List of Free Agents

[PowerBug]

Below is every player currently contracted by a state club. Those at the bottom of each list are rookie contracted.

NSW:
Lalor, Joshua

Conway, Harry
Pisel, Patrick
W Somerville
P Jackson

Qld:
Buchanan, Nick

Bazley, James
McDonald, Ronan
Stanlake, Billy
Wildermuth, Jack
G Moller
R Le Loux
C Brimblecombe

SA:
Botha, Johan
Raphael, Samuel
Worrall, Daniel

Andrews, Tom
Gregory, Alex
Winter, Nick

Tas:
Kingston, Hamish

Lees, Ryan
Webster, Beau
Willis, Sean

Vic:
Tremain, Chris

Ayre, Aaron
Gotch, Seb
Walker, Guy
D King

WA:

Bosisto, William
Dixon, Matt
Morgan, Jaron

Australian Contracts:
Clarke, Michael NSW
Haddin, Brad NSW
Johnson, Mitchell WA
Smith, Steve NSW
Warner, David NSW

[PowerBug]

I have added a minimum bid price for every player. Please not these are only guides and many are underpriced, however with a one bid only option to secure the services of a player you may need to bid a lot more than that price listed.

The bidding is a once only option, so you have to bid what you think is enough to get this player. I can't stress this enough.


The prices I have for the players, I've taken into consideration the Shield averages, of which I have worked out entirely, their short form impact, which is why some players which have low shield scores are high priced. But also their availability, in the case of the National Squad players.

[nrich102]

Good work PB, good work mate.

[Nige]

I get the feeling this bidding thing won't be as practical as it initially seemed.

Looking at prices, there's a clear gap between the players everyone will want and between the ones nobody will want for good reason. This means that pretty much everyone will have to bid overs for whoever they want and even then they're more than likely going to miss out.

For example, if I bid for Finch, Voges, Nevill and Khawaja, just miss out on all of them and don't get any while others are bidding on other guys that will be popular like Abbott, Burns, Lynn and Silk, the teams are going to be super uneven because it's unlikely people are going to bid on guys valued cheaply unless they absolutely have to, which will only happen if they keep missing out.

I'm starting to think a simple draft is going to be a lot better for the equality of this competition. I also firmly believe that those who play FTP have a distinct advantage with this bidding system.

[PowerBug]

I get the feeling this bidding thing won't be as practical as it initially seemed.

Looking at prices, there's a clear gap between the players everyone will want and between the ones nobody will want for good reason. This means that pretty much everyone will have to bid overs for whoever they want and even then they're more than likely going to miss out.

For example, if I bid for Finch, Voges, Nevill and Khawaja, just miss out on all of them and don't get any while others are bidding on other guys that will be popular like Abbott, Burns, Lynn and Silk, the teams are going to be super uneven because it's unlikely people are going to bid on guys valued cheaply unless they absolutely have to, which will only happen if they keep missing out.

I'm starting to think a simple draft is going to be a lot better for the equality of this competition. I also firmly believe that those who play FTP have a distinct advantage with this bidding system.

I'm not sure what FTP has to do with it at all, this is nothing like the way bidding works in FTP.


I'm still working on the prices, and I have the shield averages in front of me, which I have based my prices on. I've realised I've made some mistakes with what min bid options I have handed out, some too high, some too low, fixing it up now.


In this comp, we should be fielding the top 73% of players available. In WXV's, the top 68% get fielded, so quality wise, there is no difference (theoretically).


I believe that if people do their homework, they can make a good squad. One way of perhaps limiting uneven teams is to only allow 3 bids per round, so that way most sides should pick up a player in Round 1.

And you have to remember, this is a Shield/Cup/BBL game, not just Shield. So you can load up on T20 players and not do well in the Shield, but come BBL05 and you have Maxwell, Cutting, Finch, and a couple of T20-only players, you will have a decent advantage. ;)

[PowerBug]

Another option can be the players can be auctioned off at different times. (e.g. All $400k+ players only first)


I think it will work and be as even as the footy comps are (Not much to beat there)

[Nige]

I'm still feeling like a standard snake draft with a randomised draft order has more merit and will be more efficient.

Should we maybe put it to vote?

[R.Griffen]

Nah bid idea will be okay I think, but it needs to be in groupd eg Team by Team or certain prices at a time to make sure teams aren't uneven

[BB67th]

I like the idea of an auction, it's something different to a football draft and it better reflects what cricket is really like.

There might be a few problems with it, but I think it's worth trying.

[PowerBug]

I'm still feeling like a standard snake draft with a randomised draft order has more merit and will be more efficient.

Should we maybe put it to vote?

What BB67th said is why I have it this way. Where in cricket is there a draft? I see auctions at the IPL and I see players given contracts for other comps.

Nah bid idea will be okay I think, but it needs to be in groupd eg Team by Team or certain prices at a time to make sure teams aren't uneven

Would you suggest team grouping then? Issue I see there is the order we do it affects who can bid what. Leaving it open means anyone can bid on any player, whenever they want.




Bingo, new idea!
Bidding is free for all still. You can bid on up to 5 players still. However, at the end of each round, instead of saying who won each player, what I will do, is reveal every player which received at least one bid, and the price range that the bid was in (Between $1,000,000 and $1,100,000, example). If no one outbids the leading bid in the next round, that player will go to the respective manager. If the bid is beaten, then the player will continue to the next round and the same thing occurs.

So this will mean no one will win a player after Round 1, and the first players will be handed out from Round 2. But in Round 2's bidding, you can bid on new players, which will then be put up at the end of Round with their leading bid range.

Confusing? It gives a 2nd chance, and it gives managers an idea of what they need to pay.

Example:
In Round 1, there are two bids for J.Burns
Nige bids $400,000
nrich bids $675,000

At the end of the round, I will say:
J.Burns ($600,000 - $700,000)

Nige sees this, and wanting J.Burns he bids $701,000. At the end of Round 2 I might do this:
J.Burns ($650,000 - $750,000) {NOTE: The price range can't be the same each time otherwise managers will figure out exactly what the leading bid is}

If no one bids on J.Burns next round, Nige gets him. Or also, if say nrich sees the latest one, and decides to bid $700,000 on J.Burns, he will miss out and Nige will get the player.

Now as this goes on there will also be about 20 other players to consider as well, that will have pending bids on them. And up to 5 bids per round per team.


Does that sound better?

[JBs-Hawks]

If you bid on say Finch and your the highest  bid. Then next round someone outbids you. Do you get another round to re-bid?

[PowerBug]

If you bid on say Finch and your the highest  bid. Then next round someone outbids you. Do you get another round to re-bid?

Hmmmm good point alright then. Let me modify my above post, which should fix that problem. My original thought was you can outbid yourself, but that is silly and no one will do it and it will discourage people from making an initial bid.

[PowerBug]

Done it JB. Nigey, is that a better idea?

[Pkbaldy]

Yes this seems much more balanced... Otherwise I could see too many people getting 3 stars by just being $5000 over the last bet.

[Nige]

Yes this seems much more balanced... Otherwise I could see too many people getting 3 stars by just being $5000 over the last bet.