Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions

[Joga Bonito]

Auction drafts tend to drop off drastically after initial drafting. Drafting for reinforcements was dull iirc.

But I like the idea of a free all time draft.

I'm sure the reinforcement stages can be freshened up but then again you'd also want to ideally reward managers who've drafted economically in the initial phase and nothing's better than letting them use the extra cash in the reinforcement rounds.

But I like the idea of a free all time draft.

More than anything I just like that we can mould the sides as we wish and it's entirely under the manager's control with relatively lesser external influences (apart from bizarre price evaluations etc but the all time pool more than offsets that). Besides it's always interesting to see how certain players are rated by the managers or which type of players tend to get rated higher (B2B vs playmaking CMs etc). Can still remember Bozsik going for 10m

 

[Physiocrat]

I'm sure the reinforcement stages can be freshened up but then again you'd also want to ideally reward managers who've drafted economically in the initial phase and nothing's better than letting them use the extra cash in the reinforcement rounds.



More than anything I just like that we can mould the sides as we wish and it's entirely under the manager's control with relatively lesser external influences (apart from bizarre price evaluations etc but the all time pool more than offsets that). Besides it's always interesting to see how certain players are rated by the managers or which type of players tend to get rated higher (B2B vs playmaking CMs etc). Can still remember Bozsik going for 10m

With the auction format the main question is do you have a very restricted pool to bid on at once or an almost unlimited one. What you really want to avoid is the drafter who just waits around picks up Bozsik and others of similar quality for 10m and then cleans up in the reinforcement stage. If you had whereby you couldn't carry any money over may avoid this.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

i really hope its something else rather then the auction draft, hate those even though one of the best team i built was from that draft. Reality(think that was the name) draft would be the best, heard the last one was brilliant.

 

[mazhar13]

i really hope its something else rather then the auction draft, hate those even though one of the best team i built was from that draft. Reality(think that was the name) draft would be the best, heard the last one was brilliant.

It definitely was. EAP ran the Reality draft excellently.

I hope that we can do that again. I'm afraid that the auction draft could curb the interest in drafts, overall. It feels slower than most draft formats.

 

[Raees]

A fun draft would be nice, the last draft was informative but depended a lot on luck of the draw and the team you were provided with.

 

[Joga Bonito]

With the auction format the main question is do you have a very restricted pool to bid on at once or an almost unlimited one. What you really want to avoid is the drafter who just waits around picks up Bozsik and others of similar quality for 10m and then cleans up in the reinforcement stage. If you had whereby you couldn't carry any money over may avoid this.

That's always a danger of that happening but then again you will be left with a relatively poorer/less voter-friendly side as opposed to those who have invested more in their sides, unless of course you have done a truly cracking job and the draft is infested with Woodward-lites. Can only recall Skizzo/Pat who went for that strategy last time round and they had some cash to spare during the reinforcements, but they didn't exactly have a great (balanced) first round side and could have possibly been knocked out. They did go on to make the final after some nice reinforcing, which does lend credence to your point but it doesn't make it a risk-free strategy as such. Generally managers tend to spunk the load on a few star players and then go for cheap-ish players to fill the other slots; or go for a more evenly distributed side. For instance Aldo decided to go large on Pele, Garrincha and Ronaldo, whilst drafting astutely to 'fill' up the rest of the side (Bozsik, Gentile etc for 10m). However, he did fall to Gio/Theon's side which had it's investments spread out more evenly and a more 'balanced' team overall. Gio/Theon then fell to Cal's modern side in the semis which had CR7, Pele and Ronaldo though, so it is fairly unpredictable and there is no fixed template which guarantees success etc. Also regarding the bargains from the last auction draft (Bozsik - 10m, Suarez-10m I think etc), it's bound to happen as there are some under-appreciated greats, esp the ones from the older eras. Ultimately though, they occur because the other 15 managers had already snapped up an inferior player earlier, thinking there is no way they could afford that particular great later on in a bidding battle, or if the player doesn't seem to fit their desired tactics etc. In the sense that it isn't purely down to luck but bad planning from other managers or great drafting from that particular manager etc. Also of course, there were some overpriced players (de Boer) etc which is bound to happen given the nature of the draft, where you are always a few innocuous raises away from ludicrously hiking up the price of a player.

More than anything it's the 'balance' aspect which is more important than the GOAT factor as just about every team will have it's fair share of greats but it's about how cohesive the team is tactically and how balanced it is which is arguably more critical. For instance, many feared that without much restrictions to go about, it would result in super-teams from the off itself but that didn't materialise and many sides were lacking in balance or tactical cohesiveness. I 'unintentionally' got both Matthäus and Neeskens during drafting and whilst I believe the side would have worked, it wasn't exactly tactically optimal for certain players perhaps, in hindsight. Even both the sides in the finals weren't perfect and had some greats on the bench, whilst sporting some not-so-final-worthy players in the first team (great sides though).

 

[Joga Bonito]

It definitely was. EAP ran the Reality draft excellently.

I hope that we can do that again. I'm afraid that the auction draft could curb the interest in drafts, overall. It feels slower than most draft formats.

The drafting took just 7 days for the last auction draft tbf. Can't think of any other draft, that I've been part of, which have been anywhere near that quick.

@Physiocrat

Just had a peek at the older draft and Stob's side did precisely what you said (think he went awol during the initial stages of the draft which might have contributed to it a wee bit, but that's besides the point).

. Stobzilla 1. Blanchflower (10m) 2. V.Andrade (10m) 3. Jose Santamaria (10m) 4. Da Guia (10m) 5. J. Johnstone (10m) 6. Veron (10m) 7. Gento (30m) 8.Matthews (30m) 9. Masopust (10m)10. Coluna (10m) 11. Scifo (10m) 12.Ceulemans (10m) 13. D.Dean (10m) 14. Camacho (25m) 15. Chilavert(10m) 16.Lorenzo(10m) 17. Hatzi Panagis(10m


Cracking side with some real legends and iconic players (can't even think of a weak spot or an underwhelming player as such)

(Should have been Masopust instead, with Lorenzo on the bench and Blanchflower as the deepest midfielder imo)

but didn't matter as he lost 9-22 to Cal.

 

[Enigma_87]

What about a chain draft with decades criteria? I think was fun one and can be opened up as a pool as well.

 

[Physiocrat]

Auctions actually are conducted quite quickly but they can feel long for some reason.

My preference for the next draft (though I won't be able to play the next one) would be either an All-Time South American or European draft. Or a snake one with those born between 1955 and 1989 to have a larger pool to choose from but comparisons should be relatively easy across these decades unlike 1980 and 1930.

 

[Ecstatic]

I won't participate in the next draft but I agree with @Physiocrat : uneasy to compare a player of the 40s with someone of the 2010s.

 

[P-Nut]

I need a draft to get me back into it as I struggled with the last one. Finishing my nights in a few days and will be back on earliest which should make it a lot easier.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

How about a cocktail draft then? A concoction of auction, snake, reality, criteria, chain and sheep...all in 1 draft! Every round will be a surprise....and it'll be an all time open pool for most of the time.

Anyone up for it?

 

[Pat_Mustard]

That's always a danger of that happening but then again you will be left with a relatively poorer/less voter-friendly side as opposed to those who have invested more in their sides, unless of course you have done a truly cracking job and the draft is infested with Woodward-lites. Can only recall Skizzo/Pat who went for that strategy last time round and they had some cash to spare during the reinforcements, but they didn't exactly have a great (balanced) first round side and could have possibly been knocked out. They did go on to make the final after some nice reinforcing, which does lend credence to your point but it doesn't make it a risk-free strategy as such. Generally managers tend to spunk the load on a few star players and then go for cheap-ish players to fill the other slots; or go for a more evenly distributed side. For instance Aldo decided to go large on Pele, Garrincha and Ronaldo, whilst drafting astutely to 'fill' up the rest of the side (Bozsik, Gentile etc for 10m). However, he did fall to Gio/Theon's side which had it's investments spread out more evenly and a more 'balanced' team overall. Gio/Theon then fell to Cal's modern side in the semis which had CR7, Pele and Ronaldo though, so it is fairly unpredictable and there is no fixed template which guarantees success etc. Also regarding the bargains from the last auction draft (Bozsik - 10m, Suarez-10m I think etc), it's bound to happen as there are some under-appreciated greats, esp the ones from the older eras. Ultimately though, they occur because the other 15 managers had already snapped up an inferior player earlier, thinking there is no way they could afford that particular great later on in a bidding battle, or if the player doesn't seem to fit their desired tactics etc. In the sense that it isn't purely down to luck but bad planning from other managers or great drafting from that particular manager etc. Also of course, there were some overpriced players (de Boer) etc which is bound to happen given the nature of the draft, where you are always a few innocuous raises away from ludicrously hiking up the price of a player.

More than anything it's the 'balance' aspect which is more important than the GOAT factor as just about every team will have it's fair share of greats but it's about how cohesive the team is tactically and how balanced it is which is arguably more critical. For instance, many feared that without much restrictions to go about, it would result in super-teams from the off itself but that didn't materialise and many sides were lacking in balance or tactical cohesiveness. I 'unintentionally' got both Matthäus and Neeskens during drafting and whilst I believe the side would have worked, it wasn't exactly tactically optimal for certain players perhaps, in hindsight. Even both the sides in the finals weren't perfect and had some greats on the bench, whilst sporting some not-so-final-worthy players in the first team (great sides though).

There wasn't much strategy involved in our drafting approach TBH. IIRC @Skizzo would wake up to find that I'd been spamming bids on players we'd barely discussed, then he'd return the favour when I was gone. Hence the relatively unbalanced team. I think we did decide about halfway through to save as much money as possible and gamble on a favourable first round draw so we'd be in a good position in the reinforcement round, which worked out well in the end.

Personally I love the auction format, although I would be in favour of mitigating the number of crazy £10m bargains in some way, maybe a continent restriction or limiting the pool to 3 or 4 decades rather than a completely open pool.

 

[Skizzo]

There wasn't much strategy involved in our drafting approach TBH. IIRC @Skizzo would wake up to find that I'd been spamming bids on players we'd barely discussed, then he'd return the favour when I was gone. Hence the relatively unbalanced team. I think we did decide about halfway through to save as much money as possible and gamble on a favourable first round draw so we'd be in a good position in the reinforcement round, which worked out well in the end.

Personally I love the auction format, although I would be in favour of mitigating the number of crazy £10m bargains in some way, maybe a continent restriction or limiting the pool to 3 or 4 decades rather than a completely open pool.

Tbf, that's been our strategy in the majority of drafts we've teamed up for

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

That's always a danger of that happening but then again you will be left with a relatively poorer/less voter-friendly side as opposed to those who have invested more in their sides, unless of course you have done a truly cracking job and the draft is infested with Woodward-lites. Can only recall Skizzo/Pat who went for that strategy last time round and they had some cash to spare during the reinforcements, but they didn't exactly have a great (balanced) first round side and could have possibly been knocked out. They did go on to make the final after some nice reinforcing, which does lend credence to your point but it doesn't make it a risk-free strategy as such. Generally managers tend to spunk the load on a few star players and then go for cheap-ish players to fill the other slots; or go for a more evenly distributed side. For instance Aldo decided to go large on Pele, Garrincha and Ronaldo, whilst drafting astutely to 'fill' up the rest of the side (Bozsik, Gentile etc for 10m). However, he did fall to Gio/Theon's side which had it's investments spread out more evenly and a more 'balanced' team overall. Gio/Theon then fell to Cal's modern side in the semis which had CR7, Pele and Ronaldo though, so it is fairly unpredictable and there is no fixed template which guarantees success etc. Also regarding the bargains from the last auction draft (Bozsik - 10m, Suarez-10m I think etc), it's bound to happen as there are some under-appreciated greats, esp the ones from the older eras. Ultimately though, they occur because the other 15 managers had already snapped up an inferior player earlier, thinking there is no way they could afford that particular great later on in a bidding battle, or if the player doesn't seem to fit their desired tactics etc. In the sense that it isn't purely down to luck but bad planning from other managers or great drafting from that particular manager etc. Also of course, there were some overpriced players (de Boer) etc which is bound to happen given the nature of the draft, where you are always a few innocuous raises away from ludicrously hiking up the price of a player.

It works both ways. Annah did the exact opposite iirc, he went all in for Barca combo and spent the rest of his squad with all $10m players. Personally for me, it is a valid strategy, but Bozsik for $10m is plain ridiculous and should not be permissible in the draft. The easy solution is a restricted pool or a nationality/decade type criteria that evens up the focus....so you know you can't wait for a 'easy' $10m GOAT at later stages. The pool balance is very very crucial to this to suceed. Too small and you can end up with mediocre players going for big sums and too large means getting GOAT for pittance.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Tbf, that's been our strategy in the majority of drafts we've teamed up for

Aren't you busy somewhere else? Go back! lol

 

[Physiocrat]

We also need to work out how the matches will play out.

Here's my post from a while back on the subject:

What do we think of @Chesterlestreet 's idea of putting the poll up later in the match to encourage voters to read the thread first rather than just vote? I think it has merit although you'd still get quick fire votes when the post has been added but I think it's worth a shout - you could put it up with 12 hours to go.

On a related note any subs or tactically changes should be converted into normal match times. So if a change is made after 6 hours the sub should be noted as being changed at 23 mins to give readers a better feel of how the change would effect the game.

I like Aldo's tactics template as it is very clear how the team plays and is short. We need short OP's - walls of text of player profiles are annoying. I also think a mandatory guess of the formation and line-up of the opposing team should be in the OP. In many cases it will make little differences but tactical curve balls need to be recognised. I did it in my game against Bepo but no-one noticed.

I like the idea of a moderator but it would be a lot of work for the draft master. So I reckon as a group contributors to the threads should call out the managers when it is becoming repetitive. If they fail to stop then contributors can then tag he draft master who could in principle give a default win to one of the sides. Also I think in general encouraging posters to pose questions to the managers (and tagging them) about specific points should be encouraged.

I also think that bringing back winning by 1, 2 or 3 goals would add an element of realism again (it makes feel better that everyone thinks I'd only lose 2-1).

Goalkeepers need a shakeup. The only way to do this I think is to give them an advantage on penalties. I also think increasing the options to Left Upper, Left Ground, Centre, Right Upper, Right Ground will give a greater air of realism and allow more room to make a difference with the keepers

I think had the idea of getting posters to vote on which keeper was best although to give much of an advantage to Schmeichel over Chilavert would be unfair. I reckon a three tiered ranking of the goalkeepers from a neutral committee be created after initial drafting.

Edit: MJJ had a great idea. A team with a tier 1 vs tier 3 keeper would have a two vote by 1 goal win.

 

[Joga Bonito]

There wasn't much strategy involved in our drafting approach TBH. IIRC @Skizzo would wake up to find that I'd been spamming bids on players we'd barely discussed, then he'd return the favour when I was gone. Hence the relatively unbalanced team. I think we did decide about halfway through to save as much money as possible and gamble on a favourable first round draw so we'd be in a good position in the reinforcement round, which worked out well in the end.

Tbf, that's been our strategy in the majority of drafts we've teamed up for

It works both ways. Annah did the exact opposite iirc, he went all in for Barca combo and spent the rest of his squad with all $10m players. Personally for me, it is a valid strategy, but Bozsik for $10m is plain ridiculous and should not be permissible in the draft. The easy solution is a restricted pool or a nationality/decade type criteria that evens up the focus....so you know you can't wait for a 'easy' $10m GOAT at later stages. The pool balance is very very crucial to this to suceed. Too small and you can end up with mediocre players going for big sums and too large means getting GOAT for pittance.

Personally I love the auction format, although I would be in favour of mitigating the number of crazy £10m bargains in some way, maybe a continent restriction or limiting the pool to 3 or 4 decades rather than a completely open pool.

Yeah, perhaps a few restrictions could be introduced - for eg, limiting the number of classic players (pre-55) per side as it's most of em who end up going for 10m. I would also be careful about imposing too many restrictions as it would mean certain players could potentially get overpriced (a harsh SA/European quota for example) and it won't really reflect the fair prices of the players.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

What would you guys think of a Blind Auction Draft, something like...

Auction Mode:

A 1.1: Every round, players to nominate 1 player in the thread and PM the draft committee with their bid value. Once PM'd value cannot be changed.

A 1.2: If no bid received within 8 hrs of start of round, manager will not have any nominations and will not proceed to Phase 2 for that round.​

A 2.1: The pool will remain open for 8 hrs (after last manager has nominated and placed initial bid) enabling managers to place bids on players nominated by other managers. Note: The bids on their own players in A1.1 cannot be changed.

Results: At end of time, mods will post list of successful bids and their values in the thread.

Base Conditions:

B 1.1: Total budget: $360m.

B 1.2: Total value of recruited players + in progress bids + minimum bids on players to be recruited cannot exceed this *** See Penalty below​

B 2.1: Recruitment: Minimum 12 players. Can recruit more if within overall budget.
B 3.1: Initial mandatory bids:

$20m for Keeper;
$15m for players born on or before 31st Dec 1949;
$10m for players born on or after 1st Jan 1950;​

B 3.2: Increase in multiple of $5m within first 5hrs and $10m last 3 hrs.
B 4.1: Successful Recruitment: Bid must be the highest. If multiple managers have same bid value on that player all bids will be released and player dropped back to pool for nomination in subsequent rounds.

Rinse & Repeat:

The timeline for Phase 1 of next round of bids will comments from the results are posted.
This will continue till all managers have minimum 12 players and confirm that they are not participating any further.

Penalty Condition:

If condition B1 is breached, then the manager at fault will incur penalties. The penalty would be release of their earliest recruited player(s) back into the pool for nominations in subsequent rounds. This penalty will be applied during time of breach irrespective of whether the bid(s) that caused the breach are successful or not.

 

[Physiocrat]

@Edgar Allan Pillow

I'm probably being blind but after the first blind bid is the highest bid the winner or does it become public for another round of voting? If so how long can new bids be put on?

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

@Edgar Allan Pillow

I'm probably being blind but after the first blind bid is the highest bid the winner or does it become public for another round of voting? If so how long can new bids be put on?

1st round there will be 16 players nominated and minimum 16 bids (more if managers decide to bid on rival players). Whoever has the highest bid on any of the 16 players in the list recruits the player. If two or more have same amount, the bids are cancelled and player is returned to pool for nominations in 2nd round.

It resets for 2nd round and we start off again., 16 nominations with min 16 bids again with same winning criteria. Continue till everyone has their teams. Did that answer your query?

The trick is to bid the right amount, too low and you may not get another chance at him. Too high and you lose leverage in later stages. As pool is always 16 players per round, there will be healthy bidding...or so I think

 

[Physiocrat]

Thinking about my different eras.

I reckon births between 1925-1949 would be a good one as it essentially includes all the post-war players until the 1970 World Cup after which football changed somewhat. Obviously then births pre-1925 would be the pre-war, pre-TV era.

I'm not sure what to do from 1950 onwards. Post-1970 the major change was probably the liberalisation of the offside rule, passback rule and more protection for forwards. You could then have a mid era draft of births between 1950-1969 but some of those towards the end of the 60s most famously played after those changes such as Romario and Batistuta. So I think 1950-1964/5 makes sense. Then you essentially have "modern" football from births from 1966 onwards (capped at 1989) to exclude players who haven't completed the bulk of their career.

Any thoughts on these splits of eras?

 

[Physiocrat]

1st round there will be 16 players nominated and minimum 16 bids (more if managers decide to bid on rival players). Whoever has the highest bid on any of the 16 players in the list recruits the player. If two or more have same amount, the bids are cancelled and player is returned to pool for nominations in 2nd round.

It resets for 2nd round and we start off again., 16 nominations with min 16 bids again with same winning criteria. Continue till everyone has their teams. Did that answer your query?

The trick is to bid the right amount, too low and you may not get another chance at him. Too high and you lose leverage in later stages. As pool is always 16 players per round, there will be healthy bidding...or so I think

Ok that makes more sense

 

[Joga Bonito]

Like that twist and would gladly take part in it. Count me in if it goes ahead.

If condition B1 is breached, then the manager at fault will incur penalties. The penalty would be release of their earliest recruited player(s) back into the pool for nominations in subsequent rounds. This penalty will be applied during time of breach irrespective of whether the bid(s) that caused the breach are successful or not.

Think it might be better if the latest recruited player is thrown back into the pool though. I get that depriving them of their earliest acquisition and probably their best player is a very strong deterrent, but it could really mess up the bidding dynamic later on as you could potentially see a top tier player going for a significantly lesser price than his initial market value - as most would have probably spent a huge chunk of their budgets by this point. It also favours those who are saving up for later, meaning they could dominate reinforcement rounds and also pick up greats later on in the drafting phase, due to manager errors etc.


EDIT: Kind of undecided on the 360m kitty as opposed to the conventional 300m one. Also a nice touch making goalies 20m but I'd suggest something to make sure it's not just people who PM a GOAT goalie first who gets em (if they aren't raised in phase 2, and most of em aren't) but something a bit harder. Like making the starting price of a top tier goalie (Buffon, Maier, Kahn, Schmikes, Dino Zoff etc) 20m and the rest 15m

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Think it might be better if the latest recruited player is thrown back into the pool though. I get that depriving them of their earliest acquisition and probably their best player is a very strong deterrent, but it could really mess up the bidding dynamic later on as you could potentially see a top tier player going for a significantly lesser price than his initial market value - as most would have probably spent a huge chunk of their budgets by this point. It also favours those who are saving up for later, meaning they could dominate reinforcement rounds and also pick up greats later on in the drafting phase, due to manager errors etc.

Valid points.

Penalty:
I'm fine with latest bid is invalidated and Dq'd from that round (and maybe the next one too) should suffice.

Top players going for low prices:
- Can add a rule that players in blocked list of Aldo's Reserve Draft have a default start bid of $30m (will replicate that list in OP too)

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/all-time-reserves-draft-quarters.416155/#post-19013215

Reinforcements:
Haven't covered this before as I have some new thoughts on this too.
- Will start with a clean slate of $110m. No carry forward from previous rounds.
- Blocked list of Aldo's Reserve Draft have a default start bid of $30m
- All qualified teams will have to drop 3 outfield players and replace them with 3 new reinforcements. So after every successful pick, they would have to drop 1 outfield player from starting 11 of previous round. (happens 3x times). This will (hopefully) keep the formation/tactics refreshed every round.

Improves the draft?

 

[Joga Bonito]

Top players going for low prices:
- Can add a rule that players in blocked list of Aldo's Reserve Draft have a default start bid of $30m (will replicate that list in OP too

Nah way too many players on that list and I'd say this rule is sufficient enough as it stands.

$15m for players born on or before 31st Dec 1949;

 

[Physiocrat]

@Edgar Allan Pillow

Would you release the price of the players that have been recruited? I think keeping that secret until the end of drafting would be good since it always keeps drafters guessing as to how much to bid so will hopefully prevent cleaning up for cheap at the end as drafters won't know how much anyone else has left. Also the reveal of prices at the end could lead to mass suicides which is always entertaining.

@Downcast

Any thoughts on the my era splits? It's a couple of posts above on this page

 

[Ecstatic]

@Downcast

Any thoughts on the my era splits? It's a couple of posts above on this page

I agree with your splits of eras

 

[Physiocrat]

I agree with your splits of eras

So do you think the 1950-1965 and the 1966-1989 make sense too? That's the one I'm least sure of.

Another idea I had was that for the 1925-1949 draft to have a condition that at least one video of the player exist which must be posted/linked in the recruitment thread. I would like to keep the purely written reports for the pre-War draft.

 

[Ecstatic]

So do you think the 1950-1965 and the 1966-1989 make sense too? That's the one I'm least sure of.

Another idea I had was that for the 1925-1949 draft to have a condition that at least one video of the player exist which must be posted/linked in the recruitment thread. I would like to keep the purely written reports for the pre-War draft.

I like the idea to compare apples with apples & pears with pears.

Maybe something like that: Pre-war draft (purely written reports) / post war / pre-Bosman / Post-Bosman.

I will rethink it later

 

[Gio]

So do you think the 1950-1965 and the 1966-1989 make sense too? That's the one I'm least sure of.

Another idea I had was that for the 1925-1949 draft to have a condition that at least one video of the player exist which must be posted/linked in the recruitment thread. I would like to keep the purely written reports for the pre-War draft.

I like the splits to help divvy up any cross-generational draft. In terms of the decades drafts, we've done 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s - so a pre-war or 30s would be a good follow-on. Might not be something that will garner a lot of attention, if that's the goal for the next one.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

@Edgar Allan Pillow I'm unclear on precisely what sort of feedback the manager gets from the draft master.

Example 1: I nominate Player X and bid 20m for him via PM.

Another manager wants Player X too, so he submits a bid: 20m (his reasoning being that my initial bid was 10 or 15).

Example 2: The other manager submits a bid for 30m (for Player X).

What am I told in each of these cases? I'm thinking:

First case: Nothing (but the other guy is informed that his bid was too low).

Second case: I'm told that my bid has been matched and that I need to increase it in order to secure the player (but I'm not told what the current bid actually is, just that it has been upped). The other guy is either told nothing (if you hear nothing you can assume that your bid is/remains the highest) or he's informed explicitly that his bid is legit (i.e. it's not too low).

That about right?

What strikes me is that with managers being able to fight over a player (upping the bids), and this requiring some interaction involving both the bidders and the draft master – well, it could potentially mean a considerable work load for the latter.

 

[harms]

Would you release the price of the players that have been recruited? I think keeping that secret until the end of drafting would be good since it always keeps drafters guessing as to how much to bid so will hopefully prevent cleaning up for cheap at the end as drafters won't know how much anyone else has left. Also the reveal of prices at the end could lead to mass suicides which is always entertaining.

Great idea! And you can also post the joint amount of money spent in the round by all of the managers combined to add an entertainment

 

[Physiocrat]

Great idea! And you can also post the joint amount of money spent in the round by all of the managers combined to add an entertainment

Good call. This could be one entertaining draft to watch.

With this idea and giving teams with better keepers a few votes headstart I don't think we need anything other than a common £10 Min bid

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

@Edgar Allan Pillow I'm unclear on precisely what sort of feedback the manager gets from the draft master.

Example 1: I nominate Player X and bid 20m for him via PM.

Another manager wants Player X too, so he submits a bid: 20m (his reasoning being that my initial bid was 10 or 15).

Example 2: The other manager submits a bid for 30m (for Player X).

What am I told in each of these cases? I'm thinking:

First case: Nothing (but the other guy is informed that his bid was too low).

Second case: I'm told that my bid has been matched and that I need to increase it in order to secure the player (but I'm not told what the current bid actually is, just that it has been upped). The other guy is either told nothing (if you hear nothing you can assume that your bid is/remains the highest) or he's informed explicitly that his bid is legit (i.e. it's not too low).

That about right?

What strikes me is that with managers being able to fight over a player (upping the bids), and this requiring some interaction involving both the bidders and the draft master – well, it could potentially mean a considerable work load for the latter.

Example 1: Neither player gets it. At end of round I post a note saying Manager X and Y have both bid 20m, there is no clear high bid, so player goes back to the pool. Neither managers gets a successful recruitment that round.

Example 2: The other manager has the highest bid, gets the player and gets posted in the thread. You don't get to up bid. It's all or nothing when you first post the amount.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

You don't get to up bid. It's all or nothing when you first post the amount.

Then I don't understand what this:

B 3.2: Increase in multiple of $5m within first 5hrs and $10m last 3 hrs.

refers to.

 

[Joga Bonito]

@Chesterlestreet

If I got it right, that's simply phase 1 that EAP was referring to initially with the PM bids.

For instance

PHASE 1 (8 hours PM-ing period)

Gio PMs a bid of 50m on Henderson
harms PMs a bid of 20m on Sakho
EAP PMs 100m on Lovren
Sjor PMs 20m on Sakho
Tuppet PMs 50m on Sakho
Physio PMs 50m on Henderson
Balu PMs 42m on David Luiz
Etc...

At the end of phase 1, where hopefully every manager has PM-ed his bid during the 8 hour window, the players are posted and are open to bids during phase 2. Henderson is back into the pool as both bids get cancelled out, Tuppet gets the bid for Sakho but the other 2 managers don't know this etc.

@Edgar Allan Pillow Isn't there a risk of the round having less than 16 players if managers repeatedly nominate the same players (GOATS) or would the committee step in and introduce a few neutral players? Also when you say both Gio and Physio won't get a successful recruitment, does it mean they go empty-handed or do they get to bid on players during phase 2?

PHASE 2 (8 hours Open Auction period)

Sakho - 48m by Balu (FAILED)
Lovren - 110m by sajeev (PASSED)
David Luiz - 55m by Skizzo (PASSED)
Etc...

So Tuppet ends up getting Sakho, sajeev gets Lovren and David Luiz goes to Skizzo.

A few doubts regarding this as well. Say the bid in Phase 2 matches the PM-ed bid from Phase 1, then who does the player end up going to? Likewise, can managers bid for their own players from PHASE 1?

 

[Invictus]

This setup sounds awfully labored and time-consuming, truth be told. Looking back at the Auction Draft thread, the ease of the whole process (outside of maintaining the lists and being on-time) seemed really elegant, and transparent (since everything was out in the open - with every manager having access to the pool). Umm...dunno, that's my impression since I didn't actually participate in it, so it might be erroneous. But the whole back and forth Sheep Draft-esque proposition seems inelegant, to say the least. That element of random luck involved in the covert PASSED-FAILED process is off-putting because a lot is shrouded in mystery, as opposed to a straightforward, free-for-all drafting phase - which is rewarding for managers that had planned contingency picks/timely bargains in advance. And on a similar note: don't get the annoyance with peanut bids for Bozsik, Suárez and co either. Weren't they available to basically everyone at any given time - even when exponentially worse players were picked for xN the price?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

If I got it right, that's simply phase 1 that EAP was referring to initially with the PM bids.

He's talking specifically about 5 and 10 mill increases depending on when the bid is launched, though.

 

[Joga Bonito]

He's talking specifically about 5 and 10 mill increases depending on when the bid is launched, though.

Oh, then I'm not so sure.

This setup sounds awfully labored and time-consuming, truth be told. Looking back at the Auction Draft thread, the ease of the whole process (outside of maintaining the lists and being on-time) seemed really elegant, and transparent (since everything was out in the open - with every manager having access to the pool). Umm...dunno, that's my impression since I didn't actually participate in it, so it might be erroneous. But the whole back and forth Sheep Draft-esque proposition seems inelegant, to say the least. That element of random luck involved in the covert PASSED-FAILED process is off-putting because a lot is shrouded in mystery, as opposed to a straightforward, free-for-all drafting phase - which is rewarding for managers that had planned contingency picks/timely bargains in advance. And on a similar note: don't get the annoyance with peanut bids for Bozsik, Suárez and co either. Weren't they available to basically everyone at any given time - even when exponentially worse players were picked for xN the price?

Agreed, exactly what I said earlier. Also echo the point about the other format being more elegant and straightforward. Don't mind either though.

Also regarding the bargains from the last auction draft (Bozsik - 10m, Suarez-10m I think etc), it's bound to happen as there are some under-appreciated greats, esp the ones from the older eras. Ultimately though, they occur because the other 15 managers had already snapped up an inferior player earlier, thinking there is no way they could afford that particular great later on in a bidding battle, or if the player doesn't seem to fit their desired tactics etc. In the sense that it isn't purely down to luck but bad planning from other managers or great drafting from that particular manager etc.