back to the example that was answered. If you want to come up with another example, I will gladly give you the answer. If I can do it, I know a program can handle it.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Originally posted by UFS:

Again if ONE guy lists Washburn first, why doesn't he get him? Why is he subject to having tied player(s) with lesser bids processed first?



How is that fair or right?



That's a far worse problem than the initial problem of this thread.



[/QB]Because like our system now, the player that lists Washburn first still has to outbid the other players that want him. Because he is first on a personal priority list doesen't mean that he'll get him for lesser money over a team that has a conditional bid for him.



It is fair and right because that is whats done now. The only change is that when you want a lower priced player, you can prioritize your list to get him, instead of paying higher money for a secondary player.



No problem at all.

[bjoak]

currently, Kuo would not go first, Washburn would go first. So the winner of Kuo would not have a chance on Washburn at all in the current system. Don't know if I'm arguing your point or the fact that you're not writing clearly--probably both, but how does this make sense?



You are saying:



A. Washburn would go first.

B. Someone would not have a chance on Washburn because he already won Kuo (who according to your logic was not going first).



Do you disagree that the current system sometimes has conditional bids win over primary bids? The answer to these questions doesn't matter so much because it's what we currently do.



the only team that Washburn's first on doesn't get him. Where is the answer to this one?

Do you disagree that the current system sometimes has conditional bids win over primary bids? The answer to these questions doesn't matter so much because it's what we currently do.



Again if ONE guy lists Washburn first, why doesn't he get him? Why is he subject to having tied player(s) with lesser bids processed first?

Do you disagree that the current system sometimes has conditional bids win over primary bids? The answer to these questions doesn't matter so much because it's what we currently do.



So now we have created a system where the winning bids are more determined more determined...



Not always by the highest dollar amount

Not always by the being the highest priority

The current system does not give a player to the highest amount if they are lower on an owner's priority list and doesn't always give him to the owner with the higher priority. Again, it is identical to the system currently in place.

[BigHurt]

I agree with DOUGHBOYS, I don't see where the confusion comes from. Players would still be awarded by dollar amount first. The only modification is to allow an individual owner to prioritize the order he wants his picks looked at.



Currently, if I put in:



Bid #1 - Redmond: $1



Bid #2 - Mauer: $400



and both are the high bids, I would get Mauer. Why can't the system be changed to allow my first bid to be looked at first?



Like DB said, any example you can throw up here can be worked out, regardless of how many owners, bids, conditional bids you add. If we can do it, the computer should be able to.

[Gordon Gekko]

Originally posted by BigHurt:

Like DB said, any example you can throw up here can be worked out, regardless of how many owners, bids, conditional bids you add. If we can do it, the computer should be able to. i will be looking at this tomorrow.

[JohnZ]

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by UFS:

Again if ONE guy lists Washburn first, why doesn't he get him? Why is he subject to having tied player(s) with lesser bids processed first?



How is that fair or right?



That's a far worse problem than the initial problem of this thread.



Because like our system now, the player that lists Washburn first still has to outbid the other players that want him. Because he is first on a personal priority list doesen't mean that he'll get him for lesser money over a team that has a conditional bid for him.



It is fair and right because that is whats done now. The only change is that when you want a lower priced player, you can prioritize your list to get him, instead of paying higher money for a secondary player.



No problem at all. [/QB][/QUOTE]Dan, I've understood this the entire time.



Early on you posted that we are going from a High $$ system, to a priority name system. I took the ball and ran with that



I kept asking this question with no response. You have finally responded.



I have gone out of my way to show you what customers WILL throw at the commish, because as we know here, and I know from running 800-1000 teams per year for over 20 years, is that any rules change will have many throw questions at it.



So in saying we are going to a priority system, many customers will ask why the guy putting Washburn first only doesn't get him. It's a very legitimate question.





The process in play now is very easy to understand in the written rules, and this process will never be. You can't use the word "priority" at all because it leads many to think that Team B would get Washburn.





Brian, when I replied back, I said you missed my point. I even indicated that this subject can be confusing.



So why then did you continue with YOUR point when I DID make it clear we were not on the same page?



No need to answer, just something to think about.



Also, I applaud your command of the language. Not many people today have such command. I try my best, but when your 8th grade English teacher appeared in Playboy the year before, and your Freshman College English teacher dies three weeks into class, it's just not going to be in your class. And we're talking pics from 8th grade that would put Lance's LV3 pics to shame!!





Back to Dan....



OK, no more on Wash.... Back to GG.... How do you write all these conditions into the rules? You could have Brian write it, but not many would understand LOL. That's a joke Brian, j/k.



You'd have to show examples and it would turn many newbies off. JMO.



It would also be incredibly hard and costly to program and have possible looping problems like KJ indicated.



The idea that a guy gets Washburn because he LOST on his #1 priority still makes me ill. LOL.



This is America! You don't get rewarded for losing! (that was the Lance in me)

[DOUGHBOYS]

The Washburn example that makes you ill happens with our system now. If someone bids $100 on Washburn and $200 on Fuentes and he/she loses out on Fuentes, he/she can still nab Washburn. Same deal.

I agree about Brian. We have a guy here in town who writes out rules for different organizations. Nobody understands it, but it sure sounds good!

[DOUGHBOYS]

When you think about it, the new system would resembe KDS. The differince being that the bid is the driving force and not the random selector.

[bjoak]

I just don't think it would be that confusing to people, partly because it's not confusing now and partly because STATS doesn't display priority lists. All of the examples here showed how people set up their picks. In real life you'd only know your own and there is no situation where you wouldn't as an individual get what you didn't want unless you set it up wrong.



your 8th grade English teacher appeared in Playboy the year before Holy S! Is that true? I can't imaging the ways that would have scarred me. I'd still probably have the magazine, "using" it once or twice a day.



[ April 25, 2008, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]