Our league uses blind bidding to acquire free agents except during the rookie draft, or during a restricted free agent period each year. Our blind bidding process has been running Thurs PM until Wed PM for a few weeks. One of the owners bid and won Gordon last night. Now some owners feel that he should have been unavailable until he was actually drafted by a team.
My arguments are:
There are no rules that govern how to add supplemental players. They simple outline the time/conditions for blind bidding (which this applies to Gordon)
He was available on MFL, and every team in the league had the same opportunity to acquire him.
I think some owners wanted to see where he was going to go before investing in him. I believe, if an owner wants to take the risk, then he should reap the rewards.
Anyone having similar issues?
He wasn't actually IN the NFL before he was drafted. Does your league allow teams to pick up other rookies prior to a rookie draft? The system your league used isn't wrong per se, other than it should have been announced WHEN he was available. Other rookies are FIRST available at a rookie draft. TO be fair, Supplemental players should also have a CLEARLY DEFINED point where they become available....and when he appears on MFL is hardly clear...no better than FCFS IMHO.FCFS is a the only truly WRONG answer as to how to handle a supplemental draft player.
In the case of Gordon, he was in the system for everyone to place a Blind Bid on. I'm not sure I see it being a matter of me telling everyone he is available. Every owner had the same opportunity to bid. As far as other rookies, there is no Blind Bidding starting on April 15th and runs until after the NFL draft. So, if MFL decides to put a player in the system a week before the draft, it's a none issue.
My other argument is the fact that there are Undrafted Rookies left over after every NFL draft. They have not signed with a team and are in effect "not in the league". Yet, they are available for acquisition. Because they were eligible for the NFL draft, they then have become eligible for acquisition in a fantasy league. As far as I am concerned, Gordon was eligible for the NFL supplemental draft and was available in our league under the rules that govern Free Agent Acquisitions. Because there are no specific supplemental draft rules, then Gordon must fall under whatever rules do apply to him.
With that said, I pointed out to the league that there may have been an oversight by me in setting up specific rules for the supplemental players. However, I will not punish an owner that has already acquired a player (Gordon) under the rules set forth by rebidding on Gordon. (and No, I was not the owner that won Gordon) Any changes to a rule such as this will be put to a vote at the start of next off season.
But, I also pointed out that it is each owners responsibilities to know the rules of their league. At no time did any owner contact me about specific rules pertaining to supplemental players or Gordon specifically. Some owners knew that Gordon was available and others just assumed that he was not be available until after the NFL supplemental draft. To me this is a case of some owners doing their homework and the rest complaining because they made a lazy mistake.
First of all....it's been over a decade since a supplemental player WORTHY of a relatively high rookie pick has happened, so I don't think it's realistic to expect every league's rules to adequately cover the issue. Second....NO ROOKIES are taken by any player in any dynasty league before some sort of rookie draft...a date and time known to all. MFL made no announcements regarding availability. There are worse ways to award a player than processed waivers for sure, but if there was no announcement of any kind that supp players were available in waivers for everyone...then it's only a tiny bit better than FCFS, and it's bogus IMO.We've all ignored this issue in years past because there's been no player worth worrying about! It was NOT covered by your rules. It's a hole in your rules that can not, and should not, wait until "next year". "Lazy owners" isn't the problem, nor is it a bad commish as this hasn't happened in forever...but shrugging your shoulders and saying it was covered is a lazy answer.
First of all.... ROOKIES ARE TAKEN IN SOME DYNASTY LEAGUES PRIOR TO THE NFL DRAFT. There are leagues that allow drafting players that are still in college. So, your argument there is invalid. Some start ups draft rookies and Veterans together, some hold two different drafts. Some dynasty rookie drafts also include available free agent vets. My point is, every league is unique. It comes down to whatever each league has for rules.
Secondly, There is no hole in our rules, they just don't have specifics on supplemental players. We also don't have specifics on a lot of things that could happen. And why should anyone assume anything when it comes to individual league rules? Just because you played in a league two years ago where there were specific rules on how supplemental players were to be handled, why should you expect your new league to be the same? If you had any doubt at all, read your rules. If you still have doubt, then ask questions.
Your suggestion of "fixing" it this year, is just adding to the problem. At least in my league, I feel the rules are there that address adding players through Blind Bidding. Every owner has funds to spend and every owner has the same deadline. This is FAIR. In it's simplest terms, there are rules that define supplemental players. (even though it does not use the word supplemental) But, it appears that some owners (and YOU) think they should be changed right now.
Our league does have guidelines about changing rules. Especially when a rule change would change the outcome of a past event. In this case, I would have been open to establishing whatever rules owners wanted. But, I am against taking a player from a team that followed the guidelines for acquiring the player. How would this be FAIR to that owner? By changing the rule now, fairness would not be balanced.
Lastly, I never shrugged my shoulders as if I didn't care. As a commish, I spent a lot of time putting rules together and trying to cover everything. The problem is, many owners don't even try to understand the rules or worse yet, read them at all. What I have done, is looked at this from every angle. Can I see some validity to establishing rules in the future? Sure. Then I looked at the benefit of stripping the new owner of Gordon. What would this accomplish? It would give a few teams a second chance at Blind Bidding, but would punish Gordon's current owner. An owner that read, understood and used the current rules to better his team.
Changing the rule and changing the recent outcome from the situation are two different things.
Some owners seem to need to have things handed to them, instead of making an effort.Usually the same ones that whine about the 'unfairness' of an outcome of a clearly defined rule when someone else makes the effort.
