What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Live Snake Draft to Live Auction.. (1 Viewer)

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
Long-time redraft league wants to make the switch (or at least make it the Champ's decision).   While I think it would be fun to mix it up and I know there's plenty of good reasons to make the switch to auction that need no explanation, I do worry about the logistics, as well as additional time to complete an auction draft  (14 teams x 15-man rosters = 210 bids/claims, so not a small order).

Specifically, nobody seems to have that special someone in their life that will volunteer to be an impartial auctioneer, and I'm not expecting that to change.

Without a non-participant auctioneer, I think it can still be done, but I don't think anyone has the right to rush things along (immediately go to "going once, going twice...").   I think each player bid would have to be somewhat conversational in nature, where we're keeping the bid open until it becomes obvious that nobody is increasing the bid.   And yes, I think that's definitely going to take longer than if we had an auctioneer to rush things along.

Perhaps the lack of an impartial auctioneer is enough reason to run for the hills back to a snake.   If it's still worth pursuing, what about...

Master draft board -- do you need to have one?   I have no interest in juggling a side task while everyone else gets to concentrate on their team.   Should we just leave it up to everyone to track their own balances for themselves and all other teams (if they're being smart).   Give everyone the right to challenge a winning bid if the winning team screwed up and bid more than they have left in their budget?   If there must be a master board, only tracking the remaining team budgets, or should it include the players and/or positions / depth charts that they've already filled?

Allow $0 bids?  -- I think you allow it so that anyone that screws up the math can still fill out a full roster before the night is up.

Putting players up for bid in a clockwise / counterclockwise rotation -- If somebody throws out a player nobody wants, should they be obligated to roster them at the minimum bid?   If so, should we allow people to pass on their turn?

$100 -or- $200 budget  -- Not that important, but I think I would be less hesitant to bump the bid if it was one unit of 200, as opposed to 1/100th.   I'm guessing $100 base is more common on most cheat sheets.

Curious about the total draft time for anyone that made the switch in their live draft.  Obviously, presence of an auctioneer is a big factor.

 

bryhamm

Footballguy
Will cover your specific questions, then throw out an idea that we used that helped imo.

Master draft board -- no, I don't think this is necessary.  each owner will track their own info and most decent ones will track others as well just to see what other can bid.

Allow $0 bids?  -- no.  should be $1 at a minimum.

Putting up players -- if someone brings up a player, that owner is required to at least put the minimum bid out there.  you cannot bring up a player and then not bid on them.

budget amount -- this is whatever you want.  things get adjusted based on whatever you choose.

now for the idea:  instead of having an auctioneer, make it a blind bid and the winning bid is $1 over the cover bid (ie over the next highest bid).  everyone writes down what their max bid is (ie what would they be willing to go up to) and then every reveals at once.  this can speed things up and make it much easier for a league going to an auction style for the first time.

 

joey

Footballguy
Any chance you can use a site like yahoo to run the auction and require everyone to bring a device of some sort to the live draft? I’ve done redraft auctions through yahoo the past few years and it’s been great. But there was no desire to do it “in person” since the league members are scattered around the country. 

 

Magnum83

Footballguy
If you’re going to do an auction draft you need to do it in person and have a neutral auctioneer.  The auction draft is so much fun but does take a while.  I’m in a league where we draft in person every year.  We did it online through my fantasy league one year and it was terrible.   

12 team league with 16 man rosters.  $200 per team.  Takes us about four hours.  Slows down at the end when people run out of money.  

Auctioneer:  a must in my opinion.  Actually speeds things up.  We have a friend who is not in the league do it and he gets free beer and food all day plus free lodging.  We make a weekend of it.  I would find someone and make the same offer or pay them $100.  Totally worth it.  In the past we have had girlfriends, wives, hired waitresses, etc.  get creative.  
 

$0 bids: Negative.  Minimum $1 by the nominating manager.  Let the manager get stuck if it happens.  
 

Master Draft Board:  Necessary.  We always have a tv or monitor hooked up to a laptop that the auctioneer controls.  We have an excel spreadsheet to track it in real time.  People can refer to the spreadsheet or keep their own on their own computer.  I think Yahoo or ESPN could work too.  It just doesn’t work for our league bc it’s a keeper league.  If you don’t have a master board people will constantly be nominating people already taken and constantly asking “who just went?  How much again?”  Will slow things down.  

The draft is the part of the fantasy.  A live auction draft is the best of fantasy.  Enjoy it. 

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
now for the idea:  instead of having an auctioneer, make it a blind bid and the winning bid is $1 over the cover bid (ie over the next highest bid).  everyone writes down what their max bid is (ie what would they be willing to go up to) and then every reveals at once.  this can speed things up and make it much easier for a league going to an auction style for the first time.


Really interesting take on the blind bid here.   The blind bid has been discussed in the past and it didn't have many fans.   I think the main contention is that people hate the idea of finding out that they were way over the amount that would have won the player.   Kind of a buzzkill to find out that a big chunk of your budget went needlessly down the drain (just like it is with FAAB).  

$1 over the 2nd highest bid is intriguing.   In a perfect setting, I would probably rather do it as traditional auction, but considering we probably don't have an auctioneer, this fixes a lot  (time and fair bidding for every player).

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
Any chance you can use a site like yahoo to run the auction and require everyone to bring a device of some sort to the live draft? I’ve done redraft auctions through yahoo the past few years and it’s been great. But there was no desire to do it “in person” since the league members are scattered around the country. 


It's a way to go and I think this is probably going to make sense for most leagues that are scattered.   It gives everyone equal accessibility to a "master board", which is nice.

The downside, it would be kind of a bummer to have a live draft and have everyone buried on their phone for the actual bidding.   But people are going to be somewhat buried in their speadsheet / laptop / phone anyway.      

 

Dacomish

Footballguy
Allow $0 bids?  -- I think you allow it so that anyone that screws up the math can still fill out a full roster before the night is up.
Its been a while since I have done live auction drafts, but I think if the owner is at $0 balance and they need to still fill a roster like you said. If they have any $$ then they have to do $1 min. 

Takes me back to the time at a live draft in the late 90's when a guy literally blew his whole auction amount on Brett Farve and Randy Moss in the first 2 picks then drank for like 3 hours till everyone had filled their rosters then he got to do $0 bids to fill his.  Needless to say he finished last. 

 

Payne

Footballguy
If you’re going to do an auction draft you need to do it in person and have a neutral auctioneer.  The auction draft is so much fun but does take a while.  I’m in a league where we draft in person every year.  We did it online through my fantasy league one year and it was terrible.   

12 team league with 16 man rosters.  $200 per team.  Takes us about four hours.  Slows down at the end when people run out of money.  

Auctioneer:  a must in my opinion.  Actually speeds things up.  We have a friend who is not in the league do it and he gets free beer and food all day plus free lodging.  We make a weekend of it.  I would find someone and make the same offer or pay them $100.  Totally worth it.  In the past we have had girlfriends, wives, hired waitresses, etc.  get creative.  
 

$0 bids: Negative.  Minimum $1 by the nominating manager.  Let the manager get stuck if it happens.  
 

Master Draft Board:  Necessary.  We always have a tv or monitor hooked up to a laptop that the auctioneer controls.  We have an excel spreadsheet to track it in real time.  People can refer to the spreadsheet or keep their own on their own computer.  I think Yahoo or ESPN could work too.  It just doesn’t work for our league bc it’s a keeper league.  If you don’t have a master board people will constantly be nominating people already taken and constantly asking “who just went?  How much again?”  Will slow things down.  

The draft is the part of the fantasy.  A live auction draft is the best of fantasy.  Enjoy it. 


All this. An auctioneer is a must. Draft board a must. Min bid of $1 a must. Enjoy

 

joey

Footballguy
It's a way to go and I think this is probably going to make sense for most leagues that are scattered.   It gives everyone equal accessibility to a "master board", which is nice.

The downside, it would be kind of a bummer to have a live draft and have everyone buried on their phone for the actual bidding.   But people are going to be somewhat buried in their speadsheet / laptop / phone anyway.      
exactly true on that last point. When we had our online yahoo auction, we had a video call going at the same time as well and there was no shortage of trash talk, taunting and general chatter during the auction. And, I don’t know, I think there will be something fun about people in the same room “sneakily” hitting the +$1 button at the last second on the timer without saying a word and their rival owner they’re bidding again reacting to that and the rest of the league going “ooooh man! Joey’s not letting this guy get away”. 
I think it will still definitely be a live, interactive session but you’re letting a site like yahoo do all of the heavy lifting and the league members can still interact and have a good time. 2 cents. 

 

bryhamm

Footballguy
Really interesting take on the blind bid here.   The blind bid has been discussed in the past and it didn't have many fans.   I think the main contention is that people hate the idea of finding out that they were way over the amount that would have won the player.   Kind of a buzzkill to find out that a big chunk of your budget went needlessly down the drain (just like it is with FAAB).  

$1 over the 2nd highest bid is intriguing.   In a perfect setting, I would probably rather do it as traditional auction, but considering we probably don't have an auctioneer, this fixes a lot  (time and fair bidding for every player).


Yep.  The only thing it really doesn't fix is the situation where you can see who you are bidding against and might be willing to push your max bid a bit to make sure the other person doesn't win the player.  But this is a little minor considering all the other things it "fixes" that you've already acknowledged.

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
Yep.  The only thing it really doesn't fix is the situation where you can see who you are bidding against and might be willing to push your max bid a bit to make sure the other person doesn't win the player.  But this is a little minor considering all the other things it "fixes" that you've already acknowledged.


Really, it's how an active bid should play out if everyone was perfectly disciplined to not move off of their max number.   Obviously, that's never how the active bid goes in practice.  Like you said, people get caught up in the moment and who's in on certain players.   They might read how vociferous someone is in their bid and try to bid them up, which is a fun cat and mouse for when it works and when it backfires.   Still, it's a pretty small sacrifice to cut right to the bottom line.

Now I just need to figure out if I trust these guys not to scribble something down on their notepad.   An $11 bid is only two pen marks away when you realize your rival is about to walk off with a player at a bargain   I'm thinking maybe have every bidding owner stand up and reveal their number.   

 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
Perhaps the lack of an impartial auctioneer is enough reason to run for the hills back to a snake.   If it's still worth pursuing, what about...

Master draft board -- do you need to have one?   I have no interest in juggling a side task while everyone else gets to concentrate on their team.   Should we just leave it up to everyone to track their own balances for themselves and all other teams (if they're being smart).   Give everyone the right to challenge a winning bid if the winning team screwed up and bid more than they have left in their budget?   If there must be a master board, only tracking the remaining team budgets, or should it include the players and/or positions / depth charts that they've already filled?

We have a master draft board organized by team. As teams win players, you add the player and the dollar amount under the team. Every team is responsible for maintaining their own cap. At the end of each round, take a few minutes to go over the cap team-by-team and make sure everyone is in agreement.

Allow $0 bids?  -- I think you allow it so that anyone that screws up the math can still fill out a full roster before the night is up.

No.

Putting players up for bid in a clockwise / counterclockwise rotation -- If somebody throws out a player nobody wants, should they be obligated to roster them at the minimum bid?   If so, should we allow people to pass on their turn?

We each take a turn nominating players. The player is nominated with a starting bid (usually the minimum). If no one raises the bid, the nominating person wins the player at the price they nominated him. The person nominating acts as the auctioneer. No need for an impartial auctioneer.

$100 -or- $200 budget  -- Not that important, but I think I would be less hesitant to bump the bid if it was one unit of 200, as opposed to 1/100th.   I'm guessing $100 base is more common on most cheat sheets.

Whatever you're comfortable with. We have an active roster size of 25 and set the cap for an average of $10/player, $250.

Curious about the total draft time for anyone that made the switch in their live draft.  Obviously, presence of an auctioneer is a big factor.
Starting our 20th season with a live auction. The bolded has worked for us.

 

Keith R

The Don
Any chance you can use a site like yahoo to run the auction and require everyone to bring a device of some sort to the live draft? I’ve done redraft auctions through yahoo the past few years and it’s been great. But there was no desire to do it “in person” since the league members are scattered around the country. 
Yes, the Yahoo Auction function works quite well and eliminates the need for an auctioneer.  You can still meet in person and auction on your devices

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
Why would someone be against $0 bids? I don't see it as logically any different to requiring a $1 minimum


I feel the same way.   I have one guy in my league who's vehement about "you can't have free players", but it seems he has plenty of company.   

At the end of the day, if someone screws up the math and can't fill their entire roster, you're still going to let them fill it out at the end, so those players are still essentially a $0 bid.   I guess you could turn the screws on them and say that they don't even get to do that at the draft.   They have to wait until just before the season starts to fill out their roster, but I wouldn't be a fan of that.   I don't see the harm in letting them try to claim a $0 player when it's their turn.   It's good humor to always see them get trumped by a $1 bid for the duration of the draft.

It kind of adds another element of strategy later in the draft.   Once everyone is down under $30 and every buck really has value from a leverage standpoint on the few remaining prized assets, there's a small group of players where if it's my turn, I might be willing to use a roster spot on them and take them for free, but no way do I want to use $1 of my $28 remaining, given there's a handful of players that actually matter.   So I can throw out his name and be happy to claim him at $0 to fill out my bench, but I would be just as happy if that initial $0 bid actually forces a rival with a comparable remaining balance to cough up the $1 bid to stop me.

If I'm obligated to burn 1/28th of my remaining budget and the roster spot, I feel like I might need to think a lot harder about the player I'm throwing out, or just pass (if allowed) so that I maintain my full remaining balance to price enforce or win one of the remaining prized players. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

titusbramble

Footballguy
Yep. If anyone can point out the logical difference between a 20 player auction, one where you get $180 and you can bid zero, and another where you get $200 and you can't, be my guest

 

Gally

Footballguy
It kind of adds another element of strategy later in the draft.   Once everyone is down under $30 and every buck really has value from a leverage standpoint on the few remaining prized assets, there's a small group of players where if it's my turn, I might be willing to use a roster spot on them and take them for free, but no way do I want to use $1 of my $28 remaining, given there's a handful of players that actually matter.   So I can throw out his name and be happy to claim him at $0 to fill out my bench, but I would be just as happy if that initial $0 bid actually forces a rival with a comparable remaining balance to cough up the $1 bid to stop me.

If I'm obligated to burn 1/28th of my remaining budget and the roster spot, I feel like I might need to think a lot harder about the player I'm throwing out, or just pass (if allowed) so that I maintain my full remaining balance to price enforce or win one of the remaining prized players. 
I think you should have to have money to throw out a player to bid.  You can get players for $0 at the end of the auction if you overspend but to nominate someone you need to have money.  That is the penalty for running out of money and not budgeting well enough.  

I understand the idea of a $0 bid to throw out a name but some of the strategy of the bid order is having a guy that needs to bid on someone.  Having a $0 bid option it basically gives you a pass to some degree.  Plus there should be some punishment for running out of money.  And that is waiting until everyone else has picked over the dregs and you get what's left.  

Another option we have done in the past is to do a hybrid auction/draft.   You auction the first 5 or 10 rounds and then draft the remaining rounds.  The team with the most money remaining after the auction gets the first pick of the draft rounds.  You can either do it as first pick every round if you want people to save money for added benefit in going cheap or still have it a snake draft where the first round order is based on money remaining.  Still strategic on whether you spend all your money or not but not as big of a deal.  

 

song

Footballguy
Long-time redraft league wants to make the switch (or at least make it the Champ's decision).   While I think it would be fun to mix it up and I know there's plenty of good reasons to make the switch to auction that need no explanation, I do worry about the logistics, as well as additional time to complete an auction draft  (14 teams x 15-man rosters = 210 bids/claims, so not a small order).

Specifically, nobody seems to have that special someone in their life that will volunteer to be an impartial auctioneer, and I'm not expecting that to change.

Without a non-participant auctioneer, I think it can still be done, but I don't think anyone has the right to rush things along (immediately go to "going once, going twice...").   I think each player bid would have to be somewhat conversational in nature, where we're keeping the bid open until it becomes obvious that nobody is increasing the bid.   And yes, I think that's definitely going to take longer than if we had an auctioneer to rush things along.

Perhaps the lack of an impartial auctioneer is enough reason to run for the hills back to a snake.   If it's still worth pursuing, what about...

Master draft board -- do you need to have one?   I have no interest in juggling a side task while everyone else gets to concentrate on their team.   Should we just leave it up to everyone to track their own balances for themselves and all other teams (if they're being smart).   Give everyone the right to challenge a winning bid if the winning team screwed up and bid more than they have left in their budget?   If there must be a master board, only tracking the remaining team budgets, or should it include the players and/or positions / depth charts that they've already filled?

Allow $0 bids?  -- I think you allow it so that anyone that screws up the math can still fill out a full roster before the night is up.

Putting players up for bid in a clockwise / counterclockwise rotation -- If somebody throws out a player nobody wants, should they be obligated to roster them at the minimum bid?   If so, should we allow people to pass on their turn?

$100 -or- $200 budget  -- Not that important, but I think I would be less hesitant to bump the bid if it was one unit of 200, as opposed to 1/100th.   I'm guessing $100 base is more common on most cheat sheets.

Curious about the total draft time for anyone that made the switch in their live draft.  Obviously, presence of an auctioneer is a big factor.
interesting seeing the different opinions.  i was commissioner of a keeper auction baseball league for about 30 years. (and in draft redraft and dynasty football leagues about as long). 

auction day was always the most exciting day of the year.  we usually bid on about 150 to 180 players each year, and it took a long time.  probably 7-9 hours, and some moaned about that, but for some it was great competitive fun with friends once a year, what's the big deal?

we never used an auctioneer.  that sounds kind of horrible to me.  we took turns nominating players with a minimum bid of 1 unit, and went around in our predetermined order with  each manager either increasing the bid (any amount), or passing.  pass and you're out of the bidding on that player.  bidding continues until no one increases the last bid.  i don't see a problem with nominating a player with a 0 bid, as long as the nominator gets stuck with the player if no one bids 1.  a great part of the strategy is deciding whether to nominate someone you don't want and risk getting stuck with them if no one outbids you, so no, skipping your turn nominating is not an option.  similarly, with every bid you have an opportunity to drive up the bidding (drain other's units), but also risk maybe getting a player when you would rather spend on someone else.  great fun.

no need for a master board.  certainly the commish should be keeping track of everyone's roster and # of players needed and units remaining, so there really should be no chance of screwing up the math and bidding units you don't have. i think managers should be responsible for their own master lists.  we gave each manager sheets where they could keep track of everyone's roster and unit's remaining.  as the years went on, almost everyone  started keeping track of that as they recognized the competitive advantage. (at least until they got too drunk)  several times in the course of the auction, anyone might call out for a check on each team's # of players needed and unit's remaining.

it doesn't matter how many units are assigned per team so long as all get the same.

the only thing you didn't address that i would add, is that in the interest of saving time, it would be a good idea to limit the amount of time a manager may take in considering their bid on a nominated player, maybe a minute or so.  this would require a timekeeper (probably much easier to find than an auctioneer) (maybe buy them a sandwich and some beer).  it would be nice to provide a 10 second warning, and then no bid would be a pass.  we didn't do this, but probably some limit would have been a good idea.

 

Gally

Footballguy
For nomination order we draw numbers out of a hat for 5 rounds of nominations.  Then recycle the order.   There is some strategy involved in nominating players and by having a random draft order it can add some interesting game play.  

 

Pipes

Footballguy
Hate the idea of $0 bids.  I don't believe people should be bailed out for poor cap management.  You need 6 players you better have $6 left or you're going with a shorter roster.  Have done it this way for 20 years and our entire league understands and likes it.  Even the guys that consistently run short of cash.  Guess I'd have to try it the other way to see how'd I'd really hate it as much as I think i would.

 

Keith R

The Don
Hate the idea of $0 bids.  I don't believe people should be bailed out for poor cap management.  You need 6 players you better have $6 left or you're going with a shorter roster.  Have done it this way for 20 years and our entire league understands and likes it.  Even the guys that consistently run short of cash.  Guess I'd have to try it the other way to see how'd I'd really hate it as much as I think i would.
So the argument against the $0 bids is that such teams end the auction with a shorter roster but then are free to immediately fill empty slots through free agency, right?  Seems like 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other.  I guess I would oppose the $0 bids just for efficiency sake then.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
I understand the idea of a $0 bid to throw out a name but some of the strategy of the bid order is having a guy that needs to bid on someone.  Having a $0 bid option it basically gives you a pass to some degree.  Plus there should be some punishment for running out of money.  And that is waiting until everyone else has picked over the dregs and you get what's left.   


$0 vs $1 minimum bids is ultimately very small potatoes.   Personally, I don't like the idea that as part of this guy's "punishment", he gets to fill out his bench at the end with $0 players, while the rest of the league was spending $1 for theirs.   If anyone is going to get free players (even rejects), why not just make them available to anyone if they're not in enough demand to elicit a $1 bump?

I also don't like the idea of, "you go sit in the corner now and think about what you did."   I'd rather let them continue to participate, and try to sneak through a $0 player that nobody is willing to shed a dollar for.   In the $0 auctions I've done, they inevitably get too greedy and name a player that's just a good enough that someone will decide to throw their buck at.   It's more satisfying to see them get rejected round after round for marginally rosterable players.

From a more practical standpoint, I think the $1 minimum adds some "clutter" to the auction that serves no meaningful purpose.   If you allow $0 bids, everybody's current remaining balance towards the end of the draft is equal to their purchasing power for any one remaining player.   When you make $1 the minimum, now every team's remaining balance comes with a caveat.    I have $16.   Moneybags still has $19, but he has five less bench players than me, so he's going to whittle that away when he fills out his bench with X, Y, and Z.   It's cleaner to have the current team balances always equal their purchasing power for any individual player, by allowing $0 bids.   But again, small potatoes.   

 

wlwiles

Footballguy
Played in one league that did an auction draft for 7 years, then the league folded.  Miss those guys...

Anyway - we did things a little different it sounds like.  

1.  League champ nominates the first player of the draft.  After that, whoever wins the bid nominates the next guy, and the winner of that player nominates the next...

2.  Champ nominates Tom Brady as the first pick of the draft.  We then go clockwise around the room, bid or pass by each person.  First person to say pass becomes the auctioneer/timekeeper for that player/bid, and once you pass you can't get back in on the player.  Really fun to see a guy get pissed because he passed figuring a bidding war, then wish he could jump back in because the player is going too cheaply.  After X picks we randomize seats so that John isn't bidding after Joe the entire draft.  

3.  Have Excel or some type of big board up on a screen for all to see.  I get that the commish doesn't want to be messing with it and wants to be "free to focus on the auction" like everyone else but it really doesn't take but a few seconds after each pick to update the board.  You can rotate this responsibility every X picks if you like, but not having one leads to too many disputes about remaining budgets.  

4. No $0 bids.  If you mess up the math your punishment is filling out the rest of your team at the end. If multiple people end up broke then draw straws/flip coin/pushup contest/whatever to determine who goes first, and then they take turns until teams are filled out.  

 

Gally

Footballguy
From a more practical standpoint, I think the $1 minimum adds some "clutter" to the auction that serves no meaningful purpose.   If you allow $0 bids, everybody's current remaining balance towards the end of the draft is equal to their purchasing power for any one remaining player.   When you make $1 the minimum, now every team's remaining balance comes with a caveat.    I have $16.   Moneybags still has $19, but he has five less bench players than me, so he's going to whittle that away when he fills out his bench with X, Y, and Z.   It's cleaner to have the current team balances always equal their purchasing power for any individual player, by allowing $0 bids.   But again, small potatoes.   
The bold is what auction strategy is all about.  That is the position you are trying to always be in.  The guy that controls the draft with money.  I am not sure why allowing $0 makes it "cleaner".  

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
Another option we have done in the past is to do a hybrid auction/draft.   You auction the first 5 or 10 rounds and then draft the remaining rounds.  The team with the most money remaining after the auction gets the first pick of the draft rounds.  You can either do it as first pick every round if you want people to save money for added benefit in going cheap or still have it a snake draft where the first round order is based on money remaining.  Still strategic on whether you spend all your money or not but not as big of a deal.  


10 player per team auction with a snake draft for the final 5 rounds is definitely under consideration.   It does change the math in that a team could spend themselves dry with 2 or 3 of the best studs in a full auction, and then they're truly stuck until the very bitter end.   Spending up for a 2 or 3 studs is much more viable when you're guaranteed 7 or 8 decent "free" players at the end of the 10 player auction (9th-10th round equivalents),  plus half-decent bench players in the snake rounds 11, 12, 13,.. , but this should also drive up the price of the studs accordingly.

Our current system in redraft is technically, kind of a hybrid (but basically a full snake).   About 5 years ago, we decided to allow teams to use their FAAB budgets to "bid" for their spot in the 1st round.   As soon as we have a bid, we make them pick and go on to the next spot.  When we get to the point that nobody bids, then we just slot teams in with their full FAAB intact and commence with a normal snake draft.   People seemed to like the change.   It's fundamentally still a snake draft, you just have the ability to target the first round player (and snake position) of your choosing instead of leaving it to a random draw.  It will, however, cost you a pretty chunk of your FAAB if you want one of the top guys.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pipes

Footballguy
So the argument against the $0 bids is that such teams end the auction with a shorter roster but then are free to immediately fill empty slots through free agency, right?  Seems like 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other.  I guess I would oppose the $0 bids just for efficiency sake then.
Nope all players are a minimum of $1 so you need cap space to pick players up.  You cut or IR a player that money becomes available.  

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
The bold is what auction strategy is all about.  That is the position you are trying to always be in.  The guy that controls the draft with money.  I am not sure why allowing $0 makes it "cleaner".  
It makes it cleaner because if there's a clear top remaining player, you know exactly which owner has the position to win him when that name gets called.   Whatever team has the highest budget remaining, is that team.   Ascertainable with one glance.   There's still plenty of strategy of, do I call that name now, let him spend out and get it over with, or should I try to tempt him with a great value for a lesser player that will take him off the top spot.   

When you make $1 the minimum, now all twelve of the remaining team budgets are a math equation away from knowing who actually has control to make the highest bid for a single player.   It's simple arithmetic, but it's still 12 separate equations to get to the truth.   Of course, if you're going to just allow these teams that don't have enough bucks to simply fill in their roster for $0 at the end, then this doesn't really apply and no arithmetic is necessary.   But in that case, what's the point of making everyone else spend $1 for a player that has no demand, if you're ultimately going to allow $0 players for teams that supposedly screwed up.

...btw, I'm not sure that they did screw up, if they're granted the special privilege of $0 players that most of the league isn't getting.   If the guy they spent out on was worth it, then all part of the strategy, but that's not the point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
Nope all players are a minimum of $1 so you need cap space to pick players up.  You cut or IR a player that money becomes available.  


If the draft auction is part of a league cap system, then that's a bird of another feather.   I get why the $1 minimum would need to be there.   So are you saying that if Team A spent $98 of their $100, and found a trade in week 3 to send their $2 player to Team B for a $5 player, then that wouldn't work under your league's cap structure even if both teams were otherwise agreeable to the trade?

I'm assuming all in-season free agents would carry a $1 hit towards the cap, or whatever their value was if they were drafted?

 

Pipes

Footballguy
If the draft auction is part of a league cap system, then that's a bird of another feather.   I get why the $1 minimum would need to be there.   So are you saying that if Team A spent $98 of their $100, and found a trade in week 3 to send their $2 player to Team B for a $5 player, then that wouldn't work under your league's cap structure even if both teams were otherwise agreeable to the trade?

I'm assuming all in-season free agents would carry a $1 hit towards the cap, or whatever their value was if they were drafted?
Yep it's a hard cap so they'd have to figure out a way to make the cap work.  After the draft all non drafted players are $1.  We start with $200.  Not saying it's a perfect system but we've been doing it this way for a while and it works for us.  Bunch of trades happen too so it rarely an issue to make the trade work cap wise, just have to get creative at times.  As an accountant I love that sort of thing so probably why it's my favorite league.

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
Yep it's a hard cap so they'd have to figure out a way to make the cap work.  After the draft all non drafted players are $1.  We start with $200.  Not saying it's a perfect system but we've been doing it this way for a while and it works for us.  Bunch of trades happen too so it rarely an issue to make the trade work cap wise, just have to get creative at times.  As an accountant I love that sort of thing so probably why it's my favorite league.


Interesting.   I would imagine that under this structure, a 1st round redraft equivalent player at the draft that's serviceable, but a bust relative to a cap hit that's eating 40% of his team's cap, might get dropped and rot on the waiver wire?   **if any team adding him is on the hook for the original auction value.

I can see where it would create some interesting trades.   I'll eat this bad contract if you give me these two $1 free agents that are killing it.

 

Lehigh98

Footballguy
We just had whoever nominated the player say "going once", "going twice", "sold" to end it.

No one was enough of a #%$ to try and short the bidding or anything.

Auctions didn't end up taking that much longer than a regular snake draft, maybe we drafted slow...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Amused to Death

Footballguy
titusbramble said:
Why would someone be against $0 bids? I don't see it as logically any different to requiring a $1 minimum
Because everyone needs to fill their roster within the same cap? There should be no free players - manage your cap accordingly. Its all part of the strategy. If you still need a K and D and you're bidding on a player, make sure you save at least $2.

 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
sushinsky4tsar said:
Interesting.   I would imagine that under this structure, a 1st round redraft equivalent player at the draft that's serviceable, but a bust relative to a cap hit that's eating 40% of his team's cap, might get dropped and rot on the waiver wire?   **if any team adding him is on the hook for the original auction value.

I can see where it would create some interesting trades.   I'll eat this bad contract if you give me these two $1 free agents that are killing it.
We have a rule that you can't trade cap money, so all trades must fit under the cap (i.e. you can't trade a $20 player for 2 $1 players unless it still fits under your cap).
A dropped player still counts half their value to your cap (if you drop a $10 player, you only recoup $5 of cap space). All  waiver pickups count for $1 to your cap.

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
Because everyone needs to fill their roster within the same cap? There should be no free players - manage your cap accordingly. Its all part of the strategy. If you still need a K and D and you're bidding on a player, make sure you save at least $2.


I don't think anyone is contesting a minimum $1 bid if that bid is part of an in-season salary cap structure; you need to have the placeholder.     However, when the purpose of an auction draft is just to distribute players and then you can move forward with that roster doing whatever you like in terms of trades without their original auction price factoring in as any constraint, then I think that's where the question lies.

I'll put it this way, when we've discussed auction, we have one guy in our league that was initially very insistent on a $1 minimum.    When we asked him to explain, all he could say was "every player should have a value!".   I can see that side of it.    You're willing to roster the player, so he must have some value, give him a minimum token value of $1.   On the $0 side, I think you could also argue that if you nominate a player and nobody is willing to spend $1 to check you, then maybe that's the indicator that said player really has no value.    So I think you could go either way on that from a purely theoretical standpoint, but I prefer $0 minimums in this format because it's more practical.    If someone who spends themselves out of the auction is ultimately permitted to add players at the end of the draft for $0, then why insist on holding the teams that don't spend out to a different minimum value?

One team fills out their five worst bench players  at a cost of $0 to their budget.   The other team fills out their five worst bench players at a mandated minimum cost of $5.    Granted the $5 team gets them within the auction (most likely the end) and not at the very bitter end like the $0 team, but these guys are all going to be lotto tickets seasoned to personal taste.   The $0 team might not even be willing to trade his five for the other guy's five if he was offered.   If there's a $100 budget, being forced to burn 5% of that budget when the other team was permitted to allocate this towards  one of their stud acquisitions, that doesn't seem like much of a reward for playing within the rules.   Just allow $0 bids from the get go and nobody gains slight advantages.  Nobody needs to worry about reserving X units of their current budget to fill X roster spots.      

 
Last edited by a moderator:

titusbramble

Footballguy
Because everyone needs to fill their roster within the same cap? There should be no free players - manage your cap accordingly. Its all part of the strategy. If you still need a K and D and you're bidding on a player, make sure you save at least $2.


Maybe this is a live thing as I have only ever done auctions (or FF full stop) online, but if you are doing an auction where you require a $1 minimum bid, do you have a mechanism in place to stop someone saying "I bid my entire budget on Jonathan Taylor herp derp" with the first bid, because they would then have no money to fill out roster spots? Or if it is, say, $100 budget with 16 roster spots, can they only bid $85 tops? Because if it is the latter, it is logically EXACTLY THE SAME as allowing $0 bids - your budget is just slightly deeper.

 

matuski

Footballguy
Any chance you can use a site like yahoo to run the auction and require everyone to bring a device of some sort to the live draft? I’ve done redraft auctions through yahoo the past few years and it’s been great. But there was no desire to do it “in person” since the league members are scattered around the country. 


This is what we do.

Just have everyone bring the laptop.. you don't lose anything by doing this imo.  And the inevitable adult/professional/parent that cant make it live can still do it remote.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tha Guru

Footballguy
song said:
we never used an auctioneer.  that sounds kind of horrible to me.  we took turns nominating players with a minimum bid of 1 unit, and went around in our predetermined order with  each manager either increasing the bid (any amount), or passing.  pass and you're out of the bidding on that player.  bidding continues until no one increases the last bid.
This is exactly how we do our auction.  Everyone in the league loves the setup.  

 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
Maybe this is a live thing as I have only ever done auctions (or FF full stop) online, but if you are doing an auction where you require a $1 minimum bid, do you have a mechanism in place to stop someone saying "I bid my entire budget on


Jonathan Taylor


herp derp" with the first bid, because they would then have no money to fill out roster spots? Or if it is, say, $100 budget with 16 roster spots, can they only bid $85 tops? Because if it is the latter, it is logically EXACTLY THE SAME as allowing $0 bids - your budget is just slightly deeper.
You make it a requirement that you need to have a minimum number of players on your roster. But you can't have free players. That's the purpose of a cap. If you can have $0 players, what's to stop everyone from bidding their entire cap on one player and filling in with 24 $0 players?

 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
I'll put it this way, when we've discussed auction, we have one guy in our league that was initially very insistent on a $1 minimum.    When we asked him to explain, all he could say was "every player should have a value!".   I can see that side of it.    You're willing to roster the player, so he must have some value, give him a minimum token value of $1.   On the $0 side, I think you could also argue that if you nominate a player and nobody is willing to spend $1 to check you, then maybe that's the indicator that said player really has no value.    So I think you could go either way on that from a purely theoretical standpoint, but I prefer $0 minimums in this format because it's more practical.    If someone who spends themselves out of the auction is ultimately permitted to add players at the end of the draft for $0, then why insist on holding the teams that don't spend out to a different minimum value?
First, there's a lot of strategy to nominating players. Early in the auction, you generally want to nominate players you don't want. You want the other owners to spend their cap on players you don't. At some point, the auction gets down to mostly K and Ds and players you might want to take a flyer on. If you nominate a player you don't want for $1 and no else bids, you're stuck with that $1 player for season or until you drop or trade them. You can't just add them to your team for $0. If you get stuck with a $1 player you don't want, then that's on you for nominating them.

Do what you and your league want, but in our 20 years we've never had a $0 player. And if I brought it up, I'd be looked at like I had 3 heads.

 

titusbramble

Footballguy
You make it a requirement that you need to have a minimum number of players on your roster. But you can't have free players. That's the purpose of a cap. If you can have $0 players, what's to stop everyone from bidding their entire cap on one player and filling in with 24 $0 players?


What is to stop someone spending $76 on Taylor then filling in with 24 $1 players?

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
First, there's a lot of strategy to nominating players. Early in the auction, you generally want to nominate players you don't want. You want the other owners to spend their cap on players you don't. At some point, the auction gets down to mostly K and Ds and players you might want to take a flyer on. If you nominate a player you don't want for $1 and no else bids, you're stuck with that $1 player for season or until you drop or trade them. You can't just add them to your team for $0. If you get stuck with a $1 player you don't want, then that's on you for nominating them.

Do what you and your league want, but in our 20 years we've never had a $0 player. And if I brought it up, I'd be looked at like I had 3 heads.


Everything in this quote that isn't in bold applies to an auction draft whether it's a $1 minimum bid or $0.   The bold seems to represent the recurring argument for why it should be $1.   This is how we've always done it, or this is how the online auction website does it.

A "cap" is referenced, and the linked article references a "salary cap league".   Maybe it's my fantasy nomenclature that's off, but I think a "salary cap league" should only be used to describe an auction draft where those player auction values roll forward into the season and teams aren't permitted to exceed the salary cap, which is equal to the starting available units in the auction.   In this system, free agent additions in-season carry a minimum hit to your salary cap (probably $1).   In this league format, you absolutely need the $1 placeholder as a minimum bid.   I don't think anyone in this thread has contended otherwise.

But in an auction draft where your starting budget is used for the sole purpose of assembling your roster, and the value of the winning bid is completely inconsequential once the auction draft is over and everyone has their squad, then this is where the question is being asked.  On a 25-man roster, if someone thinks JT is going to be Tecmo Bowl Bo Jackson, why mandate that the max bid for JT can only get up to $76, with the other 24 players at $1?   Why can't it be $100 for JT, and $0 to the 24 other players that had zero demand from the league?

Now, if you want to have a $1 minimum for the purpose of a debilitating punishment to those that F up the math in their auction and overspend, and not allow them to fill out their roster at the end for free, making them play the entire season with fewer roster spots than the rest of the league that didn't screw up, well then $1 minimums are a great way to do that.   That's definitely not what I'm looking for in my league's live auction.   Nor am I looking to police something that doesn't need to be policed if I'm the official record.   Do they still have their available budget for this bid?   They do?   Okay, we're good.   -VS-  Okay, they have the budget for this bid, but do they have the ability to make this bid relative to the number of roster spots they still need to fill out.   Both are manageable, one  gets people out the door 5-10 minutes earlier.

I think some of you severely underestimate how drunk and bad at arithmetic a faction of my league can be after three hours in the sun.

 

Payne

Footballguy
I don't understand why anyone would entertain winning bids of $0. Minimum should always be $1.

 

joey

Footballguy
back to using yahoo for your auction, along with $1 minimum bids. I think it works great. Of course, yahoo keeps track of  your remaining maximum bid (which is calculated by allotting $1 to every remaining open roster spot and then showing what remains).  I think this is great and because everyone MUST use $1 on every player, then mid/late in the draft, you can use that against the teams you're bidding against to go just $1 over their max bid since they have to keep some money to the side to spend $1 on each remaining slot.

I'm kind of surprised there's so much resistance against the $1 min bid. I guess I thought that was the standard across all auction drafts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
back to using yahoo for your auction, along with $1 minimum bids. I think it works great. Of course, yahoo keeps track of  your remaining maximum bid (which is calculated by allotting $1 to every remaining open roster spot and then showing what remains).  I think this is great and because everyone MUST use $1 on every player, then mid/late in the draft, you can use that against the teams you're bidding against to go just $1 over their max bid since they have to keep some money to the side to spend $1 on each remaining slot.

I'm kind of surprised there's so much resistance against the $1 min bid. I guess I thought that was the standard across all auction drafts.


Yeah, if there's automation enforcing the max bid relative to a $1 minimum for every roster spot, then I have no gripes with the $1 minimum.   I'm assuming yahoo would show you  every team's remaining budget and their maximum bid potential for the current bid, or do they only do that last part for your team?

My preference for $0 is based in a live "cattle call" auction setting.   If you're going to use a $1 minimum in this setting and then a team goes over what their maximum bid should have been to complete their roster (either because it's allowed or that nobody noticed), I hate the idea of allowing this owner to complete their team with $0 players at the end while everyone else is going home and just happy to be out of there.   I guess as long as everyone knew that this would be permitted coming in, then it's not the end of the world.   Just kind of unsightly.           

For live bidding, there is actually another reason why I think $0 is slightly better than $1, pertaining to opening bid strategy and promoting more bids, but It's so deep in the weeds that I won't even go there.

Do you notice a flurry of +1 bids in the closing seconds of yahoo bidding for a large number of the players?

 

joey

Footballguy
Yeah, if there's automation enforcing the max bid relative to a $1 minimum for every roster spot, then I have no gripes with the $1 minimum.   I'm assuming yahoo would show you  every team's remaining budget and their maximum bid potential for the current bid, or do they only do that last part for your team?

My preference for $0 is based in a live "cattle call" auction setting.   If you're going to use a $1 minimum in this setting and then a team goes over what their maximum bid should have been to complete their roster (either because it's allowed or that nobody noticed), I hate the idea of allowing this owner to complete their team with $0 players at the end while everyone else is going home and just happy to be out of there.   I guess as long as everyone knew that this would be permitted coming in, then it's not the end of the world.   Just kind of unsightly.           

For live bidding, there is actually another reason why I think $0 is slightly better than $1, pertaining to opening bid strategy and promoting more bids, but It's so deep in the weeds that I won't even go there.

Do you notice a flurry of +1 bids in the closing seconds of yahoo bidding for a large number of the players?
to the first bolded comment: yes. Yahoo, for a “simple, lowest common denominator fantasy site” is a really great interface for fantasy. Shows you the info you need. Runs waivers predictably. I really like it for all of my leagues that are pretty “standard” formats. 
 

to the 2nd bolded: yeah, there are definitely +1’s but I wouldn’t say for a large number of the players. People fight for the players they want, and it feels like +1 is an “appropriate amount” over the entire draft. 

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
to the 2nd bolded: yeah, there are definitely +1’s but I wouldn’t say for a large number of the players. People fight for the players they want, and it feels like +1 is an “appropriate amount” over the entire draft. 


Thanks, this is very good info to know.   I'm slightly hesitant on going the yahoo/online route if a +1 button mashing contest ensues in the  closing seconds  to settle a fair portion of the player bids.  It's definitely not a deal breaker, but I could see a couple of teams reaching a stalemate on a fairly conservative number, things going quiet for 20 seconds, and then 3 or 4 owners mashing the '+1' in the last 1 or 2 seconds.  In some sense, the winner of this mashing contest is walking away with a bargain, since the price probably would have eventually reached a truer market value if the '+1' is allowed to continue until reaching a price where people back off. 

To put it another way, an auctioneer's job is to allow the maximum bid to come to the table in a reasonable timeframe before making the "SOLD!!" call.   This is a situation where yahoo bidding is leaving some money on the table that otherwise could have been extracted if the bidding plays out to completion, unbound by a timer clock.   Ultimately, it's not a big deal.   Nobody has any right to complain since they could have simply entered a stronger bid that they were comfortable with instead of playing for a mashing contest.   After the first "steal", the bidding should adjust accordingly with more price enforcement bids.   Not to mention that the online timer keeps things moving.           

Ultimately, probably going this route when the first owner says they can't make the live auction.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top