Also, in looking at the suggestions above, I don't like the 'use a bid only once' concept.  With 25 categories, you'd in theory have to have minimum bids of $1 through $24, which means that $300 - or 30% of your bankroll - is 'pre-committed'.  I don't see where there were any problems with the bidding this season.  Sure there were ties and in some cases multiple ties, but that's the risk you run: I shouldda bid a dollar more ...

I'm happy with all of schwarze's suggestions.  The one I am on the fence is about is voting categories out -- maybe we could just all vote on ONE category to remove and the top 1-3 vote-getters are axed.

I especially like the idea of trying to run most of the draft a week ahead of the timed picks.  If I'd been traveling this week, I would have been totally screwed.

One thing I'd like to see in Season 2: Each team, when submitting a category, also submits a unique park. Along with the other drafts on Day 5, there's a bid and a park draft.

Another idea: I can't think of a better term, but "stratefying" the draft. Instead of completely randomizing or orienting with most expensive first, I'd like to see the drafts grouped and then randomized.

Using this season, I'd do this:

Group A:
Thieving Infielders
Angels in the Outfield
Speedy Catchers
SH C/IF
Winning Pirates P

Group B:
1978 Yankees
Last Name Q
21st Century ROY
Run Producers, First/Last
Flashing the Leather

Group C:
Back End of the Rotation
1915 Federal League P
Staff Aces
Expensive Phillies P
Controlled Chaos

Group D:
Award-Winning RP
ROY Pitchers
Better to Burn Out
Relievers w/ Gopheritis
Fireballing Closers

Group E:
Slap-Hitting HoF
199 Hit Seasons
Mash It/Miss It
30+ HR, 1998
Switch-Hitting Bombers

Pull one from each group for each day. It's not a perfect grouping, but if we have something where the categories are split out and (somewhat) balanced by day, I think it would make for a better drafting process.

Posted by pinotfan on 1/18/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Also, in looking at the suggestions above, I don't like the 'use a bid only once' concept.  With 25 categories, you'd in theory have to have minimum bids of $1 through $24, which means that $300 - or 30% of your bankroll - is 'pre-committed'.  I don't see where there were any problems with the bidding this season.  Sure there were ties and in some cases multiple ties, but that's the risk you run: I shouldda bid a dollar more ...

I had not gotten around to doing the math on this just yet, but thank you for validating my gut feeling that this is overkill. We shouldn't have 30% of our budget tied up in minimum bids.

Spitballing:
You're limited to 1 $1 bid.
You're limited to 3 (total) bids of $2 or less.
You're limited to 6 (total) bids of $3 or less.
You're limited to 10 (total) bids of $4 or less.

Thoughts?

Or just something as simple as you are only limited to one (or two, or three) $1 bids.

Posted by flyingman on 1/18/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Or just something as simple as you are only limited to one (or two, or three) $1 bids.

Part of me doesn't think limiting this is really all that necessary.  If we have "better" categories to choose from next time, then many owners will be less likely to lowball so many bids anyway.  Or if there is still that one category where someone wants to go all-in with their bid, why not let them? 

Just my thoughts, and DEFINITELY count me in for season 2.  This has been the most fun drafting I've had in a very long time

I think we should have no limit to $1 bids. That is part of the strategy. Most of the $1 bids came in poor categories. In good cats, there were many small bids in the $2-$8 range. That's the way it should be.

I also believe a stadium draft would make the league better.

By the way, in all the drafts I run, I typically add 2-3 days of un-timed draft, before the schedule kicks in.  So, for those that have scheduling issue, this should take care of much of it.

My opinion: Adding a park draft at the front adds a minor level of intrigue. Adding a park draft at the end adds a MAJOR level of intrigue.

I don't think many owners would bid much for a park at the beginning. We've all built teams quite often - we can tailor a draft around the strengths of our park. However, at the end...if you've stocked up on HR hitters, you want to have ponied up enough in the park draft to avoid Petco and the Astrodome. Is that a risk you're willing to take?

Posted by DCSquires on 1/18/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by flyingman on 1/18/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Or just something as simple as you are only limited to one (or two, or three) $1 bids.

Part of me doesn't think limiting this is really all that necessary.  If we have "better" categories to choose from next time, then many owners will be less likely to lowball so many bids anyway.  Or if there is still that one category where someone wants to go all-in with their bid, why not let them? 

Just my thoughts, and DEFINITELY count me in for season 2.  This has been the most fun drafting I've had in a very long time

This - I see no reason to limit the bids.

Posted by schwarze on 1/18/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):
The $300 cumulative bid comment does not consider the fact that most bids will be different bid amounts anyway.  The two people that would have been affected the most had this rule been in place would have been just4me and myself.  just4me used fourteen $1 bids.  I used fifteen $1 or $2 bids.  It would have cost us about 14% (about $140) of our additional bankroll if the "can't use a bid once" rule been applied.

But, I agree that something simpler to administer (but accomplishing the same thing) is probably a better idea.  Maybe limit each person to three bids of each dollar amount (so that means just4me's fourteen $1 bids goes from $14 total to $40.)

I like the idea of limiting the bids, it adds to the strategy. Like i said in my previous comment, I almost suggested the same, but felt it was all the same in the end. Meaning, whether I am obligated to bid a minimum of $25 or a minimum of $300, we're all in the same boat, so it just affects the proportionality of the bids, but not the strategy behind them.

By limiting the bids either by X number of each type of bid or no duplicate value bids we're increasing the bidding strategy.

That said, if you figure our categories will be better his time around there will be less wasted bids in the first place, so bids of 1 and 2 will be less likely anyhow. Not to mention, as schwarze says, it's not factoring in hat we'll be bidding different amounts on a number of categories anyhow.

Now, to the other stuff:

I like the idea of adding a ballpark bid, I prefer choosing my park first, so wouldn't it make more sense to force strategy in to make the ballparks last?

On voting on categories, I like firesalt's idea of only voting on them if they are outside certain guidelines. Of course, the guidelines would have to be fairly broad or general (like the 25 max players) to allow for variety, but this will help in keeping the categories stronger and helping balance the pool strategically so there aren't 13 SP categories.

And speaking of SP categories, should we explore having rules explicitly stating that there's only up to 3 or 4 SP only categories? If we have six or seven starting pitchers on our roster it's easy to cobble together a good 4 or 5 man rotation without much effort. Of course this goes back to the original point that now that we're better at knowing what is a good category and what isn't, maybe this problem will resolve itself organically.