Prioritized FAAB Bids

[OaklandA's]

In one of my leagues that uses a commissioner-processed FAAB system, we had a disagreement in the awarding of bids. Here is the scenario; each team is trying to fill one open spot.

Team A
Harris $1
Jones $5
Smith $3

Team B
Jones $3
Harris $2
Smith $4

Team C
Harris $3
Smith $2
Jones $4

Which team should get each player? Maybe it's obvious, but I'd like to hear a few opinions.

[BuckyBuckner]

Harris - Team C
Jones - Team A
Smith - Team B


Yes, it is obvious. Right? There aren't even any ties for the players.

My guess is that Team B thinks his $3 on Jones should win cause Team A's first priority bid was for someone else.

[OaklandA's]

My guess is that Team B thinks his $3 on Jones should win cause Team A's first priority bid was for someone else.

Right. This is the challenge with the Priority Bidding that everyone wants CBS to implement.

[BuckyBuckner]

Right. This is the challenge with the Priority Bidding that everyone wants CBS to implement.

I believe this makes the programming complicated for a computer to do this but from the naked eye and human logic I believe that what elD posted as the winning bids should be the winning bids. You don't process the bids by each priority separate from all other priorities. Team A lost out on it's first priority, so the second priority is a valid bid and should be measured against all other valid bids for that player, not against all other bids in that priority level. I hope that makes sense, and more importantly is correct. It's how I see it.

[TopChuckie]

Right. This is the challenge with the Priority Bidding that everyone wants CBS to implement.

No it's not really. Because CBS can't do FAAB properly, I do our FAAB manually and this has never been an issue. One owner's priority is irrelevant to the other owners. If I'm Team D and I have three slots to fill and I bid $6 for Jones, $10 for Smith, and $6 for Harris, I get all three of them, regardless of the fact Harris was my 3rd priority and he was the #1 priority for two other teams.

[TopChuckie]

To that I would respond "hell no". To each their own, I suppose, but that would be a really lame way of prioritizing FAABs.

As an aside, I like how the phrase FAAB bid gets used all the time. It's like saying ATM machine.

Not really, I think FAAB stands for Free Agent Acquisition BUDGET, not Bids, so it's bids from the budget.

[Lucky]

Yep, it's Free Agent Acquisition Budget, and yep, eld and BB are right.

Who submitted the highest bid for Harris? Team C. For Jones? Team A. For Smith? Team B. You look at it player by player.

Top Chuckie's analysis is right. Of course, most automated free agent systems key off your "player to be dropped" in evaluating your bids. In other words, if you list three guys with bids on each, and only list one player to be dropped, most automated systems will read that as you only wanting a single player. If you list three guys to be dropped, the system reads that as your wanting three guys.

Some systems, like Rotowire, make you submit a separate list with each set of contingencies. So, if you want to have a chance at getting four players, you need to submit four lists.

I did these manually for years back in the 90's. When you've got a dozen guys each bidding on six or eight players, you have to break out your slide rule.

[Gregg]

Harris - Team C
Jones - Team A
Smith - Team B


Yes, it is obvious. Right? There aren't even any ties for the players.

With out question this is correct.

While the B in FAAB is budget. It is still the highest bid within the budget.

[TopChuckie]

Really? I've thought for years that it was free agent acquisition bid. Hmm, my bad if I'm wrong. Better head to the ATM machine or to the El Rey Theater after work.

I don't know if this makes you feel better or worse, but I have often seen, and used, the term "FAAB budget". I know it's redundant, but I do think it reads more clearly.

And don't get me started on duvet cover.