ZIPS release

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:09 pm

So we don't forget...starting a thread on ZIPS release and how to create a fair system for awarding players. I'm not at a place with work to give any well-considered suggestions yet, but I wanted to keep this as a placeholder so we can discuss throughout the year. We've got some time to ponder...

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Mar 12, 2016 8:51 am

Two main discussions previously:
viewtopic.php?p=56977#56977
viewtopic.php?p=57381#57381

I think there's a number of issues that we'll have to figure out besides "everyone on that team is on waivers for 24 hours after release" (and how we make that work in OOPSS)
1. Info released outside of Fangraphs (Twitter, ESPN, etc)
2. Speculative signing prior to release
3. Whether this potentially impacts the draft (stalling for info) and whether that's a problem

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:36 pm

Here's the thing - the first person to all information is getting a jump on everyone for players. The guys who have a lot of the best prospects currently have them because they are 1) squatting on BA, etc. when weekly and annual lists are posted, and 2) combing those sites daily to be sure that they are the first to read something on a new name.

I can assure you that those signings are far more impactful than who gets unexpected sleeper simmers.

I don't think that we should lose the freedom to sign guys when we sign them rather than having to be on like a daily waiver system, just my feeling.

We need to fix the draft, though. It is unnecessarily unfair and the only reason it's like that is a few guys love to get stars in their eyes about being that guy on the clock when a Japanese pitcher signs.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:37 pm

Also, I don't think that we need a signing freeze right now but I understand that Pat and Shawn feel strongly about it, so my only thought is that if you think it's necessary this year, I'd recommend doing it right away.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:15 pm

Just bumping this up to the top. I'm curious on others' opinions on the matter. But ZIPS will probably start being released within about a month or so, right? JP did post that exco would be making a change, so we need to do something.

I do agree with BP that prospect signings are a problem as well when it seems some owners have inside info somehow for BA where he signs guys a few hours before an article posts. You can't really penalize someone for that. And I agree that prospects signings are potentially a bigger deal than ZIPS sim stars. However, there are built-in advantages to being on the East Coast when ZIPS post and also advantages to staring at Dan Syzmborski's/Carson Cistulli's Twitter feeds to be the first to see that some spare has a 2-win projection.

The good news is we have fixed the draft issue as it relates to ZIPS, so we shouldn't be getting delays waiting for a guy to sign b/c he'll be ineligible. But we need to work out how we handle ZIPS. Shawn has said, I believe, it would be difficult to build a new waiver system just for ZIPS. And a signing freeze doesn't really do you much good. Then it comes down to who isn't in a meeting and can drop/create a player fast enough to beat everyone at 3 p.m. EST or whatever the chosen time is.

Another option maybe, but it's a little crazy. Maybe every team gets a fake zips "budget" for the release of the 30 teams. Kind of like an auction free agent system for football. You're allowed to bid what you want per player and all bids are emailed to some email account JP manages. All bids would be due by a certain time of the day ZIPs are released and budgets would be posted on the site along with teams that didn't win (ie: Player X.....Pirates $5 (Tigers $3, Rangers $3, Phillies $1). If you win a guy, you get bumped down in waiver priority just like it were a claim. That way, if you end up tied for a guy, the higher guy wins, but there's also some risk to making a claim (not much for the better teams, but some jockeying). I would suggest not a huge budget so it's easier to manage ($20?). It does involve more work, but maybe a workable solution...

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

I like the idea of getting $30 to spend on players who appear on the fangraphs projections list. It at least is sort of a cool nuance to get some sort of a salary cap type of thing into the league, and adds a little element of strategy that didn't exist previously. I'm up for trying it for a year then revisiting its success or failure.

I don't want to start/stop a waiver wire to stop the signing of prospects and others.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:03 pm

I am up for trying the fangraphs projection system it but it is not a 100% ... those who follow various tweeter feeds and/or chats ... even read an ESPN article first will info ahead of others.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:56 pm

I'll throw out an alternative (but similar) approach.

- $30 (or whatever) budget, only whole dollar increments
- As a zips projection comes out, any player listed on it must be bid on to be signed - and that extends until a certain time after all are released
- We set up a zips bidding section in the forum under Official Business
- If you want to sign a player, you start a thread for him with a starting bid
- Bidding stays open until there are no other bids for a period of time (a day or something) OR bidding stays open for a day or a week or whatever but as we hit the deadline there have to be no bids for five minutes or some amount of time for it to close
- Signings DON'T use up a waiver spot, you just sign the player in the system once you've won the bidding
- If you commit more than your $30 during bidding, you're prohibited from bidding any more (example: you've spent $20 and you post two concurrent, active $6 bids) that season

That seems pretty fair, requires some strategy, and most importantly is something that requires zero maintenance other than oversight on/negating people signing guys without bidding.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:50 pm

BP, my issues are:

a) it's just going to lead to ebay-like sniping and I think a blind bid system makes more sense. You pick a number, go with it and hope you've accurately judged the market.
b) no one ever knows what time the site is on...sometimes it's western, sometimes eastern. Right now, it seems to be on Central. I just think it will add too much confusion as to what the time period is. Plus, we're trying to avoid any issues of time crunches/time unfairness. If you pick a specific end time, someone's going to be asleep, in a meeting, at dinner or on their way to a meeting, etc. and not able to be the last one in.

As for not using a waiver spot, I don't care about that, really...just an added wrinkle. The other issue is a GM would have to specify who their drops are. So, if they claim two guys and put in claims to drop the same guy, whichever is the higher bid or listed first would be the first to be processed. Higher bid is always the first priority. If the bids are the same by that GM, the one listed first trumps the second.

I think, obviously, if you've committed to more than what you have ($30), you would be awarded the first player you seek supposing you'd be the winning bidder on two guys. If you win neither, then you retain whatever unspent money you have. (ie: claim player x for $5, claim player y for $5 with $8 in your budget. If you win both, you'd get player x listed first and have $3 left.)

Another issue that may pop up is what do we do with "unclaimed" guys. I would say an option is that after a zips team is released, maybe we make the window 24 hours after waiver awards to put in bids. After that, everyone is a free agent. So, once the results are posted, everyone else is fair game as a free agent.

But, ultimately, I feel pretty strongly that we shouldn't be setting any "deadlines" to get a bid in. It's just going to lead to someone feeling screwed because they didn't have the time to hit that deadline, which is the whole issue now.

If we make it a system where everyone gets one chance in a blind bid system to a separate email account, everyone's got their fair shot to try to nab a player. You want to blow $15 on a guy on the first zips release to ensure you get him? That's your call, but you're going to really struggle if there's some valuable guy left in the last 5 team releases. It adds some offseason strategy and it gives everyone an equal shot.

Jim, I'm not sure by your post you're following my concept. To clarify:

Once the White Sox are posted with zips projections on fangraphs, teams would have a window (maybe 24 hours) and a budget of $30 to make a blind bid to an email account (ibczipswaivers@gmail.com)? The time stamp would be set to start for the time the article was posted on fangraphs. So, if 9:32 a.m. on Dec. 17, the window runs to 9:32 a.m. Dec. 18. After 24 hours, JP would go in to the email account and see which players were claimed by which teams and how much they spent. He would post those results in a special thread and award those players, such as:

Jerry Sands awarded to Rangers ($2)
-Tigers ($1)
-Pirates ($1)
-Dodgers ($0)

Therefore, the Rangers would then have $28 left (supposing he was awarded no other players) and no one else would be charged for a losing bid. This process would move on for each zips release (typically 2-3 a week) for the offseason. You would have to spend your $30 wisely if you really wanted to stock up on free agents.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:02 pm

Another issue that may pop up is what do we do with "unclaimed" guys. I would say an option is that after a zips team is released, maybe we make the window 24 hours after release to put in bids. After that, everyone is a free agent. So, once the results are posted, everyone else is fair game as a free agent.

I think that make sense, but I would make it longer than a day.

On the issues where you and I disagree, conceptually what you're proposing is fine. Logistically my concerns are:

- Given the Bren history of this league I always prefer transparency. I'm not even saying that anyone is going to accuse any of us of intentionally screwing them over, but when things are done behind a curtain there is room for confusion and accidental mistakes. You have to go back and forth if someone bid late. You could miss one of those emails or someone could have an emergency and text it to you. Headaches.

- Where we differ you're proposing work for someone. If eight players are bid on, no big deal. If 20-30 are and there are a hundred or so emails, you are proposing a lot of work for very little benefit. Someone has to sort through all of the bids and avoid those little issues I mentioned.

- If bids have to be posted, no one who is checking in on this site risks missing out on zips being posted. Quiet emailed bids over a 24-hour period after it quietly shows up on fangraphs during the offseason doesn't exactly fit with the spirit of giving everyone a good shot at these players.

- Last, certainly not a big deal but no one has any idea what the market is. Blind bids would be a total crap shoot, especially the trial year.

None of these details are any huge thing, obviously, and I'm on board with trying something to see if it adds to the offseason.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:19 pm

I don't have a strong opinion on the time frame. I felt like 24 hours made sense mainly because zips are sometimes released on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, so you'd have basically Monday and Tuesday to finish a batch. I agree this could require some heavy lifting and I would volunteer if needed to help do the processing.

As for transparency, I don't disagree that some mistrust may live on. And if possible I'd like to figure out how to address that. I think email only is a solution to the other issue you raise -- no texts, no emergencies. If you have 24 hours at least, you can get on FG and get in your email. I don't see that as an issue. And, as long as you email it correctly, you're good. An option gmail has is a "vacation responder," so you can set it to automatically kick back a message that says "Your waiver claim has been received. You will be notified on the ibcleague.com board of the waiver claims for this player." Then if you get the reply, it's been received. There are no re-dos...you get one shot. Second emails won't be accepted.

Maybe a compromise that can solve some of the issues is this: When FG releases zips for that team, a member of EXCO posts the link to the zips page on the forum under Official Business as you suggested. That way, it's on the site, you don't even have to navigate to FG solely. It's linked from the ibc site. Maybe have Shawn create a thread under "waivers" called "ZIPS release waivers" and each new topic is a different team. So, you post Chicago White Sox if they're team #1 with a link to FG and then JP (or whoever) can populate that thread with all the White Sox players who were claimed and the totals.

That kinda takes away the argument "I didn't know zips had been released." It doesn't take away the issue of worrying that you got screwed on your bid. But if everyone trusts that JP is simming properly over an entire season, I don't think there's a good argument to be made that he's rigging the zips free agents. And we're not talking great players here...maybe a team claims 4-5 guys in an offseason maximum. Non-competing teams may rarely claim guys and guys who are never around (Martin/Brandon, etc.) won't be involved. I think the volume will be consistent, but hopefully not overwhelming.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:22 pm

If we do blind bids, I like these suggestions.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:25 pm

You could do it closes 24 hours after the last bid. That way there's no sniping, and it's transparent. And we don't have to have one of us sift through an email, then report back to the message board. No matter what time zone your board is set to, you can easily figure out 24 hours after the post on the board.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:03 pm

I remain on board with the above but I think you missed the point of my earlier post. You are tying the bids and subsequent clock to a release of ZipS projections on FanGraphs.

I presume players will continue to be signed under normal means and it is only those players who are the team (for example, the White Sox) whose projections are released who subject to this special treatment until all bids for that team have closed.

In the meantime an owner reads a tweet, a chat or an ESPN that contains partial or full projections for a player not on the White Sox. Nothing prohibits that owner from using normal channels to sign a player mentioned in a tweet, chat or ESPN article as long as he is not on the team subject to the ZipS release "clock". For example a very favorable projection comes out for Yankee prospect Jordan Montgomery (a pitcher I already own in the IBC) under an ESPN article authored by Dan Szymborski, entitled "Young Under the Radar Pitching Prospects" ... if he were a Free Agent in the IBC anyone (whoever read the article first and had access to the IBC Boards) could sign him under the normal procedure.

I understand there is not a perfect solution and am okay wit what is proposed but just understand it will not 100% preclude lucky ZipS-induced signings ...

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:09 pm

Jim, I'm sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. That definitely is an issue that will arise and I'm not sure how we would handle "miscellaneous" type players...meaning players not released as part of a team batch that Dan Z may have missed or someone he generates a projection for after a reader asks. Because Jim is right...inevitably there's some prospect who gets hype b/c of stats and not as part of a formal team.

One option may be that you are required to post a guy you want to sign. Anyone who gets signed during this period without the waivers process will look odd, right? We're going to know who was bid on and if you tried to snag a prospect. If that prospect has a projection via twitter, espn, etc. how do we check that? Another thing I just thought of too: What if I try to sign a guy I think will have a projection but before any official releases? How do you scour the internet to see if player X had a tweet/random article written that may have a Dan Z. mention of his numbers? I suspect if I thought a guy was going to be good before his team is released, can I sign him? Or is the presumption that I have some info on his projection?

I think we have to determine what the expectations are for signing guys during this period. Is this waivers via board post the only option or can you still sign guys? How do we know they don't have a projection floating out there?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:52 pm

I think we have to remember we're talking about like the 5th man up (at best) in a bullpen, or a platoon outfielder. I don't want to go to painstakingly great lengths to make signing a player difficult.

Implementing this, I think we should start with just a 24-hour (or 24 hours after the last bid) period for projections posted on FanGraphs. We're not going to be able to control Dan's Twitter. Sometimes he'll just @ somebody too, so we'd have to check all the replies for every last projection, and constantly scan ESPN.com. It's a lot.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:05 pm

Pirates wrote:I think we have to remember we're talking about like the 5th man up (at best) in a bullpen, or a platoon outfielder. I don't want to go to painstakingly great lengths to make signing a player difficult.

Implementing this, I think we should start with just a 24-hour (or 24 hours after the last bid) period for projections posted on FanGraphs. We're not going to be able to control Dan's Twitter. Sometimes he'll just @ somebody too, so we'd have to check all the replies for every last projection, and constantly scan ESPN.com. It's a lot.

I agree ... I just want all to be aware that the system we implement (or try for a year) will not be a 100% so we don't have to deal with unnecessary bitching when the projections start coming out in various formats. Just say on the front end we are going to try this for a season with the understanding that it will address most of the released projections ...

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:06 pm

Agree. If we're not going to do a blind bid system I would recommend the clock starts when the link to the fg zips team is posted on the ibc site and bidding ends 24 hours after the last bid rather than just 24 hours after post. 9 am eastern is 6 am for our west coast friends.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:55 am

Tigers wrote:Agree. If we're not going to do a blind bid system I would recommend the clock starts when the link to the fg zips team is posted on the ibc site and bidding ends 24 hours after the last bid rather than just 24 hours after post. 9 am eastern is 6 am for our west coast friends.

Yeah, 24 hours after the last bid. Prevents sniping too.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:02 pm

If we're going to deal with posting bids/declaring winners, why not just do the same system using waiver position instead of $?

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:32 pm

Dodgers wrote:If we're going to deal with posting bids/declaring winners, why not just do the same system using waiver position instead of $?

It's more strategic/fun and I thought you said it would be tough to set up waivers for every player. How would you do that for every zips release player?

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:13 pm

The same way you would do it with bidding, those players aren't eligible to be straight signed until after the waiver claim period (which just happens on the message board).

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:48 pm

That seems like it would require a good deal more labor, right? Someone has to manually change the order every time someone is awarded.

The money aspect does also seem like more fun. I assume that the tiebreaker if more than one person wants to bid the max would be waiver position, though.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:37 pm

Rangers wrote:That seems like it would require a good deal more labor, right? Someone has to manually change the order every time someone is awarded.

The money aspect does also seem like more fun. I assume that the tiebreaker if more than one person wants to bid the max would be waiver position, though.

Yeah, that's how I proposed it. If two teams bid $0, for instance, the lower waiver priority team gets the player. My original idea was that a claim would use a waiver position; Brett threw out his idea without waivers changing.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:53 pm

I guess if we don't move the waiver position, it makes it easier to sort out multiple simultaneous tied claims. Someone is still going to have to do the work to make sure teams don't go over their $30 though. Someone is also going to have to verify that any normal signings aren't being made illegally based on new releases, though I suspect the league will be pretty good at policing that.