Idea for ATD2019

[Namba 17]

But there should be minimal salary

 

[ImporterExporter]

What if in the unlikely chance there is a tie we give each member a chance to send in one more bid?

Admin contacts each person privately via a PM stating a tie bid has occurred. Each GM is then given a small window to throw one bid out to break the tie.

This seems more than fair. In real life I can't see a player telling another team to f*** off because their offer came in one hour later than another team.

Losing a bid here because your bid happened 2 minutes after another person is BS IMO.

Not everyone is in the same time zone and not everyone has the same free time day to day.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What if in the unlikely chance there is a tie we give each member a chance to send in one more bid?

Admin contacts each person privately via a PM stating a tie bid has occurred. Each GM is then given a small window to throw one bid out to break the tie.

This seems more than fair. In real life I can't see a player telling another team to **** off because their offer came in one hour later than another team.

Losing a bid here because your bid happened 2 minutes after another person is BS IMO.

Not everyone is in the same time zone and not everyone has the same free time day to day.

Agree 100%.

We should try to minimize the advantage given by being online more often.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Agreed.First comes first served is a ridiculous rule.

As for ties, my proposal probabilistically solves that.If someone bids $4,998,332, chances are no tie will occur, not even once in the draft.

 

[BenchBrawl]

This has the potential to be amazing, hopefully we see a lot of registrations.Kindda itchy to start.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Why don't we start sign ups a while?

Let them run for the next month, last the holidays.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Well i dont want anyone to sign up and lose interest before the draft starts.Honestly I dont care either way, if you want to open it now you can do it.But settling what kind of draft we do would be a good idea prior to opening registrations.Though now it seems almost everyone is warm to the auction idea, but there might be a silent majority who dont want it.

 

[VanIslander]

Let's wait for Hockey Outsider, who volunteered to be administrator (of what was his idea), and seventieslord, who has stated his interest in being an administrator if not a participant.

 

[Dreakmur]

Agree 100%.

We should try to minimize the advantage given by being online more often.

Only way to do that is give more time.

How slow is this draft going to run? We have 100s of picks. 24 hours per player?

How often should people be expected to log in to make sure they have a fair shot at every player?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Only way to do that is give more time.

How slow is this draft going to run? We have 100s of picks. 24 hours per player?

How often should people be expected to log in to make sure they have a fair shot at every player?

I think logging in once per day isn't too much to ask.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Only way to do that is give more time.

How slow is this draft going to run? We have 100s of picks. 24 hours per player?

How often should people be expected to log in to make sure they have a fair shot at every player?

The draft should last 2 months and a half top.Else we'll lose interest.I see no reason to have a different timeframe than usual.

If we have 25 teams, that's more or less 8 players a day.My thought was to start smaller - maybe 4-5 players a day - and gradually increase the amount of available players up to 12 (to average it out to 8 a day).

GMs must log in every day if they want a shot at *every* player.But that's unrealistic; if you just drafted two "1st rounders", not sure why you'd expect to be competitive to bid for "2nd" and even "3rd rounders", just as if you traded to draft two 1st rounders in a normal draft.In practice we'll know when we can take a break.

 

[ResilientBeast]

The draft should last 2 months and a half top.Else we'll lose interest.I see no reason to have a different timeframe than usual.

If we have 25 teams, that's more or less 8 players a day.My thought was to start smaller - maybe 4-5 players a day - and gradually increase the amount of available players up to 12 (to average it out to 8 a day).

GMs must log in every day if they want a shot at *every* player.But that's unrealistic; if you just drafted two "1st rounders", not sure why you'd expect to be competitive to bid for "2nd" and even "3rd rounders", just as if you traded to draft two 1st rounders.In practice we'll know when we can take a break.

And the list of players up on a given day should be public so people can plan.

 

[Dreakmur]

The draft should last 2 months and a half top.Else we'll lose interest.I see no reason to have a different timeframe than usual.

If we have 25 teams, that's more or less 8 players a day.My thought was to start smaller - maybe 4-5 players a day - and gradually increase the amount of available players up to 12 (to average it out to 8 a day).

GMs must log in every day if they want a shot at *every* player.But that's unrealistic; if you just drafted two "1st rounders", not sure why you'd expect to be competitive to bid for "2nd" and even "3rd rounders", just as if you traded to draft two 1st rounders in a normal draft.In practice we'll know when we can take a break.

If you’re bidding multiple players at once, how do GMs go about making sure they only get one... even if they win 2 bids?

What if I miss my 1, and would have bid more on 2 if I knew that.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Let's wait for Hockey Outsider, who volunteered to be administrator (of what was his idea), and seventieslord, who has stated his interest in being an administrator if not a participant.

The problem is I work 60+ hours a week from January to April. If there's a way to automate the actual picks (and/or have seventies or someone else co-administer the draft), that would be ideal. Realistically there's no way I can keep up with the daily volume of PMs/emails to manage the draft in the first half of the year. But I should be able to keep track of everyone's spending and doing other admin work (ie settling disputes?), which I'm guessing would be more of a bi-weekly rather than daily commitment.

That being said if someone has more availability and is willing to take on the role, I'm fine with that too.

 

[BenchBrawl]

If you’re bidding multiple players at once, how do GMs go about making sure they only get one... even if they win 2 bids?

What if I miss my 1, and would have bid more on 2 if I knew that.

That's a point we need to discuss for sure, but as of now my position on this was that it's part of the risk and also why you shouldn't overbid on multiple players.You run the risk of overstaffing your team with high-salary players.As for bidding more on 2 if you knew that, it's also part of the overall calculation you need to make for yourself.

Sure, we could compartmentalize the bids, as in:

I bid 2 millions on Chris Pronger, then 2 millions on Bill Gadsby ONLY IF I don't get Pronger, but this will be an administrating nightmare (I think).If only we could get a program to filter all of this automatically, that would awesome.I have no idea how or where to look though.

 

[Dreakmur]

That's a point we need to discuss for sure, but as of now my position on this was that it's part of the risk and also why you shouldn't overbid on multiple players.You run the risk of overstaffing your team with high-salary players.As for bidding more on 2 if you knew that, it's also part of the overall calculation you need to make for yourself.

Sure, we could compartmentalize the bids, as in:

I bid 2 millions on Chris Pronger, then 2 millions on Bill Gadsby ONLY IF I don't get Pronger, but this will be an administrating nightmare (I think).

This whole thing is an administrative nightmare. Not trying to be that guy, but let’s be real here.

I like the idea. There’s way too much work to do, and just like all the other drafts, it will fall to a handful of people. It’s either going to be completely unfair to those who don’t log in 10 times per day, or it’s going to be a year-log process.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Well the good thing is there is no back and forth bidding. You bid once on one or more players per day and you either get your guy(s) or you don't. Then move on. In the off chance there is a tie, we allow one re-bid between the tied GM's and that should settle that.

I think we absolutely need co-admins. 2 or 3 people who are reliable and available daily. People who aren't involved in the actual drafting and GM'ing. Whether that's HO or 70's or somebody else, this begins and ends with good admin.

I don't think this will be a nightmare if we have that and a crop of quality GM's which we have every year. It won' be easy mind you but it's absolutely doable and shouldn't take more than 3 months tops if we're keeping the standard roster size.

3 months, minus weekends, and you have roughly 60 days of drafting. 9 players per day x 60 = 540 players. Bump it up to 10 players per depending on the GM count and we're fine. Can't imagine us getting more than 20-25 GM's.

 

[VanIslander]

Unlimited bids would be unfair to those who can't hang around until the deadline.

But one bid per player sucks. It rewards those who wait to make their single bid until the very end to one-up others. (Believe me. I've been in auction drafts with this rule and it encourages too many wait-until-the-end bids. I've also been in unlimited bidding auction drafts with a similar problem. The best has been a 2 bid system.)

TWO bids per player maximum (an 'opening bid' and 'closing bid') would allow someone to make an offer on someone they think is not in high demand (eg., a reasonable $5.0 million to Joliat) but then the bids go up to $7 million and you realize you are willing to pay a maximum of $7.9 million if you have to, so you make your 2nd bid, your 'closing bid' of $7.9 M because of the demand.

This is the only rule I personally am so invested in. It will not be fun to make a bid early in the day to only see your hopes and dreams shattered immediately with a higher bid coming in, and you have zero chance to rectify/adjust your offer. Giving a 'closing bid' chance is like a wake-up/gut call: Is this guy worth paying a lot for, or try to get an overlooked deal elsewhere.

 

[BenchBrawl]

This whole thing is an administrative nightmare. Not trying to be that guy, but let’s be real here.

I like the idea. There’s way too much work to do, and just like all the other drafts, it will fall to a handful of people. It’s either going to be completely unfair to those who don’t log in 10 times per day, or it’s going to be a year-log process.

Let's wait and see if we can find a solution to ease the administrative load.Some programs might already exist to automate this thing.

Logging in 10 times a day or only once a day changes nothing if there's only one bid per player.There's no bid, re-bid, re-re-bid over the top.Everyday a list of 4-12 players become available, and you bid (in private) on whoever you want as long as you have the cash.Only once.One bid per player and that's it.The bids are all private, so there's no "over-raising" on other people's bid.You have to guess.Doesn't matter if someone is there 24/7, there's no edge to it.

 

[seventieslord]

But one bid per player sucks. It rewards those who wait to make their single bid until the very end to one-up others. (Believe me. I've been in auction drafts with this rule and it encourages too many wait-until-the-end bids.

This is only true if the need bid is public. It shouldn't be. It should be completely private and everyone who is interested gets one shot at the player.

II' even be open to the idea of proxy bidding, where you get the player for the lower of 1% above the next highest bid, or your own max bid.

This way you only pay what you have to, to get a player.

 

[ImporterExporter]

And just to be clear, there would or wouldn't be a chart that shows the high bid on each player (minus the GM's identity of course)?

If everything is private than a one shot deal per player is fine. Private bidding means you have no idea what anyone else is putting up for any player. There really would be no need for a 2nd bid, unless the rare tie occurs.

Each morning/day/whatever we find out who (GM) won each player and move on. Strategies change as the draft goes along. You may think you bid highest but realize somebody else wanted player X even more.

 

[VanIslander]

If everything is private than a one shot deal per player is fine. Private bidding means you have no idea what anyone else is putting up for any player. There really would be no need for a 2nd bid,...

Private bidding?

You mean closed bidding / BLIND BIDS (we don't see any of the bids). If so, then there is no need for a second bid. Granted.

If you mean ANONYMOUS bidding (where an administrator posts bid updates) then a second/closing bid would be nice.

I've done all of these forms.

Open bidding or blind/closed bidding are the most straightforward. They are okay.
Anonymous bidding with opening and closing bids are the most fun (It's nice to see what others are bidding on and deciding whether to join a bidding war or not).

In September 2016 we did an anonymous bidding auction draft of present-day NHLers on the fantasy board. The administrator choose a set of players each day for us to bid on, and we went at it.

 

[ResilientBeast]

The problem is I work 60+ hours a week from January to April. If there's a way to automate the actual picks (and/or have seventies or someone else co-administer the draft), that would be ideal. Realistically there's no way I can keep up with the daily volume of PMs/emails to manage the draft in the first half of the year. But I should be able to keep track of everyone's spending and doing other admin work (ie settling disputes?), which I'm guessing would be more of a bi-weekly rather than daily commitment.

That being said if someone has more availability and is willing to take on the role, I'm fine with that too.

So to avoid this problem, BB and I were discussing using Google Forums. A link will be provided every day, you'll list your username and then make your bid on each player you'd like to bid on. At the end of the day the administrator just needs export the results to Excel and then name the winner.

If we can figure out a way to restrict access until the bids are over, I have enough free time to help admin in some capacity be it checking results at the end of the day, or building the back end.

That way we avoid the admins having to check 20+ pms

And just to be clear, there would or wouldn't be a chart that shows the high bid on each player (minus the GM's identity of course)?

If everything is private than a one shot deal per player is fine. Private bidding means you have no idea what anyone else is putting up for any player. There really would be no need for a 2nd bid, unless the rare tie occurs.

Each morning/day/whatever we find out who (GM) won each player and move on. Strategies change as the draft goes along. You may think you bid highest but realize somebody else wanted player X even more.

It should be totally private one bid per player.

 

[ResilientBeast]

This is an example of what we'd get every day.

Then when bidding closes, the admin would download the results as a CSV rank and sort for each player and it would be done.

Maybe tell people to PM their bids as well as a safeguard to prevent any fraudulent bids.

This shifts the work to the front end, once the forums are it becomes fairly on a day to day basis.

 

[BenchBrawl]

This is an example of what we'd get every day.

Then when bidding closes, the admin would download the results as a CSV rank and sort for each player and it would be done.

Maybe tell people to PM their bids as well as a safeguard to prevent any fraudulent bids.

This shifts the work to the front end, once the forums are it becomes fairly on a day to day basis.

I'm playing with google forms right now but I'm struggling to manage it.Once you create the form, how do you create a link such that you'll get the responses in one place from everyone that answers it?

I want to try to download the CSV and see just how easy it is to do