I'm looking at this whole bidding process, and looking at the rules, and it seems like I'm missing something.

How do we figure "r"? The rules say it's a "maximum" of ±10% (I get that the + is for increases and the - is for decreases). But we can just go and use any % we want when figuring the contract bid?

Say one manager makes a bid for a guy at 5M BYS. Using 10% increases, for a three year deal that would be 5 + 5.5 + 6, total of 16.5M, right?

But say another manager comes along and bids 6M BYS, but decides to only use 5% increases. His numbers would be 6 + 6.3 + 6.6, total 18.9M, right? So he in effect has a higher bid, but with a lower pay increase per year.

So where's the check and balance to that? In other words, how are we supposed to go in and double check each other for illegal bids?!? I'm looking specifically at the Toney Douglas thread, and I'm trying to do the math...and quite honestly, none of it's working out for me.

Now, I know I play dumb here sometimes with all the rules and stuff, but math IS one of my strong suites! And I'm not getting this AT ALL!

So-Tex wrote:I'm looking at this whole bidding process, and looking at the rules, and it seems like I'm missing something.

How do we figure "r"? The rules say it's a "maximum" of ±10% (I get that the + is for increases and the - is for decreases). But we can just go and use any % we want when figuring the contract bid?

Say one manager makes a bid for a guy at 5M BYS. Using 10% increases, for a three year deal that would be 5 + 5.5 + 6, total of 16.5M, right?

But say another manager comes along and bids 6M BYS, but decides to only use 5% increases. His numbers would be 6 + 6.3 + 6.6, total 18.9M, right? So he in effect has a higher bid, but with a lower pay increase per year.

So where's the check and balance to that? In other words, how are we supposed to go in and double check each other for illegal bids?!? I'm looking specifically at the Toney Douglas thread, and I'm trying to do the math...and quite honestly, none of it's working out for me.

Now, I know I play dumb here sometimes with all the rules and stuff, but math IS one of my strong suites! And I'm not getting this AT ALL!

It's still too confusing for me fellas!

If you offer a higher base salary than what 10% or in bird rights cases(15%) of the previous base salary was, you will be offering more money, and outbid the previous owner. Basically, if you offer a higher base salary you can offer a lower increase and still offer more money than a team offering a significantly lower base salary and a max increase(10%). No check or balance is needed.

5% of 8 is the same as 10% of 4, for example and because my base salary is so much higher my bid comes out way ahead. Or let's say I offer you 5% of 100, compared to 10% of 10 dollars, which one gets you more money? 5% of 100 does as my base number was much larger even those my percentage was smaller.

As for the toney Douglas thread, both of red's bids are legal. in the first one(2.2, 2.3) his increase is .1M while the max increase he could have offered is .33M(15% or .22 + .11).

In the second bid(2.8, 3.15) he could increase by .42(15% or .28+.14) and he chose to increase by .35. There is nothing wrong with either bid.

DVauthrin wrote:As for the toney Douglas thread, both of red's bids are legal. in the first one(2.2, 2.3) his increase is .1M while the max increase he could have offered is .33M(15% or .22 + .11).

In the second bid(2.8, 3.15) he could increase by .42(15% or .28+.14) and he chose to increase by .35. There is nothing wrong with either bid.

Well, first off, I'm not really questioning the legality of the bids. What I'm asking is why make the math so difficult? He could increase by .42, but chose to use .35?!?! Using what basis to start with?!?! I'm not seeing WHAT to start the freaking bid out with! THAT'S where I'm getting lost.

I can do the math - I'm not STUPID!

But is Red just pulling this number out of the air? Hell, if that's the case, I'll go in and just bid everyone up using 10% increases in my contracts and be done with it!

He has his bird rights and 15% of 2.8 is .42. His raise of .35 doesn't exceed .42 so his bid is perfectly legal.

So to what % of 1% can we make raises to? I had assumed that everyone would stick to whole numbers from 1-10. Making raises of 4.28% or whatever seems silly to me but it looks like that's how we're rolling.

DVauthrin wrote:As for the toney Douglas thread, both of red's bids are legal. in the first one(2.2, 2.3) his increase is .1M while the max increase he could have offered is .33M(15% or .22 + .11).

In the second bid(2.8, 3.15) he could increase by .42(15% or .28+.14) and he chose to increase by .35. There is nothing wrong with either bid.

Well, first off, I'm not really questioning the legality of the bids. What I'm asking is why make the math so difficult? He could increase by .42, but chose to use .35?!?! Using what basis to start with?!?! I'm not seeing WHAT to start the freaking bid out with! THAT'S where I'm getting lost.

I can do the math - I'm not STUPID!

But is Red just pulling this number out of the air? Hell, if that's the case, I'll go in and just bid everyone up using 10% increases in my contracts and be done with it!

You guys are losing me big time here!

I apologize if you feel like I'm calling you stupid. I don't think that at all. Red just decided it was within 15% and he liked that total amount, I guess. He has the right to do so.

The max increase is 10% unless you have a players bird rights in which the max increase is 15%. You can offer any percentage increase or decrease from 0%-10% or 0%-15%(in bird rights situations).

It's the owner's choice to decide the increase or decrease. As long as it falls between 0-10% or 0-15% it's fine.

He has his bird rights and 15% of 2.8 is .42. His raise of .35 doesn't exceed .42 so his bid is perfectly legal.

So to what % of 1% can we make raises to? I had assumed that everyone would stick to whole numbers from 1-10. Making raises of 4.28% or whatever seems silly to me but it looks like that's how we're rolling.

Anywhere(including decimals) between 0%-10% for non bird rights players is legal and anywhere( again including decimals) between 0%-15% for bird rights players is legal.

So-Tex wrote: Well, first off, I'm not really questioning the legality of the bids. What I'm asking is why make the math so difficult? He could increase by .42, but chose to use .35?!?! Using what basis to start with?!?! I'm not seeing WHAT to start the freaking bid out with! THAT'S where I'm getting lost.

I'm with this 110%

When I wrote the contract rules, one of my main intentions was to create a system that was simple to follow (once you understand it). That's also why I made the Contract Calculator- to help make things simple.

I had assumed that everyone would use whole numbers (1,2,3...10) for r, which was obviously a poor assumption. The idea that guys would use fractions of 1% never crossed my mind. This is the only reason why I didn't state explicitly in the rules that r should be a whole number.

Well, making contracts with raises of 4.454% or whatever is not simple to follow. Especially in these early stages of auctions, when we're not sure whether everyone understands the contract rules. I currently don't know if guys are using these types of numbers on purpose or because they are misunderstanding the rules and simply getting lucky with the 'legality'.

I guess the real question I have is why? Why not just stick to whole numbers for r? Why not just keep it simple? What is to be gained from using these irrational numbers?

dasein wrote:I guess the real question I have is why? Why not just stick to whole numbers for r? Why not just keep it simple? What is to be gained from using these irrational numbers?

That's exactly my point! I'm having a DIFFICULT time trying to sit here and figure out how a manager came up with his initial bid AND salary increases. And it doesn't make it any easier when someone else comes in with "Oh, that bid's illegal because it should have been .42 instead of .44!" WHAT?!?!

Basically D is right, keep it simple using whole numbers. I don't have the time to sit here and figure all this math out backwards just to find out what each manager is using as a % increase. And "He could have used .44, but he chose to use .35" or whatever number, is just really being silly at this point.

I will admit, when Kal had the rule in place, there was a SET formula, with a SET amount for increases. Now, it's "Just use any old decimal number between 0% and 10%...oh, and let's not forget 15% for those "Birds Rights" players...NOW GO TO TOWN!!!

You see where I'm going with this? It was supposed to be simpler, like D said. Take the base year, multiply by "X"%, and add THAT to each year of the contract. As it is, I'm seeing all sorts of squirrelly math going on! Are we just not understanding the formula the way it was written in the rules? Or am I really missing something here?!?

dasein wrote:I guess the real question I have is why? Why not just stick to whole numbers for r? Why not just keep it simple? What is to be gained from using these irrational numbers?

That's exactly my point! I'm having a DIFFICULT time trying to sit here and figure out how a manager came up with his initial bid AND salary increases. And it doesn't make it any easier when someone else comes in with "Oh, that bid's illegal because it should have been .42 instead of .44!" WHAT?!?!

Basically D is right, keep it simple using whole numbers. I don't have the time to sit here and figure all this math out backwards just to find out what each manager is using as a % increase. And "He could have used .44, but he chose to use .35" or whatever number, is just really being silly at this point.

I will admit, when Kal had the rule in place, there was a SET formula, with a SET amount for increases. Now, it's "Just use any old decimal number between 0% and 10%...oh, and let's not forget 15% for those "Birds Rights" players...NOW GO TO TOWN!!!

You see where I'm going with this? It was supposed to be simpler, like D said. Take the base year, multiply by "X"%, and add THAT to each year of the contract. As it is, I'm seeing all sorts of squirrelly math going on! Are we just not understanding the formula the way it was written in the rules? Or am I really missing something here?!?

First of all, I'll handle checking for illegal bids. You don't need to worry about it. Two, I feel like you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Let me worry about illegal bids as I can catch them within seconds. You just make your offers with whatever raise or decrease percentage you guys see fit that fits within the 10% or 15% rule.

During the next offseason we can approach tweaking the raises or decreases rules.