A potential fix for bidding

“ Playoff Bren: I'm sorry but you shouldn't be allowed to bid someone up to an unreasonable price because all your friends go for 500k”



I’ve been sitting on an idea of a different way of doing bidding for a little bit now, but I think Bren’s frustration here illustrates one of the flaws in the current system. There’s really nobody to blame here though, why shouldn’t Anaheim use their cap space to make sure they get the best available player to fill in their remaining position of need? Should they be punished for being successful early into bidding? Of course not.



Then you have the opposite example, where a team gets sniped on a few key bids and now they’re left scrambling because they have 30 million in cap space but half the guys they would want to throw extra money on have already been snagged for dirt cheap. Cap space should be a weapon for the entirety of bidding, instead you usually get stuck overpaying out the ass for 1 or 2 guys and hoping you can string together a competitive lineup out of players other teams have overlooked.



Trying to draw comparisons between real life free agency and LGHL bidding is often a futile exercise, one of the areas where I think we’re way off base though is guys wouldn’t be signing for the league minimum a few hours into free agency. We see it every season as those first bids expire, people in disbelief that someone so good went for so cheap when in reality if it was a more realistic bidding you would see teams that missed out on someone just turn their attention and cap space to the next best player.



How would it be fixed?



For the sake of clarity I’m going to put cap values, and time periods in here to illustrate what I’m going for. If this idea picks up steam I would expect the values and time windows to be discussed and voted on by management.



I think we would see a much more evenly balanced bidding if we started out with the minimum bid on players being 5M. Starting off the bidding with the top guys and letting everything trickle down I believe is more representative of how an open market would work and will lead to a more balanced bidding. For teams that like to get their own guys, they still have the opportunity to overpay by putting them up a bit earlier than other teams would want.


As time continues to go through bidding, the minimum bid drops. Maybe after the first 12 hours the minimum drops to 3M and another then 9pm the second day of bidding the minimum is 1.5M. Finally after 36 hours the minimum bid would drop to 500k.



To be clear, only the minimum bid is being adjusted by this proposal. There is no maximum bid at any point in this system, someone put on the board later into bidding could end up being the highest paid player but the entire point of the system would encourage you to put someone up early if you believe they’re worthy of that price.



Making this change would completely change the strategy that goes into bidding, and most importantly to me means that you don’t get screwed over for having an abundance of cap space after the first 12 or so hours. If things don’t go well early, you can still try to build a competitive team because of the amount of players remaining.



This won’t just fix everything, you’re definitely going to see guys in that 2nd and 3rd tier getting overpaid just as we do now. What I think this does though is eliminate a team getting screwed because they got locked out of that initial wave. Guys who currently sneak through early for 500k will end up on larger contracts, which hopefully helps reduce some of the more bloated contracts you see on the 2nd and 3rd day of bidding.



The only thing that's been pointed out that I don't necessarily have a good solution for is what to do about goalies, personally I think it's fine that goalies just wait it out a bit unless someone wants to pay them like a 1st liner. However, others have asked so it's something I'm open to hearing ideas on.


I've discussed this privately with a handful of people and most of the feedback has been positive so I figured I would post it, I also spoke with Tris who told me it's doable on the site.



TL;DR Big bids go first, low bids go later.

 

Great idea.
He’s the problem, you don’t know if your friends are going for 500k. Once you get the 500k bids locked up is where you know you can spend a little more. The problem bud where you run into is people are trying to get them as cheap as possible so the just bid the minimum amount they can instead of going up another 500 to 75OK. You will see in Nhl bidding if you watch, good second and first liners don’t start out at 500k. So it’s all strategy. And I think the guys that would have gone cheap would actually cost more in this system.

 

Hra-ow has stepped down

 

I just think it's a different strategy, you're still going to have steals and bloated contracts but what you're removing is an early steal leading to a bloated contract.

 

I would think this would just result in teams waiting until the minimum dropped to 500k to start bidding. Seems like putting a delay on the system in place.

 

That would mean potentially missing out on first liners, so doubt a team doesn’t drop at least some of their bread on a top guy.

 

So either you're saying every team will collectively decide to wait until 500k starts (not happening) or a team will wait until then and miss out essentially all the guys that the community agrees are above a 500k bid. That sounds like a personal problem.

 

I’m conflicted with this because I want to like it, but the more I think on it, the more I think it’s a mistake. The idea that the elite talent goes first in FA is a valid one, so the idea of people focusing there to make it more realistic is a good one. However, I think it opens up some issues:

1. Why should management be penalized for getting undervalued contracts early in bidding? It’s also their reward to be able to bid up or overpay on someone with the extra space.

2. Managers only get “locked out” if they don’t keep a bid spot open at each position early on in bidding. The only spot you don’t necessarily have to keep open is goalie. If a manager chooses not to do that, well then that’s their fault.

The intent of this post is great because I am all for creating more balanced teams and a more competitive and balanced LG environment. I just don’t think that restricting things managers can do in bidding is the way to do it.

I still ultimately think the biggest issue with LG is the management dilemma. Having free contracts puts some teams at a clear advantage and makes it extremely difficult for any G to take a non PAGM role. That’s a big issue to me because every season there are borderline AHL management players getting NHL teams. You also have the unfortunate situation where Lou is being forced to manage his own AHL team. There aren’t enough quality management options. How many people don’t manage cause they aren’t worth the free contract? Should that be what we use to define a good manager? If a system could be created to fix that issue, you would have more people available to manage and in theory would be smart enough not to lock themselves out in bidding. It would also help to create more balanced teams. The issue though then becomes, how many big name players will stay and play LG if they don’t have increased odds of a cup out the gate? Will they just opt to focus solely on E-sports?

 

I think this would work well for higher leagues for sure. As you get down to the C tho, there are far too many incompetent owners who would spend 5+ way too quickly on a guy who is a third line level player. Great idea tho!

 

TLDR? I’m not reading all of that

 

Not trying to penalize anybody, it's just a different system and strategy. There's nothing in the current system that prevents a management team from holding their space and slots, it's a fair point. However, recent history has shown that the longer someone is on the bid board at a low price, the more likely they are to end up on a bloated contract. It's why teams are so aggressive early with their bids and bid slots, you want your guys locked up before teams start to miss out on guys they want and have to go to a plan B.

 

I think this could be another way to do it and would be fun and different. I think this will make the top guys go for less but lower end guys will shoot up in price. So another good way to do bidding, but not exactly an improvement from what we have.

 

it is definately something that should be looked further into and like all other things here in LG we can use the AHL or CHL for test runs, just need to have the whole idea in place be4 getting it tried out, @Stewkos definately think your on to something, hopefully with the help of others you guys can find a forumla that 100% works.

 

I wouldn’t be opposed to trying it. I agree that people do end up on bloated contracts at the end of bidding. I don’t know if this would definitively fix it but it would be worth exploring. There’s no denying that a bad contract for a player almost always ruins that players season cause he ends up getting overpaid on a team whose bidding plan fell through and so the team is on lower side of talent. Then he gets bounced around between other teams who are trying to change things up. Sometimes it works but most
Of the time it’s a season to forget for the player. So yeah, I think it’s worth exploring for that reason. I still think it will push some away from management though and that’s a concern with the lack of depth we have for management already.

 

Bidding is always a shit show. Speaking for myself, I was very lucky to go where I did, especially at 10.75m on my 3rd best position. However, I think it is pretty well known that you should always expect the worst out of bidding. Bren's quote at the top is a great example of how a lot of people structure their teams, whether its a viable structure or not, a lot of people do it. They have their guys that they want to get and if they cash out on good contracts they are gonna use even more cap to get the player(s) that they want or need. If you really don't want to go for a lot in bidding, then try to manage. People are always asking for GMs til the last days pre-bidding and there are also usually vacant teams that need an owner. Its either you manage or expect the worst in bidding. Maybe someday there is a compromise to having these ludacris contracts that benefits both the players and the teams, but until then, if you go into bidding its the path you have chosen and you should be ready for whatever comes next IMO.

 

The same thing happens in real life though. Teams miss out on free agents they were targeting and some GMs will play panic and over spend just to get someone. The only difference players in real life want to get paid as much as possible, whereas in LG you don’t.

I think it would have to take a blind, RFA auction style bidding type of solution to get the desired result.

But in reality; it’s just a 3-4 month season, you can’t be forced to take more than a one season contact, it’s not really that big of a deal.

 

In the words of @Drew x 8 , snake draft.

 

First season as an LG GM here. Ive been a HC and AGM in real life for quite a few years. Covid put a halt on a lot of things, so here I am. I brought a small market bottom-feeder team to a top 4 in the country. Coincidentally- I’ve done the same thing with the LGECHL Newfoundland Growlers. I’ve built my own team, and more importantly my own line off of the “buddy system” and have positioned myself better than any other GM has through my LG career. THERE ARE a lot of management positions occupied by guys that are really just out there playing BINGO and not making calculated moves to build a real good competitive team. We also all need to understand that not everyone is blessed with the same mindset and capabilities. This is a free league and you’ll get a wide range of knowledge in those positions. I think the current process is bang on. Collect your $500K bids early, understand what type of cap you have remaining and know what studs you want and or can afford. Understanding value, depth, personnel, character and availability is the managers job. Create player relations and do your job!!
this GM work has been easy peasy- because I know the details of the job.

aside from the server selection(I believe home team should choose, and visitors given opportunity to line match and accommodate servers)

and I believe late registrations need to be elmiminated or there needs to be a cap on the total player limit. Late registers should wait until a player is banned, quits or retires. When a spot opens up, the next man in que enters the league. Reason is obvious. An RA player avoids bidding, gets cheap contract, demands trade to a friends team. That player should not be eligible for the league upon registration- punishment for not signing up on time.
Aside from that, Bidding settings are perfect in my opinion!!

 

I think a better solution to this would be extended the time someone remains “open” for a bid, I wonder if keeping bids open for the enitire duration of bidding would be a better alternative, it would allow for teams to go hard after big name players they want early without the potential of missing out on other guys for cheap and would prevent the bloating of contracts of the remaining top guys in the dying hours of bidding, all this being said though I feel like it does punish a good manager who is able to indentify his targets and implement his game plan well

 

just no smh