[USML Announce] FAAB Fun

Mon Aug 4 10:34:59 EDT 2008

1 and 1...Jim

"JOHN FRUIT, FAF ADVISORS" <jfruit1 at bloomberg.net> wrote:  I also vote for 1 and 1....jf

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Robbins 
At: 8/04 10:17:42

Thanks for framing the issues and the vote.

I vote for 1 and 1.

Let's get through this as rapidly as we can and then move on.

As an aside, I am in accord with Jeff's suggestion at the end as well.

-- Rich

_____ 

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of jhwinick at aol.com
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 10:12 AM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] FAAB Fun

Andy,

I suppose you're right at this point that we'll have to set this for a vote.
Mark does not have internet access and I do think this needs to get resolved
asap. As I see it there are numerous choices, but in the absence of anyone
in the league suggesting otherwise, there appear to be two choices most
worthy of our consideration:

1. Allocate the players as if we had provided them manually to Mark Blocker
and asked him to process them in accordance with the Constitution.

2. Accept the results of the system as they were announced and leave Bay
and Griffey for bidding next week.

As I said, there are other possible alternatives, like re-bidding entirely,
or disallowing Jim and my contingent bids in their entirety, but I am
guessing that no one feels strongly about either of those two choices to
insist that they be included in the vote. If no one indicates otherwise
prior to noon today, I would propose that people vote for either 1 or 2.

If #1 is the winner, we'll also have to decide how to decide salaries. I
believe this is only relevant for the determination of Nady's salary. I bid
$56 on Bay, then Nady, then Griffey. Does the $56 define only Bay's salary
or because it was beaten and then the system would have evaluated my bid in
a non-contingent fashion against Andy's, is it also used to determine Nady's
salary? Please vote on this proposition, regardless of your vote on the
first issue:

1. Nady's salary is established based upon applying the constitution (i.e.
only non-contingent bids are considered).

2. Nady's salary is established based upon the algorithm apparently used by
the system to determine the winning bidder and his salary is measured
against the team that would have finished second in the bidding as
determined by CBSSportsline (i.e. my bid of $56).

Also, I think we ought to consider disallowing contingent bids on the system
for the balance of the season until we can figure out how to unwind them if
this were to happen again. That's just a suggestion,or discussion point and
not something we need to vote on.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Klein 
To: USML Announcements 
Sent: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 9:51 am
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] FAAB Fun

My view is that if Bay and Griffey were actually in the system and listed as
available for bidding, we should count those bids. Jeff ... I understand
that you are trying to remain very neutral since you were the only bidder on
Griffey. But you shouldn't have to forfeit a deserved boon -- you get
Griffey at $5, and he might well be a keeper next year. So ... in my
opinion, the players should be awarded as I suggested in my previous note:
Bay to Jim, Tex to Rich, Nady to me, and Griffey to Jeff . As I said
before, we do need to sort out salary issues, with the basic issue being
whether an unsuccessful contingent bid increases the salary of a successful
primary bid.

All that said, I am just trying to help sort things out and will abide by
any group decision. But we should have *everyone* weigh in quickly, because
the decisions could have a big impact on the title race. Can we vote on
whether to allocate the players as I suggest and also vote on the salary
issue?

-Andy

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jeff Winick wrote:

Andy,

Griffey was my 3rd bid, so if we try to guess as to what the system would
have done we're still left with the issue of how to set salaries, like, for
example, Nady If we let the system work, as is, then we would ignore my
bids for Bay and Griffey and Jim's bid for Bay and voil? you have an easy
and obvious answer and no question about the interjection of subjectivity
into the process. 

Jeff
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 4, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Andrew Klein wrote:

Jeff-

If you are the only player who bid on Griffey, you get him at $5. That's
how are rules work. I also think that Jim B. should get Bay. He clearly
made the highest bid. The question (as with Nady) is salary. The only info
I don't see from earlier correspondence is detail about your bids. Were
they contingent after Griffey? If so, the problem is easily solved because
your subsequent bids don't matter. If they were non-contingent, then we
need to know the amounts and decide how they impact the salary consequences
of my Nady bid and Jim's Bay bid.
Again, just my two cents.

One other thing. I suggest that in September, a few of us make "bids" on
the system to test how it handles certain scenarios. We can undo the
transactions after the experiments.

-Andy

Jeff Winick wrote:

I, too, agree with Andy, but would focus on his point about the system
having perhaps worked properly.

Despite the fact that it costs me Griffey, I think we ought to consider
leaving well enough alone and default to the website's results, I.e. Leave
Bay and Griffey bidding to next week and leave the rest of the results
alone. To do otherwise requires us to make assumptions about what the system
would have or should have done and that makes me uncomfortable.

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 4, 2008, at 6:12 AM, Andrew Klein wrote:

Sorry, Brad. No luck. I'm back.

I think that FAAB bids should be processed as if the system had worked as we
anticipated. This means that we follow our constitution, except where it
would require the commissioner to unwind the system's allocation of players.
During the year, we recognized that this would mean that a higher contingent
bid trumps a lower primary bid. If I have sorted out the emails
correctly, this would result in the following: Jim gets Bay. Rich gets
Tex. I get Nady. Jeff gets Griffey. (Jeff's message read: "I had bid on
Griffey, Nady and Bay, not Tex. But my bids for Griffey or Bay weren't
processed.")

We never reached an agreement on how salary would work in this situation.
Jeff's position is that salary should be impacted when a primary bid
competes against contingent bid. My opposite view is that we should follow
our constitutional rule and not have contingent bids inflate salaries of
successful primary bids. My reasoning is that the commissioner needs to
alter salaries anyway -- so this is not something where we allow the
automated system to save work for Mark B. These are both reasonable
positions. We should vote on this and then have precedent on the point.

Like Jim, I continue to oppose a complete do-over, which would hurt those of
us who made good (OK, lucky) bidding decisions.

All that said, I'll go along with the league consensus however that turns
out.

-Andy

PS: On the snafu ... is it possible that the system did not process Bay and
Griffey because they had not appeared in games by Friday midnight? That
would make sense. Tex and Nady both appeared earlier in the week. Bay and
Griffey did not play for their teams -- I think -- until Saturday.

Brad Jansen wrote:

Let me identify something you guys can do: coin toss or cage match. End
this quickly. And Klein, go back out of town. Now.

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Richard E. Robbins > wrote:

If the system just runs from top to bottom until you run out of
money then
we should be able to simulate what happened given a complete set
of bids and
a properly functioning CBS site.

I'm not saying that is what we should do -- that's for the rest of
you to
decide.

I clearly have a conflict because if I understand what Andy is
saying I
think I end up with Tex.

Please understand that I'm not advocating that we do one thing or
another --
merely trying to identify things we could do.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: announce-bounces at usml.net 
[mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net
] On Behalf
Of Andrew Klein
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 4:50 PM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] FAAB Fun

Just back from out of town. Here's my two cents.

I have been doing contingent bidding all year, and the system is
not that
complicated. It processes bids in the order you enter them, and
then stops
when it cannot do so any longer. This occurs when the player
chosen for
waiver is gone (because he was waived through a prior bid -- the
later bids
are essentially contingent). Or it would happen if someone ran
out of FAAB
money. Salary cap is not part of the system.
It is up to the player who wins the bids to adjust rosters accordingly
before Sunday noon. Also, as everyone knows, due to our "eBay"
system, Mark
B. manually adjusts salaries of players purchased through FAAB.

I don't know what happened with the Bay bidding. But it sounds
like Jim B.
should have won him, but then ran out of money for his other bids.
I think
that I am due Nady. The only question to me is his salary -- i.e.
is it $30 or $50-something based on Jeff's contingent bid. Jeff
accurately
described our disagreement on that point, and I am happy to
elaborate on my
opinion if that becomes relevant.

In any case, I strongly object to tossing out all bids and
starting over
next week.

-Andy

jhwinick at aol.com wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Just when it looked like it would be easy....
>
> Here's the problem with Jim's bids. It is impossible to discern how
> the system would treat them. It is clear that you can bid
> contingently on the same player since the system will disregard all
> other bids for the same waived player once he has been replaced, but
> it is not at all clear how the system would handle bids that could
> theoretically take you well over the salary cap. I've read the
syst em
> rules again this morning and the real challenge is determining where
> the system starts its evaluation of bids. In Jim's case that would
> have implications for who gets whom, what their resulting salaries
> will be and what player Jim will waive depending on what player he
> gets. Jim had the theoretical high bid on two different players.
> Because the system didn't process the Bay bids, there's no way
to know
> whether (or IF) it would have awarded Jim either Bay or Nady. I'm
> afraid that Jim's bids appear to be exactly the kind of complication
> th at Mark B was talking about.
>
> I obviously have a vested interest, so I'm going to pass the
torch to
> someone else. I don't think there's going to be a "good" answer for
> how to handle this one.
>
> I do, however, have one request, that I suppose is largely moot at
> this point. PLEASE send out your FAAB bids no later than Saturday
> morning. Although FAAB is almost over and hopefully the system will
> work going forward, it would really help to have all of this
> information as soon as possible. Thanks.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard E. Robbins 
> To: 'USML Announcements' >
> Sent: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 7:14 am
> Subject: RE: [USML Announce] FAAB Fun
>
> Since roster moves haven't become effective, is there a problem with
> Jeff just emulating what the system should have done with these
bids?
>
> I don't think you should be penalized for not having access to email
> yesterday just because the web site didn't process things properly.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> *From:* announce-bounces at usml.net

>
> [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net

?>]
> *On Behalf Of *Jim Barrett
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 03, 2008 6:54 AM
> *To:* USML Announcements
> *Subjec t:* Re: [USML Announce] FAAB Fun
>
> Sorry guys for the delay but I was travelling yesterday and didn't
> have access to e-mail. I don't want to mess things up further so am
> willing to accept Jeff's allocations but this is how I bid:
>
> $74 on Bay
> $69 on Teixiera
> $50 on Nady
>
> My FAAB remaining was $74 (full amt of bid on Bay). I didn't know
> how/if contingent bidding worked and figured if the system
didn't want
> me bidding this way it would stop me. Otherwise it would treat the
> other two as contingents. I picked different players to drop
for each
> (didn't think of using the same). For Bay, I had dropped my
open slot
> (for waiving Tabata earlier). For the other two it was Albers and
> Gabbard. Obviously, I'd prefer that the open spot be used
rather than
> eliminating a player from my reserve roster.
>
> With all that said, I think technically I should have won Bay but am
> willing to accept Teixiera if that causes the least amount of
> angst/trouble.
>
> Jim
>
> */Jeff Winick 
>>/* wrote:
>
> Let's try this again. Bay is a Berliner at $52, otherwise the
> message of this afternon was an accurate statement of the
bidding
> outcome.
>
> Jeff
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 2, 2008, at 8:33 PM, Bbuddhas at aol.com

> > wrote:
>
>> correction i checked my bid it was and still is $51
>>
>> In a message dated 8/2/2008 8:09:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> jhwinick at aol.com 
> writes:
>>
>> If that isnt Buddha yanking my chain after I spent the time
>> to sort this out, it will unfortunately mean we have to
sort
>> out the whole contingency issue. I'll20post something
further
>> tonight about our options.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2008, at 7:50 PM, Bbuddhas at aol.com

>> > wrote:
>>
>>> put a $56 bid on Bay
>>>
>>> In a message dated 8/2/2008 6:15:19 P.M. Central Daylight
>>> Time, jhwinick at aol.com 
> writes:
>>>
>>> Here's what I know so far:
>>>
>>> Andy bid his entire budget on Nady. I spoke with him
>>> this morning and he had no contingent bids. I
spoke to
>>> Brad and he didn't bid. So, pending presently unknown
>>> bids from either John or Buddha here are where
things stand:
>>>
>>> I had the high bid on Bay at $56. He was my first
>>> choice, so we can end all of the discussion about
>>> contingent bids and can treat this bid as
non-contingent
>>> and disregard the other two bids that I made to
replace
>>> Shelley Duncan. The next highest bid was $47 from
Rich,
>>> so he will be awarded to me at $48.
>>>
>>> $56 - JHW
>>> $47 - Rich
>>> $40 - Doug
>>> $35 - MBB
>>>
>>> The highest bid on Teixeira was by the Calamari
who bid
>>> $69. The next highest bidder was Rich at $48, so he
>>> &nb sp; will be awarded to the Calamari (in fact, he
already has
>>> been) for $49.
>>>
>>> $69 - Jim
>>> $48 - Rich
>>> $17 - MBB
>>>
>>> The highest bid on Nady was Andy's at $64. That was
>>> Andy's entire budget. The next highest bidders were
>>> Rick and Doug at $29, so Nady will be awarded to the
>>> Klein Nine (in fact, he already has been) for $30.
>>>
>>> $64 - Andy
>>> $29 - Doug
>>> $29 - Rick
>>> $20 - MBB
>>>
>>> There don't appear to have been any bids on
Griffey, so
>>> he will be available next week.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if you see a mistake. And John and
>>> Buddha, please let me know asap if you placed bids
this
>>> week.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Doug Shabelman 
>>> >>
>>> To: announce at usml.net 
>
>>> Sent: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 5:46 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] FAAB Fun
>>>
>>> Andy's in a car and not by a computer. I am out in
>>> &n bsp; beautiful Grant Park at Lollapolooza where the next
>>> President is rumored to be introducing Wilco this
evening.
>>>
>>> I believe I bid 40 on Bay, 29 on Nady but cannot
confirm
>>> 100%. Someone can call Andy at 3174426981 but
let's not
>>> make it Rich- I'd like to have a fighting chance....
>>>
>>> DS
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: announce-bounces at usml.net

>>> >
>>> 
>>> >>
>>> To: 'USML Announcements' 
>>> >>
>>> Sent: Sat Aug 02 17:42:54 2008
>>> Subject: [USML Announce] FAAB Fun
>>>
>>> Let's try and get this FAAB stuff wrapped up.
>>>
>>> In order for Jeff to handle processing we need to know
>>> what everyone bid.
>>>
>>> So far, Jeff has information from me, Mark B and
his own
>>> bids.
>>>
>>> It appears that Andy and Jim placed bids, but we
need to
>>> know the specifics.
>>>
>>> Please guys -- chime in with your bids or confirm that
=0 A >>> you didn't bid.
>>>
>>> We need to get this wrapped up promptly.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -- Rich
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> announce mailing list announce at usml.net
>
>>> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>>>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> It's time to go back to school! Get the latest trends
>>> and gadgets that make the grade on AOL Shopping
>>>
.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> =2 0 announce mailing list
>>> announce at usml.net 
>
>>> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce >>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your
>>> budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos
>>>

017>.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> announce mailing list

=== message truncated ===_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20080804/24035312/attachment-0001.htm